In 1994, ‘The Lion Kingʼ Was A

Surprise Smash. Today, Itʼs Just

Another Product.
The Disney classic helped create the rinse-and-
recycle blueprint that now pervades Hollywood.
Matthew Jacobs

When Disney started developing “The Lion King” in 1988, it soon became
clear that faith in the project was limited. Most of the studioʼs animators
eventually opted to work on “Pocahontas” instead, believing it to be the
more promising endeavor. Executives and artists alike were convinced that
the Jamestown story, which seemed traditional by comparison —
“Pocahontas,” after all, is a princess romance with an established
protagonist — would be a guaranteed smash. But the one about the
Shakespearean cats? They werenʼt so sure.

When production began in 1991, “Pocahontas” was the companyʼs “A-

movie,” and “The Lion King” its “B-movie.” Jeffrey Katzenberg, who ran
Disney at the time, said if the movie made $50 million, heʼd get down on his
knees, because that would constitute a “big success.”

REAL LIFE. REAL NEWS. REAL VOICES.

Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often
remain unheard.

Become a founding member

Must be tough to be so wrong.

Illustration: Chris McGonigal/HuffPost; Photos: Disney, Alamy

Disneyʼs 1994 “The Lion King” introduced viewers to new sights and emphasized ingenuity. That canʼt be said of
this yearʼs remake.

“The Lion King” opened in June 1994, and an instant phenomenon was
born. It became the Mouse Houseʼs most prized possession since “Snow
White and the Seven Drawfs” put animation on the map nearly six decades
prior. Katzenbergʼs hope came true, five times over. The film stuck around
theaters well into 1995, earning a massive $311.3 million domestically, more
than earlier cash cows “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast” and
“Aladdin.” Reviews were rapturous, and over the course of a few years, “The
Lion King” amassed an estimated $1 billion in merchandising profits. The
stage adaptation, launched in 1997, is the highest-grossing Broadway show
of all time. The home-entertainment release is among the most lucrative in
history.

As for “Pocahontas,” well, the colors in its wind werenʼt so bright. In fact,
they were downright bland. The following summer, it grossed less than half
of what “The Lion King” did, rattling the prognosticators whoʼd expected a
gold mine. Today, no Disney entity — certainly none without Pixar, Marvel or
Lucasfilm affiliations — is as beloved as the one about the cub who just
canʼt wait to be king. Moreover, the idea that a pricey movie thought to be a
shoo-in could underperform is enough to give Hollywood an existential
crisis.

Yahoo! Movies

The animated “Lion King” of 1994 was an instant success.

Given the rinse-and-recycle blueprint that has pervaded Tinseltown in the

21st century, the “Lion King” legacy makes it obvious reboot material. This
time around, no one will be surprised when Simba and company bring in a
kazillion bucks, furthering Disneyʼs ever-deepening stronghold over the
industry. Whatʼs as lucrative as hand-drawn lions repurposing “Hamlet” in
the African savanna? Photorealistic lions repurposing “Hamlet” in the
African savanna, of course. Across the 2010s especially, the Hollywood
ecosystem has trained mainstream audiences to only see movies like “The
Lion King” ― formulaic CGI spectacles that cost, in this case, a mind-
boggling $260 million (or more) and seem like the closest we can get to
monocultural events.

But as audiences indulge their insatiable nostalgia, thereʼs one thing that
wonʼt be the same: a sense of discovery. Disney was once committed to
delicately introducing children to heavy truths about the world, but in the
past two decades, those ideas have been increasingly relegated to Pixar.
The generation that grew up watching Dumboʼs mother get taken from him,
Bambiʼs mother die, Simbaʼs father die and Mulan forge her identity now get
to watch … Dumboʼs mother get taken from him, Simbaʼs father die and
Mulan forge her identity. (Disney has yet to green-light a “Bambi” revamp,
but the technology used to make “The Lion King” could easily yield that,
too.) “Moana,” an original concept that refreshed Disney princess tropes, is
the exception rather than the norm.

Even with additional jokes, a fresh Beyoncé song and a palette that
resembles “Planet Earth,” the new “Lion King” canʼt possibly provoke
wonder the way the original did. Disneyʼs live-action (or live-action-
seeming) remake craze, which shows no signs of slowing down, plays
things frustratingly safe, refusing to reimagine these stories beyond their
greatest hits. Only something new can be that awe-inducing, and watching
expressionless lions belt 20-year-old songs doesnʼt fit the bill. The most
anyone can hope for from this “Lion King” is the ability to say, “Yep, I
enjoyed it.”

Disney

The 2019 remake of “The Lion King” features expressionless lions belting out 20-year-old songs.

How we got to this moment is a complex case study in Hollywoodʼs

evolution. “The Lion King” stands among a handful of films turned into
products to be milked for infinite returns. In other words, movies became
brands. If “Star Wars” (1977) jubilantly kick-started the big-business
approach to filmmaking, the Reagan ʼ80s crystallized it. “Raiders of the Lost
Ark” (1981), “E.T.” (1982), “Batman” (1989), “Jurassic Park” (1993) and the
aforementioned musicals hailing from the so-called Disney Renaissance
(1989-1999) created a culture in which action figures, theme-park rides,
fast-food promotions, lunchboxes, bedspreads and home-video collectibles
were built into blockbustersʼ bottom lines. But those movies werenʼt merely
marketing opportunities; they emphasized ingenuity, introduced us to new
sights and advanced the craft of escapist cinema.

The same canʼt be said of 2019ʼs “Lion King,” or many other Disney
remakes. Directed by Jon Favreau — the hit-maker responsible for “Elf,”
“Iron Man” and the computerized “Jungle Book” redo — this visit to Pride
Rock is, in a word, redundant. Itʼs not technically a shot-for-shot repeat, but
it might as well be, given how often it carbon-copies the originalʼs imagery.
Rafiki hoisting a newborn Simba into the air? Check. Simba aging to the
sounds of “Hakuna Matata,” full moon glimmering behind him? Check.
Timon and Pumbaaʼs grub? Check. A spectral Mufasa visiting Simba amid a
swirl of purple clouds? Check. The Pride Lands ablaze, giving way to
Simbaʼs triumphant roar atop that famous cliff? Check. (As for “sex” in the
sky, you can be the judge of that.)

How quaint, the notion that such iconography was once risky. But itʼs true, if
we buy into the lore about what a gamble the initial “Lion King” was. Elton
John, for example, had never composed a soundtrack. Furthermore, the
movie was a philosophical opera that aimed for the grandiosity of
“Lawrence of Arabia” and lacked a conventional heroine waiting to find love.
After “The Black Cauldron” bombed with audiences in 1985 and “Oliver &
Company” with critics in 1988, anything was a gamble. (For more on this,
watch the fascinating documentary “Waking Sleeping Beauty,” which
chronicles the Disney Renaissance.) Today, it couldnʼt be less risky.
Disney

In the “Lion King” remake, Scar is reduced to just another angry reprobate.

Even during rousing moments (see: everything MVP Billy Eichner does as
Timon), itʼs hard not to look at this “Lion King” as a creatively bankrupt
setback in modern moviemaking. The uncanny-valley version of “been
there, done that,” perhaps. Who in their right mind asked for an edition in
which the lions look real? Did they not understand that actual lionsʼ
countenances barely change and therefore it is hard to perceive their
emotions? Did they think anyone could out-Whoopi Whoopi Goldberg?

And thereʼs something fishy at play in the way these Disney reboots handle
male villains. Beloved for their theatrical grandeur, scoundrels like Jafar
(played in Mayʼs “Aladdin” by Marwan Kenzari) and Scar (voiced here by
Chiwetel Ejiofor) have been sanded down to macho bores. The studio
seems desperate to avoid accusations of gay coding, the long-held belief
that certain campy Disney baddies can be read as archetypically queer.
Instead of going all in and making Scar gay (imagine!) or else finding a
unique angle on him, heʼs reduced to just another angry reprobate. Even
“Be Prepared,” Scarʼs signature rallying cry, is diminished to an aggro
chant. The script — credited to Jeff Nathanson (“Catch Me If You Can”) —
even adds a line that makes Scar explicitly heterosexual; he once competed
with Mufasa for the same lioness, as if we needed that uninspired
information in the first place. It all adds up to something toothless, a refusal
to let villainy mean anything but the obvious at a time when villains are
occupying the White House and beyond.

Surely plenty of viewers flocking to the nearest multiplex will adore this
particular “Lion King.” But thereʼs a cynical bent to the way these Disney
remakes — the folksy “Peteʼs Dragon” is an exception — assume viewersʼ
sensibilities havenʼt changed over the years, that we just want popular
culture to shut up and play the hits. What happens when all the movies have
been rebooted? Do we reboot the reboots? Does American entertainment
continue its descent into hyper-capitalistic tedium?

If this is what the circle of life looks like as the 2010s comes to a close,
maybe itʼs time to find a different shape.