Welcome to The Lion King Origin Forums!
This is a discussion forum for those who like to seperate the movies from the books, like Disney meant it.
We hope you enjoy your stay.
Re: Feedback on the TLK faq « Result #1 on Jan 2, 2013, 4:11am »
Okay, let's see what we have here.
1. The answer you're arguing here, is to a question asking who is the cub at the end of the first film. Therefore the answer needs to give it an identity, and the only identity Disney's own people have given it, is Kiara. Hence, the cub's original creators never mentioned a gender and only gave it a unisex nickname, and then the other movie makers from Disney came and made it Kiara. And the cub at the end does exist in the sequel's canon. Because it and Kiara are the same character, they blend into one, as is very clear from the film's official trailer and the magazine interview of one of the animators.
So the factual answer as for WHO the cub at the end is, is that what I gave; it is Kiara.
2. Whether Simba has a replaced son in the movies or not...
- Tier 1 canon, the movie's literal content... Audio: Does not verbally confirm the cub either a boy or a girl. Visual: The belly-fur not connecting with the neck is the only appearence bit that confirms the cub's sex to be male, but it's visible literally only for a second and not a close up; as in they made it so that it can not be seen unless the viewer pauses the scene just right, takes a screenshot and zooms in.
- Tier 2 canon, the creator's words... Everywhere outside the movie, the creators chose to refer to the cub only as ”the cub”, give it a unisex nickname and to not confirm its gender.
Hence both canon tiers, clearly they didn't mean the sex of the cub to apply to the canon story.
My point is; regarding that the creators did not intend the cub as a son in essence, there was no son to replace and saying that Simba does not have a son in the movies, is factual. But it could be even more-so by mentioning the visual aspect. I just didn't wish to make the answer needlessly complicated since the matter does not extend to the essence of the character. But I shall rephrase the question to fit it in.
When I'm talking about the movie universe, I'm talking about The Lion King (1994) and The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (1998).
3. No, I meant what I said. Simmons did not even know that there would be a cub in the first movie. He says that in an e-mail - in different words, but that's what it boils down to. Here, see the parts circled in red.
4. Well, I think calling the cub Fluffy and Kiara, is denying Kopa. Had they never refered to the cub as anything, it would be simply ignoring Kopa. But they chose to call it by other names, turning the act into undirectly denying the previously suggested name.
5. Yes, thank you for pointing that out. I shall rephrase those answers into less complicated.
6.
Quote:
”Second, you’re using information that has been deleted from the movie. In the final cut, it seems that no significant amount of time passes between the “Simba is grown up” scene and the destroyed Pridelands scene (and the next time we see Simba, star-gazing with Timon and Pumbaa)”
It's still factual that those two years passed. Because a.) the creators said they left the subtitles out because it wouldn't have looked good, not as if they'd changed their mind. b.) there is nothing in the movie to indicate that said time did not pass. Therefore, the two years did pass, they just said they chose not to attach the subtitle information about it.
But you're right, maybe it would be safer to make that answer less specific.
As for your suggestions:
What do you mean? I mention TLK6NA only once in the FAQ. It is mentioned at the question bit that askes who Kopa is. And in the answer I do state that it's a set of books. Yes, I refer to the books more often but it is not exactlt mentioning them as the references are not by name. Therefore, there shouldn't be anything confusing about it.
And with the other suggestion, do you mean that a seperate topic listing all Disney-related Lion King material, specifying their officiality status, would be helpful?
Re: Did you care about what gender the cub is? « Result #2 on Dec 31, 2012, 4:47pm »
Nope, not at all. I was just a kid at the time though, and for me the baby basically just meant "happy ending! They have a kid and everything's ok now!". I didn't even ask myself the question about the characters' future, so the cub stayed just a cub until recently when I watched the movie again and fell in love with it
Since I've not been in the fandom for long, I didn't knew this was an issue. I think I just assumed it was male, since the cub looked like Simba and I thought he was meant to be the next King in the Circle of Life. I checked it out when I saw the question arise on the internet though, and as I've said in the F.A.Q., I think the cub is male (his belly fur isn't connect to his chin fur, unlike females).
Quote:
I have the tendency to become a fan of and especially interested in side/least told characters in stories. But not THAT minor characters...
I've seen people become fan of characters much more minor... At least this one appears on screen and is very closely related to the main characters, so he's not a completely empty shell.
Feedback on the TLK faq « Result #3 on Dec 31, 2012, 1:08pm »
// I moved this post away from The Lion King F.A.Q thread, because that's only for collection of the frequently asked questions and the answers to them. Any discussion about it best had on this feedback board. - Kieran //
So I disagree with some things here and I think I should point them out. Since this is a Lion King F.A.Q, it should get the facts right, so that fans looking for answers won’t be confused I'm a rather new fan myself, so I just went through it all (This isn’t meant as a criticism at all, just offering my opinion) (Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking!)
Who is the cub at the end of The Lion King film? It's Kiara. The sequel film's production uses that very cub in the official trailer as baby Kiara, and in an interview one of the animators literally said the cub is a queen, not a king. If you wish to ignore the sequel film, then the cub is no-one officially. Because the film itself leaves it nameless and genderless and then on the 1995 Laserdisc commentary track its creators call it Fluffy and still don't give it a gender, not even after the sequel film. So, the cub is Fluffy/Kiara.
The cub at the end is not Kiara in the Lion King's original canon. It is a male cub, Simba's son meant to take his place in the circle of life, without any further identity. Kiara didn't exist at all even as a concept at the time, that's why they surnamed him "Fluffy".
Kiara, and the whole of SP, is fanfiction (i.e. she wasn't made by the same people that created the Lion King universe). Now in SP's canon, or sub-universe, the cub at the end of TLK doesn't exist. The producers chose to disregard his existence to make their own cub (they turned him into Kiara, if you prefer, changing completely his design).
Quote:
Does Simba have a son? Only in the books and not in the movies. Hence, the answer to the question above which points out that the cub at the end of the first film and Kiara from the sequel literally blend into one in official movie universe footage while the cub has never been called a boy in the movie universe. Thus, in the movies Simba's first and only child is the daughter Kiara. But in the book universe his first and only child is a son or a daughter, as both of those genders have been used in different books.
In TLK's canon, yes, he has at least one son, the cub at the end. In SP's universe however, that son has been turned into Kiara (and if Simba had any male cub after the events in SP, we don't hear about it). I'm not entirely sure about what exactly it is that you are calling "the official movie universe", since there are several official movie universes? (the one we see in the first movie being the only one that is "canon").
Quote:
Who is Kopa? He is an official lion character from the book universe of The Lion King, but Disney did not create him. Kopa is an original character made up by an outsider childrens' book author, Alex Simmons who did not even know there would be a cub in the movie. Kopa appears in the set of books The Six New Adventures as Simba and Nala's son. He was never the cub at the end of the first film, as evident by the commentary track of the first film / the trailer of the second film / the interview of Disney's animator. As in Kopa was not approved by the original film makers, which is why he's not really even semi-canon, but just official fanfiction. Some fans still like to think of him as semi-canon or even canon.
About the part I underlined, I think you meant that he didn't know there would be a cub in the sequel movie (I'm just pointing this out since the sentence confused me for a good five seconds at first! ) Also, I agree that Kopa never was the cub at the end of the first film in canon, since he simply isn't canon (though he is a perfectly canon-compatible possibility for any fanfiction-universe out there). However, the trailer of the second film has nothing to do with that fact, since SP and TLK6NA are separate universes. The last line, about whatever fans like to think, has nothing to do, I think, in a LK FAQ. Some fans think Kiara or Zira are canon too, it’s because they use a different (false) definition of “canon”.
Quote:
What happened to Kopa? Did he die? Kopa did not die because he exists only in the few books in the book universe of The Lion King, and in them nothing fatal happens to him. What happened to him seeing to the movies is that he got completely ignored and denied by all film makers.
Well, he was never denied by the film makers. He just wasn’t their creation and so not a part of their universe.
Quote:
How did Scar get his scar? Disney nor its film makers have never revealed their own official vision of that. There is a vision in a book, but it's an original story from an outsider and on the commentary track the film makers have denied any books from applying to their film. So there is no official canon story for this matter.
I think it would be clearer to say it that way: The original creator never gave us their version of how Scar got his scar, so there is no canonical answer to that question. They left it up to the fans imagination. The only Disney-related source offering us a vision of how it might have happened is TLK6NA, where Scar was harmed by a Bull’s horn (If I remember correctly?).
Quote:
What was Scar's real name before he got his scar? Disney nor its film makers have never revealed their own official vision of that. There is a vision in a book, but it was written by an outsider and on the commentary track the film makers have denied any books from applying to their film. So there is no official canon name for him other than "Scar".
Again I would say: Scar’s real name is never revealed in canon. However his name is Taka in TLK6NA, a Disney book.
Idem for Mufasa and Scar’s parents. It’s just less confusing.
Quote:
How long was Simba in exile? As the film makers studied lions, and in the film and on the Laserdisc release bonus material they distinguish appearence between a cub, adolescent and adult--we can safely say they had the characters age basically according to real life. Thus, cub Simba couldn't have been much older than 7 months old when he was exiled, and in the first adult Simba scene he has a fully grown mane, which makes him at least five years old going on six. This results in approximately four years in exile--but on the commentary track the film makers say that after the first adult Simba scene, at the destroyed Pridelands scene, they intented to have subtitles "Kenya, 2 years later". This adds two years to Simba's exile.
Simba's exile lasted approximately 6 years, making him approximately 7 years old when he reclaimed the throne.
I don’t agree with your reasoning here. First we don’t really know how much we can use real lions’ facts, such as mane length, to determine the characters age with precision. It could have been drawn that way for artistic reason, like Scar’s (their manes aren’t that realistic after all), and in that case it wouldn’t necessarily be accurate with how a real lion’s mane is supposed to look at whatever age Simba is. Second, you’re using information that has been deleted from the movie. In the final cut, it seems that no significant amount of time passes between the “Simba is grown up” scene and the destroyed Pridelands scene (and the next time we see Simba, star-gazing with Timon and Pumbaa). Actually the “2 years later” bit makes no sense situated after the log scene, since the log scene itself is supposed to show the passage of time, it’s its whole purpose. It would be more logical if it was meant to be the amount of time Simba spent in exile, the time passing in the log scene. If this is the case (i.e. Simba spent two-years in exile), it would make him approximately 3 years old by the time he reclaimed the throne, a sub-adult. That last bit is consistent with the script, where he is referred to as an adolescent several times: “During the final chorus, the trio dances and plays through various landscapes. In each one we see Simba has grown -- until he is a mane-toting adolescent.” “At the close of the song, we find Timon, Pumbaa and adolescent Simba lying on their backs under the night sky, looking up at the stars. It´s like a campfire scene with campfire buddies.” “As the Lioness leaps, Simba (now an adolescent) jumps into frame and knocks her down. Timon takes a peek and sees the lions face off.” Those are taken from the working script for the movie, as used by Disney (you can find it on the Internet Movie Script Database in PDF format). It is dated August 20, 1993 and written by Irene Mecchi & Jonathan Roberts. It is slightly different from the final on-screen version (some dialogues were a bit modified – lines added/deleted), but most major decisions are included.
Personally, I think of him as four years old (five maxi). He would have his mane but can still be called young (I imagine him as being about twenty in human years in the movie rather than a teen).
Quote:
Who is Nala's father? At the 2004 Reunion the directors of the film said that Nala's father wasn't originally determined but that the general assumption always was that it was either Scar or Mufasa - but note "general assumption" which does not equeal a fact. Assumption means to think something is a possibility. Also, when you read a detailed description of the situation and the way they gave the answer, you'll see they were joking -->The Lion King WWW Archive. And finally, as they were specifically asked who the father IS and they chose not to directly answer it but gave a could-be answer in a joking manner, it is most obvious they don't care to decide her father's identity to any extent.
I would add that we can safely deduce from how the characters interact in the movie that neither one is her father.
If I can make a few suggestions: You mention TLK6NA a lot in your FAQ, so I think you should explain what it is first, before talking about Kopa. And actually a little rundown of all the Disney-related material we have on the Lion King universe would be helpful, I think
EDIT: I forgot to explain about the cub at the end of TLK being male. Well, you can see he was designed to be male because of how closely he looks like cub Simba and the many characteristics he doesn't share with all the other females in the Pride (the bright fur color, the dark space around the eyes, the fur on his head and cheeks). But the most important is that his paler belly fur isn't connected to the chin fur. You can see it when he is first opening his eyes in Rafiki's arms, before being held up (I'll show you a screenshot if you want). In TLK, females have their belly fur connected to the chin/muzzle but males don't because of their mane. So Fluffy is male.
Re: Does Simba's Pride really have plot holes? « Result #4 on Sept 10, 2012, 3:42pm »
Hello, inluvwithsimba, and welcome to the forums!
I'm sorry this reply took so long, I've been busy with other stuff for teh past few weeks. I'm glad if this article helps. ^^ As for Scar and the hyenas...I've never given any thought for it. For the matter they could've met in any way imaginable that is Disney movie friendly. This would be an interesting discussion topic, so if you wish you could start a new topic about it and share your ideas. I'd be glad to contribute mine ti rgar then, once I've come up with something.
Malka is a lion cub from a pride that lives over the mountains from the Pride Lands. He appeared in a Lion King comic titled "Simba's New Brother". Malka first came to Pride Rock when he got separated from his pride because he wondered to far from them. He later admits that it wasn't his first time either. Later, he was viewed as brave when he chased away Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed. He also committed on Nala as being pretty. Later, Simba found out that Malka isn't all that brave when he starts crying when Simba tried to ditch him on a mountain. He is later with his mother and Simba tells him that he is welcome back anytime. Malka is the same color as Simba. But he is bigger than Simba and he has a black mane tuft. With red eyes. He acts all brave, but in reality he doesn't like to be left alone. He would've been Simba's brother if his mother didn't come back for him.
The Lion King is not a kids' film « Result #6 on Aug 23, 2012, 6:33pm »
The accurate category for it is: a family film. The main reason why I wish to discuss this topic is that people who think of this (and Disney classics in general) as kids' films, judge and try to tell off people who hold these films in adult standards and discuss them in depth and seriously. I will dig into The Lion King specifically later, but first let me start with a general look into the topic.
This article is not meant to offend anyone, but merely to offer another point of view.
I think the three main reasons why many people put these films down as nothing but kids' films, are: 1.) It's from Disney. 2.) It's animated/cartoon. 3.) It has (anthropomorphic) animals as characters instead of humans.
But come on, now. Would you stop and think for a little longer than that, please?
Yes, this film was produced by The Walt Disney Company. But whenever has animated characters and stories created in Disney's name, been suitable only for children or even mainly? They've had aspects and themes intriguing for and speaking to adults as well, some the kind children couldn't even understand or catch at all in them while watching or reading. More on this later in this article.
And sure, this film is animated but animation is nothing but one form of art and there are tons of animated films and stories that are absolutely not meant for children's eyes and ears. So please consider to stop ruling this as a kids' film just because this is animated/cartoon film.
(Anthropomorphic) animal characters? Please consider that aspect may be so in order to make the story more appealing to children, but the crucial matter to the film is the story and the crucial matter to the story is what the characters are inside and what their choices try to teach the viewer.
Let me take you to a little trip into some of the Disney animated classics:
- Bambi (1942)...The death and destruction a man brings to young Bambi's life and to the entire forest. While it of course is affecting to people of all ages...Does an avarage little kid actually grasp all its depths and meanings, are they capable or interested in pondering them for all that it is? I daresay not. But older children, teenagers and adults do. Should we not care so much about the message and moral it sends, just because the characters are animated animals?
- Robin Hood (1973)...Has animated anthropomorphic animals for characters, but they are human inside and the story, messgaes and morals are basically the same as in the other versions wherein they're all physically human. Why should the adult appeal of the story be thought non-existent just because the characters come alive in a different art form and look different from you and I and the film footage may have occational childlike humour added?
- The Fox and the Hound (1981)...Basically this is a story about how even natural enemies can become best friends instead if only the world didn't teach them to be enemies. And how later, even when unfortunate misunderstandings turn them into genuine enemies, the friendship they originally got to form proves to be stronger than anything else and they end up saving each others' lives. I personally cry every time when Todd lies in the water, all given up, and Copper goes and protectively stands over Todd who is about to be shot by Copper's master. This dog's loyalty and love for his "natural enemy" who in fact was his dear friend, won over his loyalty to his master whom we humans consider that should be his best friend. They didn't let the ways of the world and humans' morals blind their hearts from the truth, or take away their courage to rebel against the wrongs for the better. And they won.
Why shouldn't this be appealing to adults or important to discuss, just because Todd and Copper are animated animals?
- Beauty and the Beast (1991)...Already just the intro scene, the setting of the story should make it clear this film is for adults, too. Should we dismiss it just because this story was portrayed through animation and it has magic involved? No, I don't think so. Also, Belle fell romantically in love with a beast whom she didn't consciously think to be human. She sings; "New, and a bit alarming. Who'd have ever thought that this could be?" That throws in a slight beastiality-like touch. Note that not actual beastiality as there is no sexual tension but something similar anyway. That is something children aren't likely to catch or think about even with those lyrics there. Gaston is the worst male role model ever and he is passed off as a male role model in the film. While children surely do get that he's a villain, could an avarage child really grasp all the complex ways he is so? I doubt. (Sidenote; I've never hated a Disney villain but gosh do I loath Gaston. Every time the Beast has his chance to off him, I keep thinking 'Drophimdrophimdrophim–awww damnit!”)
- The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)...You dare to tell me that young children would know what Frollo's song ”Hellfire” is about? If they do, I feel sorry for those kids, 'cause in my world view by all rights they shouldn't. You tell me that aspect of the story earned a song sequence in the film for children? I REALLY don't think so.
- Hercules (1997)...If you've seen this film you don't need explanations. But for those who have not seen it; this film is riddled with sexual implications. The character of Meg throws countless implications to sex, the kind only teenagers and adults could possiblty catch. (Well, kids today grow up too early so maybe today's younger kids could catch them too, but back then...likely not.)
- The Lion King (1994)...Has more or less anthropomorphic animated animals and no humans at all. So, this means adults shouldn't be interested in the film or dig into the story and characters, and discuss them in adults standards? Come on, now. The story is based on Shakespeare's Hamlet and some Biblical stories; there's a brother murdering his brother and intending to murder a young child, then a young child is exiled with a false blame of his dear father's death in his heart. Then this murdering uncle rules so that his home land is destroyed. The story's theme is the circle of life. The story is about growing up and taking responsibilities as its creators put it on the commentary track (or some other bonus featurette, I don't remember for sure.) So, let me ask you what in God's name makes this film so much a kids' film that it shouldn't be taken seriously and thought of and discussed in adult standards?
ConfusedMatthew says he doesn't hold this film to any adult standards. I think he should, maybe then his review would make more sense and include more valid arguments.
I once started a poll about what people think; did Mufasa let cub Simba off too easy after the Elephant Graveyard thing, or should he have disciplined the child more? Someone got upset that that kind of discussion especially if in depth is destroying ”the Disney magic” and that we're not supposed to to think so much logic with them.
I disagree because I think that the story being about growing up and taking responsibilities means there is more to the story than just Disney magic and naturally would be logic included. I actually think that purpose the story has, makes the mentioned poll topic quite fitting and the more psychology facts you bring into it the more you get out of it. After all, the scene in question is essential to how Simba would grow up and what he learns or doesn't learn about responsibilities. Of course, his life took a dramatic turn, to upside down, the next day. But nonetheless, it could be discussed as if it hadn't taken that turn, because the characters at that moment didn't know what tommorrow would bring.
So what if Simba and co. are anthropomorphic animals? They're clearly supposed to be human in essence, human inside – the humans of the story. To a far extent they have the same responsibilities, morals and family dynamics as you and I. The only difference is that they're pixels on screen, we are flesh and blood. They don't really feel anything and their specific story never really happened. But this leads me to...
...how many people keep not realizing that while fiction isn't real, it mirrors real life. It's something we're supposed to look into, possibly relate to, analyze, discuss and learn from. Something we may draw strength from when we can relate to and learn from the story and character. Fiction is not there just for our entertainment. It's there as one of the ways for us to safely learn and grow by. That is if the story doesn't glorify all the wrong things.
Same goes for the people who always say ”It's only a movie! Why are you getting so worked up over it!” I mean...Yes it's only a movie, a fictional story. But fictional stories are made to speak to us, make us feel, learn, find strength, and relate to. Fiction mirrors real life and can sometimes help in life. It should be in depth discussed and analyzed. It is not just for children even if the physical form happens to be more appealing to children. And it is natural for it to stir strong emotions, both negative and positive. Of course it is always important to still keep in mind that it indeed is fiction and there is no need to get too upset or into denial about a fictional character matter. I think it's best if you take the golden middle road; do not brush it off as insignificant but do not take it too seriously either.
And do not judge the book by its cover because it's the inside that counts. The animated form and antropomorphic characters are only the cover.
Simba may be an anthropomorphic lion cub in a Disney cartoon film, but more importantly he is a fictional equivalence of a human. And that is how he should be thought of and his life discussed as. Even the person who composed Mufasa and Simba's theme, got this. He's said that while he composed, he wasn't thinking about a lion cub. He was thinking of a 10-years old little boy who lost his father.
One more thing that I appreciate about The Lion King is that it doesn't think children are mindless fragile little flowers. It teaches them life in somewhat realistic way; it doesn't sugar-coat darkness. The main villain is actually menacing instead of made into a clown, unlike captain Hook was in Disney's version of Peter Pan. And unlike in so many other Disney classics, in The Lion King the dead stay dead. But the story shows that still we can face our past and find future happiness.
As in, this and other films like this, while giving children a lot to enjoy as children, also think of children as future adults and people who will face trials and sorrow in their lives. Being another reason why this film should and can be held in adult standards.
Re: Does Simba's Pride really have plot holes? « Result #7 on Aug 9, 2012, 5:30am »
Thank you for explaining these confusing things! Very helpful!! Excluding Six New Adventures, how do you think Scar and the hyenas met? I'm curious to see what you come up with! I also think this film is underrated and I don't see any problem with it!!!
Does Simba's Pride really have plot holes? « Result #8 on Aug 2, 2012, 7:44pm »
Now, I'm not saying this film doesn't have some problems. Because it does. I'm only saying that I don't think it has plot holes. Most of the following arguments I originally posted at IMDB message board in a debate, as VampireOutlaw.
You see, if something that's left untold does not affect the plot at all, then it's not a hole in the story but only something that could be further explained just for the interest of it. I'm starting to think this film does not have plot holes at all - that its only continuity problem is that they remade the ceremony scene and the cub's design.
I think I can disprove the claimed plot holes:
"Kiara looks entirely different from the cub at the end of TLK, and the ceremonies are also obviously different. What happened to the other cub?"
There is no other cub; on the first film's commentary track, that ending cub was refered to as "Fluffy" with no decided gender, and then in this film's official trailer they used "Fluffy" as baby Kiara, and in a magazine interview confirmed that "Fluffy" and Kiara are the same character. So in fact this is not a plot hole but a visual continuity problem.
Is it a plot hole because the film itself doesn't literally say that "Fluffy" and Kiara are one? I don't think so, because this film doesn't make any reference to any other cub but Kiara, therefore she and "Fluffy" unavoidably blend into one. On the contrary, if they were supposed to be two different cubs, this entire movie would be one huge plot hole.
But as Simba and Nala had only one child in the movie universe storyline, the stupid visual difference remains only a visual paradox, not a plot hole.
"How does Nala know Vitani?"
Remember that Vitani was born during Scar's reign which the first movie skipped over. And as Kovu was the last born and hand-chosen by Scar, it's likely Vitani and Kovu were older than new-borns before the end. Therefore it is entirely possible, perhaps even likely seeing to that Nala knows Vitani, that Nala met Vitani before she left to find help and ran into Simba. She may have met Vitani also as Vitani left to exile with her family - after all Nala was the queen. So, after all this isn't a plot hole any more than the exile is. The indicated event just happened during a time period even the first film skipped over while the sequel chose to start off where the first film left us.
The important thing is that the sequel confirms that both Nala and Vitani were in the Pridelands during that skipped-over time period. That confirmation keeps the later indication of them having met from being an actual plot hole, and makes it nothing more but a not-specifically explained situation.
"Where was Zira in the original?"
The sequel implies that she and the otehrs were supposed to be in the Pridelands at that time, and their total lack of screen time in the first film IS supported by its content. Remember how Simba told Nala to rally up the lionesses? Well, obviously Nala didn't rally up all of them and the sequel makes it clear why, by having those that weren't raalied up, obviously siding with Scar. It's not like the good guys didn't have enough challenge in dealing with the huge hyena pack that still sided with Scar. This results in the films' contents combined explaining that they were in Pridelands but weren't called upon at Simba's return because they would've made the enemy that much more powerful. Where in Pridelands they were exactly, isn't important. Therefore, not a plot hole but only a not-throroughly explained situation.
"Where did the Outsiders come from? There was no mention in the first movie at all about ANY lionesses who favored Scars' opinion...and I think this is the biggest plot hole of them all. No lionesses that followed Scar. So where did they come from?"
Remember the films are supposed to form one entity. So the first mention coming in the sequel's half of that one entity, does work, because the first half doesn't deny this matter nor make it impossible. Hence, them not appearing in the first half of the entity is explained by the content, and them still supporting Scar is explained by the fact that so did the hyenas. The fact that they didn't show how Simba met the to-be-Outlanders, isn't a plot hole eiteher because it happened during the time even the first film skipped over and the sequel chose to start off where the first film left us.
How did the Outlanders first come to the Pridelands? They aren't seen in the first film at any point.
This detail does not affect the sequel's plot nor their role in it in any way. All that matters to it is that they sided with Scar or were believed to through prejudice. Their origin prior to Pridelands era is only a matter of interest, therefore not a plot hole.
"Who was Kovu's father?"
Not a plot hole because Kovu's father's identity is completely irrelevant. We are told that it isn't Scar but that Scar adopted him as his heir, that's all the plot needs in order for the viewer to understand his character as well as Nuka and Simba and the story.
"If Kovu's father's identity is irrelevant, then how did Zira end up with him? I mean, she had two able cubs of her own."
Or one. Vitani may well be Kovu's litter mate. Actually, it's entirely possible all Zira's cubs were from the same father. After all we don't know anything about their timeline in Pridelands except that Kovu was the last born. Anyway, how did Zira end up with Kovu's father is naturally irrelevant too, by his father's identity being irrelevant. It just doesn't matter to the story SP wants to tell. All the story needs to work perfectly logically is the information of how does Kovu relate to the first film's events, is he Scar's kid or not, and what is his purpose in the sequel. And that information is given in the film.
SIDENOTE: Do not bother coming to argue the topic of Kovu's parentage with the Darrell Rooney Facebook post. That post is not factual information so long as it isn't confirmed on an official site. Just because FB staff bans people who impersonate famous people, if revealed, doesn't mean people aren't doing it. A ban is hardly a threat enough to stop such practice, as one can easily create a new account from another computer. And even if that post proved to be genuine, the man said "was" and "if I remember correctly", making the matter only that Kovu may have been at one point intented as an orphan. But as for now, there's nothing official on that whatsoever. Therefore, officially, Kovu has never been described as an orphan and Zira is Kovu's biological mother.
So, Kovu's parentage stuff doesn't create any plot holes and there are no official answers to the open matters.
"How could he have been hand chosen by Scar?"
"Kovu was the last born before you exiled us to the Outlands" + "He was hand-chosen by Scar to follow in his paw prints and become king" = clearly setting Kovu's birth to a time before Simba returned and Scar was still alive. Naturally Kovu'd have to be older than Kiara, but hey, the film never said he isn't. The fact that he appears the same age as Kiara, doesn't mean that he was. So I see absolutely no quesion as for how Scar could've hand-chosen him.
"Why was he hand chosen by Scar?"
Why do people choose anything? Because they feel the person/thing is worthy of the thing they're chosen for. Any more detailed reason is not significant to the story. I really don't know why this should be a question. Especially as the first film doesn't make any reference to Scar having or even planning to have biological children. So, keeping in mind that first point I made, him choosing someone else's kid as his heir really doesn't need to be a question.
"Where is Sarabi?"
Sarabi would become a plot hole only if they'd said that she is not somerhere in there but not tell why. So this is not a plot hole, as just because she isn't mentioned, doesn't mean that she wasn't around. Obviously there was no need for her in the story SP wanted to tell, they may have left her into the background and not bother pointing her out.
"Why did Simba choose a daughter to rule the pridelands when traditionally it's always been male?"
Nothing in the first film ever said that a male is a tradition for s ruler. All the film says is that the great kings of the past are watching from the stars. All the film shows about traditions, is that it's the first born. And even if it had labeled male as a tradition, it has an entire song sequence about Simba planning to do everything his way once he'd be the king. And just before that song he said about anoteher tradition: "When I'm king, that'll be the first thing to go." Hence, hence, not a plot hole.
* * * * *
Anything else? Feel free to throw potential plot holes at me. I'd like to try and disprove them. Because it's fun as it is, and I think this sequel is underrated.
Re: The cub's timeline « Result #9 on Jul 20, 2012, 7:07pm »
Had to rephrase the second paragraph of point number six. I figured the "Chaka verification" isn't reliable enough to pass as a fact. The situation still seems to remain that Chaka is only a rumour.
ConfusedMatthew's The Lion King review « Result #10 on Jul 9, 2012, 6:26pm »
This, now about 4 years old, review is widely infamous. What I find interesting about ConfusedMatthew is that he sounds very genuine all along, yet most of his review is the kind that I have hard time believing any adult could be genuine with. So maybe he's just a troll who's a remarkably good actor? But then again, he does also make some good and valid points. He may be confused, but his review makes him also a confusing person.
SO...I was asked to make a commentary on that review, and I made it from the point of view that he is something in between a troll and a serious reviewer.
My commentary on ConfusedMatthew's review --> here. You may want to pump up the volume, I've never used a PC microphone before and mine was very cheap.
![[Home]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_home.png "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_newtopics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_help.png "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_search.png "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_login.png "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/pporiginforums_register.png "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/search2.png "[Search This Thread]")
![[Reply]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/reply.png "[Reply]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/print.png "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc510/KieranTheWolf/Z_Ropet/100_cute_simba_by_lilbenger-d3xnxhg.jpg "[avatar]")
![[Quote]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/quote.png "[Quote]")
Logged
I also think this film is underrated and I don't see any problem with it!!! 