Thread by @nekoama

Detective Pikachu vs Real Simba: A Discussion of Animation, Acting and Character vs Realism.
Thoughts no one asked for.

Preface: I’m not dissing on TLK2019. It looks technically beautiful, accomplished and I’m still jazzed to check it out. But as an animator and cartoonist, dissecting it was an itch I had to scratch.
THAT SAID let’s dive in:

Lots of folk have noted that while TLK looks gorgeous, it also looks bland. This isn’t a fault of realism: this is a byproduct of a colourful and animated, in both senses, predecessor. We can’t help but compare them because that’s partially what the movie is asking for.

The main issue here is that TLK was an extremely emotional movie and it’s difficult to get this across with the limitations of realistic design. Animals DON’T emote the way we do, especially not facially so the film will have to rely on script and limited animal body language.

Human emotion is 80% facial features and especially the eyes. It’s why sunglasses make emotions harder to read. And it’s why eyes are the most important thing in character animation. To accent this in animals, usually eyebrows are added to the design.

TLK’s eye/brow design is really successful in this way because it keeps the animals looking animal while still allowing them human-like expressions and really selling the emotion. It’s a popular art style with anthro art for a reason.

The second part of emotion is body language. In animals that are more realistic or non-verbal the shorthand for this is to make them act like a dog. Dog body language we understand; even a species familiar to us we’ll give dog characteristics to to make them more emotive.

With no expressive facial features and ‘natural’ behaviour that’s
less emotive, it makes the film have a very restricted feeling. This isn’t bad in itself - other films such as Homeward Bound managed to be extremely emotional with just voice overlay on real, non-acting animals.

But TLK isn’t a standalone film, it’s a remake of a cartoony giant, much more than Jungle Book. It has a lot to live up to, and it can easily fail by it’s own standards but it’ll still make BOATLOADS of money, which puts it at an even higher possibility of ending up bland.

One thing I’ve noticed is that we haven’t seen ANY of the acting yet. All the dialogue has been voice over except one .003sec end clip where you see Scar’s mouth move. Which makes me wonder if they’re solely banking on the realism as a selling point.

The acting afforded by the animation style pumps up the emotions and appeal greatly. We can read and empathize with these characters better for it. Without the strength of design the acting HAS to be good.

If TLK tries to ape the original it’s going to feel flat and stuff because the characters can’t act in the same way. If they frame this as a docu-style film like 2004’s Pride it’ll probably work but then it’ll feel... limited.

Contrast with Detective Pikachu. Instead of full realism they went with ‘rendered good enough to be beside a live human’. Pikachu looks more like a toy than an animal. But Pikachu EMOTES. We can tell how he feels just by looking at his face.

The Pokemon don’t look like animals - partially because to stay true to the original designs they just can’t and partially because that’s the style the film opted for - but this allows them to have more character and feel more.

The ability to make the lions less limited is there. And without seeing any acting scenes, it’s possible they could push the animation.
But overall it feels like limited, realistic and potentially bland is the desired outcome here.

And that feels uncomfortably close with the idea that dull colours, less emotion and ‘realism’ are an improvement from animation instead of accepting that animation is it’s own medium that can elevate a story.

And that’s how we get the comparison trouble - one is a reimagining of the design while still true to the character, and the other is a reimagining of the character entirely. In order to stay ‘realistic’ Simba will have to act differently to fit the limitations of lion bodies

This is an animated movie hellbent in distancing itself from the medium as much as possible.
I’m hoping to be surprised! Without seeing the characters acting I can’t make a full decision of course. But from an animator’s POV so far it looks... Well, it’s a different take.

To address some points: making realistic animal animation emotional and well acted is 100% plausible.
Again, Homeward Bound is emotional with zero acting, just voice over and editing, realistic animals isn’t the concern here. The concern is remaking these SPECIFIC characters.

A huge number of the emotional and memorable scenes are stylized by their animation and are impossible within the realm of realism. Aslan was always a reserved character, the Jungle Book was a book adaptation with some Disney callback, not a direct remake. TLK is cartoony.

The issue is more taking animated characters and throwing away the designs to paste the script over ‘real’ animals. It does a disservice to animation and why it’s a great medium. I’m hoping they act more animated and the realism is just overhyped for trailers but... 🤷‍♀️