Critics don't hate it (The Lion King) as much as Cats, but the two recurring complaints are: 1. Apart from the visual style it doesn't offer something new. 2. The new visual style, regardless of how beautiful and crafted it is, takes the fun out of it because there's nothing left for the viewer to interpret or imagine. Since I'm tremendously intrigued by spin-offs, sequels, remakes and whatnot I decided to examine these arguments. Argument #1. A remake is not the same as a different interpretation of the story, it can be both - but it's not a rule. Personally, I think a remake is showing the same story in a different way, in the case of The Lion King it is the visual style. That's not very original but that doesn't mean it can't be entertaining. And yet, in the grand scheme of things these remakes don't offer anything of significant creative value and are, indeed, pointless. The irony being that many of the animated Disney movies are in fact new interpretations of classic tales, which makes the frame-by-frame remake of The Lion King a bit harder to swallow. The human aspect of development and progress is that we do things because we can. Once we've discovered that it's possible to do the previously impossible, it's almost against our nature not to do it. And that makes the need for this whatever-new-possibility a little less relevant because it's going to happen anyway. Does that mean that this remake of The Lion King was no longer a matter of choice? Conclusion: dunno. I need to overthink it a little more. Argument #2. I think the very appeal of these animated Disney characters, especially the animals, is that they can caricature them by adding human appearances and traits. TLK villain Scar is basically Aladdin's Jafar as a lion, and this obvious fakery should create a mental barrier between the movie and the audience, except that those who want to see these movies are already very willing to accept the fantasy. The un-obvious fakery of the realistic looking remake seems to confuse this process. You're willing to accept the fantasy, but wait, where's the fantasy? Without that cartoonish element it almost becomes an awkward confrontation because you're being fooled and you're too aware of it's faux-epic approach. I think that the obvious non-reality of the cartoon is being experienced in a different frame of mind, and it could inspire the viewer to subconsciously look for and interpret the similarities with real life. So I would agree that it is a far more stimulating process. There's also something mesmerizing about the illusion of dimensions in animated movies and live action movies/tv shows with real sets and props. Not that the Lion King remake didn't achieve that, but it looks too real, so there isn't much to discover and to put things in perspective. Conclusion: I agree, but...you don't know what it's like unless you try it.