Totally agree, but they actually did a pretty solid job of making that distinction in the article. They put “actress” and “she” in quotes to begin with, and then switched to referring to the thing as “it.” They even put the word “film” in quotes, since it’s clearly not a film. I was surprised that the tone of this article was so critical, it’s heartening.
Ehhh could probably be argued either way, but whatever you may think of the live action Lion King, it was made by real people from start to finish, with people doing the animating, and actual human voices doing the acting. Whatever this video is is not that, IMO.
Totally agree, but they actually did a pretty solid job of making that distinction in the article. They put “actress” and “she” in quotes to begin with, and then switched to referring to the thing as “it.” They even put the word “film” in quotes, since it’s clearly not a film. I was surprised that the tone of this article was so critical, it’s heartening.
I suppose “film” is still accurate. It’s still a movie, it’s just an animated movie no different from the “live action” remake of the Lion King.
Ehhh could probably be argued either way, but whatever you may think of the live action Lion King, it was made by real people from start to finish, with people doing the animating, and actual human voices doing the acting. Whatever this video is is not that, IMO.
Why a film is a film isn’t decided on how it was made. I don’t imagine it’s a good one though.