Jon Favreau had a massive problem. He’d just come off the back of The Jungle Book in 2016, a movie that looked incredible, but The Lion King 2019 was a different beast entirely. We aren't talking about a few talking wolves and a CGI bear. This was a beloved, untouchable piece of Shakespearean animation that basically raised an entire generation of 90s kids.
People were skeptical. Naturally.
When that first teaser dropped during a Thanksgiving football game, the internet nearly imploded. Seeing that photorealistic Pride Rock felt like a fever dream. It looked like a National Geographic documentary. It looked... real. But that’s exactly where the trouble started, and honestly, why we’re still talking about this movie years after it raked in over $1.6 billion at the global box office.
Is it even a live-action movie?
Let’s get one thing straight: The Lion King 2019 is not live-action. There are no cameras. No actors in suits. No real lions. Aside from a single opening shot—the very first frame of the sun rising, which Favreau later admitted was a real photograph to see if anyone would notice—every single pixel was generated in a computer.
Technically, it's an animated film. But Disney marketed it as "live-action" because "photorealistic computer-generated imagery" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue during a Super Bowl commercial. The production was weirdly high-tech. They used VR headsets to "walk around" the digital sets, like they were filming a real documentary in the middle of the African savanna.
The tech was revolutionary. The Moving Picture Company (MPC) handled the heavy lifting. They looked at every whisker, every grain of sand, and every fly buzzing around Pumbaa’s ears. It was a technical masterpiece that somehow felt a little soul-less to some critics. Why? Because lions in the wild don’t smile.
🔗 Read more: Shamea Morton and the Real Housewives of Atlanta: What Really Happened to Her Peach
The Uncanny Valley of Pride Rock
This is the big one. This is the hill that film Twitter dies on every single week.
In the 1994 original, Simba has eyebrows. He has massive, expressive eyes that can convey "I’m sad my dad just died" in a way that breaks your heart instantly. In The Lion King 2019, Simba looks like... a lion. If you’ve ever watched a lion on a safari, they don’t do much. They stare. They pant. They look majestic, but they don't exactly sob.
When Scar (voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor) tells Simba to run away and never return, the lack of facial movement was jarring for a lot of people. It’s the "Uncanny Valley" effect. The more realistic something looks, the more we notice when the emotions feel "off." You’ve got these incredible voice performances—Donald Glover being charmingly neurotic and Beyoncé being, well, Beyoncé—but the faces on screen are essentially blank slates. It’s a trade-off. You get the immersion of a real environment, but you lose the exaggerated theatricality that made the original so vibrant.
A Voice Cast That Divided the Pride
Let's talk about the voices. Seth Rogen and Billy Eichner as Pumbaa and Timon were, frankly, the best part of the movie. They were allowed to riff. They were funny. They felt like two guys hanging out in the jungle, which balanced out the heavy, Shakespearean weight of the rest of the plot.
But then there’s the James Earl Jones factor.
💡 You might also like: Who is Really in the Enola Holmes 2 Cast? A Look at the Faces Behind the Mystery
Having him return as Mufasa was a stroke of genius, but also a bit of a double-edged sword. His voice had aged. It was raspier, deeper, and carried a different kind of gravity. For some, it was a nostalgic hug. For others, it served as a constant reminder that this wasn't the 1994 version. It felt like a ghost of the past hovering over a very modern piece of technology.
And Scar? Jeremy Irons’ Scar was a flamboyant, Shakespearean villain. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s Scar was a battle-scarred, desperate street brawler. It was a totally different vibe. "Be Prepared" went from a high-camp musical number to a spoken-word militaristic chant. People hated that. Or they loved the realism. There was no middle ground.
The Cultural Footprint: Money vs. Memory
The movie is one of the highest-grossing films of all time. You can't argue with $1.66 billion. It proved that the "Disney Vault" strategy—taking old stories and shiny-ing them up for a new generation—is basically a license to print money.
But does it have the same staying power? If you ask a kid today to draw Simba, are they drawing the bright yellow cartoon or the tan, furry realistic cub? Usually, it's the cartoon. The 2019 version felt like an "event," while the original feels like "the story."
That said, the soundtrack for The Lion King 2019 was a massive win. Beyoncé’s The Gift album, which was inspired by the film, brought a level of African musical influence and contemporary R&B that the original didn't have. It felt like a celebration of the continent's actual sounds, moving beyond just the Elton John / Hans Zimmer (brilliant) bubble of the 90s.
📖 Related: Priyanka Chopra Latest Movies: Why Her 2026 Slate Is Riskier Than You Think
How to actually appreciate the 2019 version
If you go into this movie expecting the emotional highs of a hand-drawn masterpiece, you're going to be disappointed. You have to look at it as a nature documentary that happens to have a plot.
- Watch the lighting. Seriously. The way the light hits the grass in the "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" sequence (which actually takes place in broad daylight for some reason) is a miracle of software engineering.
- Listen to the foley work. The sound design—the crunch of the dry earth, the roar of the waterfall—is immersive in a way that 2D animation just can't replicate.
- Compare the "Stampede." The 2019 version handles the scale of the wildebeests in a way that feels genuinely terrifying. It’s chaotic and dusty. You feel the weight of the animals.
The Lion King 2019 was never meant to replace the original. It was an experiment in how far technology could go. Whether it went too far into realism at the expense of heart is a debate that'll probably last until they inevitably remake it again in 2045 with holograms.
If you're looking to revisit the Pride Lands, the best way to do it is to watch the 2019 version specifically for the craft. Look at it as a technical milestone. Then, go back and watch the 1994 version for the soul. They can both exist. They just serve different masters—one of the heart, and one of the hard drive.
To get the most out of the experience now, check out the "making of" specials on Disney+. Seeing the "Black Box" theater where the actors performed in VR gives you a much deeper appreciation for why the movie looks the way it does. It wasn't just a copy-paste job; it was a total reimagining of how movies are physically built.