I think if Scar truly had a pride they would have played a bigger role in the film's climax (IE some lionesses who helped the hyenas fight Mufasa's lionesses). Though he was a big wimp, we surely would have heard about Scar's elder son. I think the fact that he was ALWAYS around and controlling the hyenas meant he was compensating for the lack of lions around.
To be fair, I don't think they were planning a sequel. You'll have probably noticed movies that announce they'll get sequels right after they've been released, tend to have ambiguous endings, or lay things down for the next movie. This one doesn't. Apart from the fact that Simba and Nala have a cub (which seems to be more of a reminder about that whole "Circle of Life" thing) all loose ties have been dealt with.
Though, aside from the no plan for a sequel thing, it could be easily explained that Scar was jealous of Mufasa and his pride for how it dominated the region, finding his own pride unsatisfactory. He chose to take Mufasa's place entirely, leaving his old pride behind, not wanting any memories of his "failure". Of course, being the blind followers that they were, they never thought that Scar had abandoned them, thinking that he would eventually let them come live with him. The hyenas were only allowed to come live with him because he had to hold up a promise he had given them.
As for the climax, there's the apparently fairly common idea floating around here that, at that time, Zira was either just about to give birth, or had just recently given birth, to Kovu. Thus, this could explain why they're not around at that time. No clue for where they are during the rest of the movie, other than the first response listed here...
It could be that they were off searching for food like Scar ordered the lionesses to. His pride only came back after the fight was over and Scar was dead.
There's also the implication that Scar lived on or near the pridelands; such as when Simba visited him and he told him about the Elephant graveyard. His the Hyenas (and his pride according to the sequel) lived in the "shadowy" place. Now the Hyenas apparently hated Lions but thought that Scar was one of them.
I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding here among some of the answers; if Scar had a pride, it would have formed after he rose to power, made up of lionesses from Mufasa's pride. He did not have his own pride while his brother was alive, he had a couple hyena lackeys and an elaborate graveyard hideout. That said, the Outsiders may have turned on Simba after Scar was already dead; perhaps they were made up of lionesses who were, as stated above, out hunting, or even helped Simba overthrow Scar, who simply felt Scar was doing a better job. (For some reason...) Zira (who would've been very young at the time, as she doesn't seem to be as old as Scar would have been in the sequel) could very plausibly be within her three-month pregnancy with Kovu.
Since the elephant graveyard is established as within visual range of Pride Rock, plus all the noise and lights, shouldn't someone have noticed?
They probably just thought it was a party that was going on.
Musical numbers aren't really happening.
Um, yeah they are. Remember, Simba attacked Zazu in the middle of his.
Which, I'm sure, really involved that fifty-foot swaying pyramid of random animals as well.
Are you talking about "The Morning Report" or "I just can't wait to be king"?
That was a wonderful moment because it was so intentionally surreal — once the musical number "disappears", Zazu is still somehow trapped under a rhino, with no explanation of how the rhino "really" got there, and the story just moves on.
I wonder how the rhino "really" got there...
Towards the end of Just Can't Wait To Be King, Simba whispers to some animals who then talk to other animals. It's not unreasonable to assume that Simba asked the animals to help them ditch Zazu, and the animals obeyed because he's their prince and potential predator.
Whcih is completely unfair to poor Zazu, who was just doing his duty!
Any songs are actually happening unless the movie says otherwise. Or are you telling me that Simba just magically ditched Zazu in some scene we never see? And that the hyenas just read Scar's mind to mind out about his plan to kill Mufasa? And that Scar's hyena army just appeared out of nowhere?
I dunno, are you telling me that they were singing "Hakuna Matata" for that entire timeskip? I won't say, as that other one did, that the musical numbers don't happen, but they are an extremely over-the-top dramatization of actual events.
It could just be we are seeing perfectly synced segments of them singing the song over the years. For it to be the group's motto you wouldn't think it was sung only once.
Point conceded. The musical numbers are a bit over-dramatized. I don't want this to turn into a Flame WarThread Mode.
It's not really the same but in Aladdin 2, Jafar explicitly captures the Genie during "You're Only Second Rate". So Disney Animated Canon songs being 'real' does have some basis.
In this case, as with the Genie's songs "Never Had a Friend Like Me" and "Prince Ali", magic is involved, so we can say A Wizard Did It
And in The Little Mermaid, Ariel and Flounder ditch Sebastian and go exploring right while he's distracted by participating in "Under the Sea". Sleeping Beauty has Phillip overhear Aurora singing and cut in to dance and sing with her. Considering all the other unrealistic shit going on in Disney movies outside of this, I think musical sequences actually happening can be forgiven instead of trying to apply real-world logic just so you can feel smart.
Are people here not familiar with the unwritten but well-established rules of how a musical works, and the idea of how a musical sequence works? The rule is that a musical sequence by nature is a metaphor for what's really happening, the emotional states of the participants (because, y'know, in real life people don't really spontaneously burst into well-written songs they make up on the spur of the moment to describe how they feel). As a metaphor they represent both what the people are feeling and things that are happening, even if what happens doesn't * actually* happen precisely the way it's portrayed in the song (i.e. in a well-choreographed dance sequence). So in the "rumble" scene in West Side Story there really is a gang fight going on, yes, the gang fight isn't "imaginary"; but nor are we to understand that the gangs really are actually fighting by dancing around each other in circles singing the name of their gang.
"in real life people don't really spontaneously burst into well-written songs they make up on the spur of the moment to describe how they feel" Improv Everywhere disagrees
That was awesome. Pretty sure that song wasn't made up "on the spur of the moment," though; looks rehearsed.
A good example of this is the relationship between Scar's speech to the lionesses and his cutreprise of "Be Prepared". Originally he and the hyenas were going to sing to introduce them to the pride, but this was changed to him making a straight speech that did the same thing. Ultimately, anytime a song comes on (with the exception of songs like "Circle of Life", which are played over regular scenes with no interaction with the characters) assume they're still just normally talking, but it's being represented by a choreographed, rhyming musical number.
Actually, they could really be happening in this case. If the future king wants to have a musical number, you can either show up and do your part in the dance or you can put your species on fast track to extinction. Your choice.
The elephant graveyard is visible from pride rock, but by far not close enough to tell what is going on within it. The magnitude of distances on the savanna is misleading due to the medium; lions can smell who is about for miles, long before they achieve visual contact, so the pride might have been aware of activity in the graveyard, but not its nature. And activity, in and of itself wasn't particularly unusual. In fact, the geothermal activity within the graveyard, assuming it is anything like yellowstone, would easily mask the smells within.
After killing Mufasa, why did Scar not just kill Simba himself right then?
It would have been as easy, as sending the hyenas after him, and more successful, since they had already messed up the job once? And when they failed to kill Simba, why didn't they tell him?
I had the impression that the hyenas considered driving him out into the barren desert was as good as killing him—it's not like a canny meerkat is going to show him how to survive or anything.
Still, they could have at least mentioned that they had driven him into a desert and not seen the body. And that still doesn't answer the question of why Scar didn't just kill Simba himself when they were alone together right after the stampede.
The physical evidence there'd be pretty incriminating, no?
Have the hyenas eat the corpse. Tell lionesses Simba died in the stampede. Problem solved.
No, problem not solved. If Scar personally killed Simba, that would just be asking for trouble. In the extremely unlikely event he is seen his plan is blown straight to hell. If there is any blood on him, explaining what happened would get a bit complicated, especially since finding any identifiable trace of Simba should be more than a bit difficult after being run over by an entire herd of wildebeests. Really the smartest thing Scar can do is not leave any real evidence suggesting what had actually done. Even the way he murdered Mufasa would have removed any physical evidence had slashing been involved if the animators had not erred on the side of not traumatizing kids (and Simba) more than they already had. The king's entrails should have been smeared half the length of the gorge. Delegating the hyenas to kill Simba was really all that stupid. One little slip on Simba's part and the film would either be much shorter or we would be needing a new protagonist.
The hyenas weren't willing to confess to Scar that they'd botched the job, so they convinced themselves that driving him into the desert was as good as killing him. Scar's only mistake was in figuring that even those idiots couldn't botch as simple a job as eating one measly lion cub with three-to-one odds in their favor. Which is still a mistake, but not a blatant one.
The hyenas didn't tell him just because they were (probably correctly) afraid he'd pull a You Have Failed Me on them. He'd have sent them back out into the desert or else killed them and sent others out to eliminate Simba.
There's a simple answer beyond "there wouldn't be a movie": Scar is evil and overconfident. He no doubt thought it would be far, far better vengeance on Mufasa to have his son feel crushing guilt and run away scared before dying in the wilds (and as the above poster points, no blood on his claws for the lionesses to smell). In fact, if it hadn't been for the lioness friend finding him, Simba would never have thought of bothering Scar. So effectively, Scar had killed Mufasa and destroyed his son's spirit (well, responsibility anyway).
So, um, why order the hyenas to kill him immediately after passing up a chance to do it himself?
Just in case. Besides, it makes the hyenas happy. Happy = less likely to rebel.
As demonstrated later in the movie, he doesn't care about their happiness. He refuses to deal with it when they are hungry. And despite that maltreatment, they don't rebel until he blames them for his crimes. They even fought against the lionesses at significant risk to their lives and if he hadn't blamed them for what he'd done, the hyenas would have gone on working for Scar, since he, unlike Mufasa, at least let them into the Pridelands.
I blame power-tripping, myself. As Shego once said, "The Supreme One Always Delegates." Scar was probably too busy enjoying his success and planning his Oscar royalty acceptance speech to wrap up the loose end himself.
Perhaps, and this will probably be a less-than-popular idea, he honestly couldn't actually bring himself to kill his young nephew. Even Evil Has Standards, after all.
How about this theory: Scar doesn't like to get his hands dirty. He could have killed Simba in their first scene together, but instead tricks him into going to the badlands and sets the hyenas after him. The most we see him do is push his brother off a cliff, perhaps he's repulsed by the idea of snapping the neck of a fellow lion. By the end of the film, he's gone nuts.
this troper always thought he didn't want to do it himself because he was like 'big stampede = big chance some one saw that'... Don't you think any lionesses seeing/hearing such a stampede would investigate WHY there is such a stampede? It would have looked very wrong had they seen him slay Simba. Some hyena's however...
Scar's biggest wish is to be a king, and what's more kingly than to proclaim the murder of your inferiors as beneath you and get your mooks to do it? It's simply one of the many times his narcissism gets the better of him.
In the original draft, Scar was going to try to catch Simba himself, him managing to escape in the end, but in that draft Scar was designed as a bigger, more brutish (I think) lion. Scar in the movie is a planner; he doesn't get his hands dirty. That's what his henchmen are for. My opinion, any way.
Lions have an excellent sense of smell, so perhaps Scar was worried the lionesses would smell Simba's blood on him if he did it himself.
I suppose outweighing a cub by a factor of ten and simply smothering him never occurred to him then?
Do lions smother other lions? I don't think it would have occurred to Scar as an option. The point about the smell makes sense. So does the point about getting his paws dirty. He doesn't actually fight Mufasa, he throws him to his death. No literal blood.
Lions kill their prey by bringing them down and suffocating them with a throat hold.
Key word is 'prey'. Simba is another lion. Specifically, he's a cub. Any attempt at smothering, which would look strange since Simba should have been reduced to a red smear on the canyon floor or walls, would have just resulted in crushing bone. There's also the possibility someone might see Scar doing this. If that happened I'm pretty sure Scar wouldn't live to see the next sunrise.
What did Scar do that made the Pride Lands so desolate?
He seemed to be rather intelligent, and just how can a lion make the grass dry up along with all the lakes and rivers?
Quite a stupid reason. it isn't Scar's fault that it won't rain, he can't do anything about that.
I don't know...maybe it just happened to be an abnormally long dry season? Shit happens in Africa.
It was just symbolic... Word of God says so... just like it starting to rain when Simba took the throne, they're just stylistic choices.
Similar to both of the above reasons, it could've been like the Discworld book Wyrd Sisters where the land didn't care who the ruler was, as long as the ruler liked the land. The issue in that book was that the mad lord who took over hated the kingdom of Lancre. Scar's arrogance and disdain for everything around him counted as this.
This is awesome.
Part of Scar's deal with the hyenas was they could eat as much as they wanted once he was king. I imagine they took him up on that offer and started over-killing in the Pridelands (leading to the "the herds have moved on" comment). Humans aren't the only ones who can wreck local ecology.
One of my high school teachers claimed the entire thing is basically the myth of Osiris done with lions. The supreme ruler is killed by his brother and usurped. The injustice causes the principle of ma'at, or order and morality, to be lost. World descends into chaos. Son of supreme ruler defeats his uncle and becomes the new ruler. Ma'at is restored.
That still wouldn't account for the lack of water. That was just adding insult to injury.
On top of everything else, over-hunting a biome's herbivores leads to more grass, not less.
The plants need antelope corpses to fertilize them. It's all part of the circle of life, as Mufasa described.
Let's assume the magic of Pride Rock ties the rain amount to the worthiness of the King; therefor, the drought was caused by Taka being a self-centeredJerkass.
It's a Disney movie. It's not realistic. It makes no sense that the rivers would dry and the grass wither just because Scar is the king, but he is the bad guy, so they use that to make his reign seem worse. For an in-universe explanation... maybe he was just unlucky enough to rule during an extended drought? And the other animals, not knowing anything about meteorology, made it to be Scar's fault one way or another.
Possibly Mufasa delegated control of the hunting to Sarabi, while using the other adults to keep hyenas off the land. Since Disney presents the hyenas as gluttons, it's not a large stretch to assume their presence meant that the lionesses didn't have enough food for themselves. Droughts happen in the Serengeti fairly regularly, and at the end of the dry season clouds do build on the horizon.
Alternately, maybe Nala and a few other rebels actually drove the herds away as an act of resistance. There have been cities in history who decided to prevent themselves from having children to spite their captors. It's not impossible the lionesses would have preferred to go hungry rather than submit to Scar.
It's inferred in the film. There is a drought that affected the Pride Lands. This caused the plants to die, causing the herds to, as Sarabi says, move on. Scar is shown as a bad ruler because he would rather stay in the Pride Lands than follow the food.
Yeah, given how savannahs are fairly dry to begin with, it's not unlikely at all that the second half of the movie just happened to coincide with a drought. A bit unlucky for Scar, yes, but not entirely unrealistic.
Scar went completely insane during his reign as king, that's canon. When your mind is slowly deteriorating over the years, your capacity for exactly how bad you can be as a leader will quickly reach Serial Escalalation levels.
It's probably Disney mysticism with the symbolic dreary drought and weather. And then some overhunting on the hyenas part didn't help (the musical productions emphasizes this a little more).
It's partially symbolic, partially Truth in Television. Taking the expanded universe into consideration, drought in the Pride Lands is cyclical, happening at least once a generation. It happened during Mohatu's reign and during Ahadi's reign. This seems to be the test of a ruler. A good ruler will be able to manage the Pride Lands and help them get through the drought, whereas a bad ruler will allow the land to deteriorate rather than exercising good stewardship. Scar didn't cause the drought anymore than a president causes terrorist attacks or hurricanes. It's how the leader responds to the crisis that matters.
Realistically, Scar having the hyenas as his local police force would upset the food chain quite a bit. They would just eat anything they could find. As for the drought, well, there have been dry seasons in the past.
Why, oh why, did Scar stop to tell Simba that he killed Mufasa rather than just tossing him off that cliff?
I thought Scar was absolutely brilliant up until this point.
But come on, telling him that you killed his father can only make things worse. It was of no benefit to him to tell Simba, while it would have been very beneficial to just throw him off the cliff just like he did Mufasa.
Scar was a bit of a genius but as the various examples of his great 'kingship' show he's carrying some serious psychological impairment. From the start he's obviously insecure and dealing with low self esteem, the guy is a prime candidate for bond villain gloating because proving himself better than everyone else is pretty much the only reason he took the job.
So kill Simba, then gloat over the corpse to your henchmen and horrified lionesses. It feels just as good and it's a lot safer.
It most definitely does not feel just as good. As someone who used to toy with his badly losing enemies in RTS's and board games (before I read the Evil Overlord List and became more Genre Savvy), I can say, speaking from experience, that gloating over your opponent after you've won, even if it's the exact same opponent you just defeated, isn't as much fun as doing it while they're losing.
Two points: Scar paused to gloat when he killed Mufasa: "Long live the king." And while he was ruling securely over the Pride Lands, with no challenges to his rule whatsoever, he couldn't bear to hear people even mention Mufasa's name; He was clearly unbalanced. Pausing to gloat before killing Simba wasn't the smartest thing, but it wasn't blatantly stupid, and it's consistent with his prior behavior.
It was extremely stupid, gloating before a victory is a guaranteed way to lose.
Don't forget, the fact that Scar taunts his food before eating it was established as a specific character trait at the beginning of the movie.
Scar clearly lived in his brother's shadow. He'd spent his whole life being the spare, the only reason for his born in case Mufasa kicked it (which is probably the reason why Mufasa and Simba didn't have more than one kid). That's gotta be a self-esteem crusher. Then he becomes king. Considering how he acts after that, he's proved power makes him mad and his ego has gone up like 80%. If you think about it, it's not very out of character for him to want to gloat over Simba. Stupid and out-of-character are not the same thing people.
Put yourself in Scar's shoes (uh, paws) for a moment. You've spent your entire life being bested by your brother. Now, in one shining moment, you have not only dominated him, you've completely eliminated him. It's everything you've ever dreamed of, you've finally proven yourself, and now... you must never reveal it to anyone. Ever. Not even to gloat a little. Goddammit.
Really, it fits with his actions. Scar is on top of the world, he has the hero right where he wants him, with Scar's accusation of "Murderer!" tearing down Simba's initial resolve quite handily. The way I see it, he saw one last chance to break Simba mentally, mere seconds before breaking him physically, and decided to take it. Unfortunately, he wound up dealing with Unstoppable Rage rather than a Heroic BSOD.
In the stampede scene, why do the wildebeests run off a friggin cliff to get away from three hyenas, but charge head-on at a full grown lion?
Truth in Television. Anything that gets in their way is going down, after all it's not as if they could stop. No one ever said stampeding is sensible.
Yeah, once a stampede gets going, the ones in front better not stop or they'll get trampled by the ones in the back.
Still, since they're sentient in this movie, why don't they try charging towards the hyenas?
They don't charge the hyenas because that is not their normal reaction to a threat. The wildebeests closest to the hyenas just want to get away and probably sound the alarm. Since most of the herd doesn't know there's a laughably small number hyenas compared to the number of wildebeests in the herd they take the simple solution of putting some distance between them and their predators. Basically the herd just took the simplest course of action when faced with a group of hungry predators. Just look at how the herd Kiara ineffectively stalks in Lion King 2. She does something that alerts the herd that she's there. A member of the herd sounds the alarm and everyone bolts. Since the strategy works pretty well overall, why change it?
It's not established that the wildebeest are sentient. Just because many animals in the movie are sentient doesn't mean they all are.
Maybe they easily noticed the hyenas but failed to see the lion. Brownish lion in brownish canyon may just look like another rock. They were also running in blind panic, so they probably didn't see so clearly ahead.
Further, everything seen after the first reason for panic is pretty much irrelevant - those who see the hyenas in front of them are most likely incapable of seeing over the entire rest of the herd. So they'd stampede in the direction of the lion, with everyone not going along with this developing a case of spontaneous crushedness.
The film seems to establish that there are varying degrees of either sentience or intelligence, and even that can be disrupted by instinct. Consider the scene where Nala attempts to kill Pumbaa. Nala is acting in the manner of a predator and Pumbaa instinctively panics (rather than, say, try to reason with her, since he knows lions aren't all bad, living with Simba, who is a lion). Nala then gets into a fight with Simba, which only ends when Simba identifies himself to her. He then introduces Pumbaa as a friend, and she suddenly has no desire to harm him, and he seems quite forgiving of the fact that she wanted to eat him. The fact that all manner of animals gather for the "baptism" of the newborn heir to the kingdom, who will inevitably eat some of them, suggests that the animals accept that they have instinctual urges which they can't fully override or be blamed for. The fact that the lions ruler-ship seems to be based on them using their strength and wisdom to maintain balance and stability, and the things Mufasa teaches Simba (who considered the antelope only good for eating), further reinforces this.
"...suggests that the animals accept that they have instinctual urges which they can't fully override or be blamed for." Unless, of course, you have the misfortune of being born a hyena, apparently.
Except that a Hyena DID almost fall for it's instinctual urges, barely being able to resist eating one of the "lil' sick ones" when the Hyena Trio was awaiting Scar's signal.
You have an entire herd of wildebeests and one lion. Most of them probably wouldn't see Mufasa and keep running. So, some of the wildebeests probably did see him, but it was either keep running straight ahead or get trampled by all the ones behind you who didn't notice.
Keep in mind that when Mufasa jumped down to rescue Simba, the wildebeests were swerving around the two perfectly fine (save for an accidental tackle or two). It was when Mufasa was DROPPED IN THE MIDDLE of the stampede did he get killed. So what you have is some random wildebeest running full-tilt, and then BOOM! Lion falls from the sky an inch in front of it. Obviously no time to go around, the wildebeest hits Mufasa, along with the one behind it, and the one behind that. It wasn't the wildebeests just not thinking, or not caring, it's a matter of having to hit something you wouldn't be able to dodge anyway.
Lions don't hunt 24/7, and male lions don't hunt much at all. A single male lion isn't likely to scare off a whole herd of wildebeest, which could easily drive him off by sheer weight of numbers; it's whole packs of predators — like, say, a trio of hyenas, which are probably working in tandem with a bunch of yet-unseen sisters — that they'd have cause to be afraid of. Indeed, large herds of herbivores regularly intimidate lions into moving away from waterholes, when they outnumber them sufficiently.
Does anybody else find it slightly odd that Scar is named Scar?
While it is a cool name, I seriously can't picture anybody naming their child after the result of an injury. I suppose it could be argued that he renamed himself, but I just find it odd to picture Mufasa and Scar's parents naming one of their children Scar.
He did rename himself, according to a tie-in book. He was born with the name "Taka," which is Swahili for "trash." Not much better, is it?
I figured he was born a runt, and though his brother always tried to show him sympathy and kindness (by allowing him to stay with the pride for protection) Scar took this as an insult and became increasingly bitter at his own physical weakness.
Scar says something early on in the film which is along the lines of "As far as brains go, I have the lion's share. But when it comes to brute strength, I'm afraid I'm at the shallow end of the gene pool.", That sounds like an admission of runthood to me. Granted, a runt with a tendency for bad puns but still...
At least it's not as bad as "Simba" which literally translates to "lion."
I'm not so sure about that... personally I'd rather be named "Human" than "Garbage." Of course, neither option is all that great, but still, the former isn't exactly an outright insult... at least, provided you're not of the opinion that Humans Are Bastards.
Well, about "Human" not being a great name: considering that the fairly common name Adam is Hebrew for "Man"...
Actually unless my anthropology tutor is lying its tolerably common in parts of Africa (I think the example was Madagascar) to give new-borns derogatory names like "Filth" or "Afterbirth" to confuse evil spirits and prevent them from recognizing weak targets and then re-name them with a proper name when they are older and better able to cope. No clue if the Disney writers knew any of this of course...
In addition, there is a name in Luo (a language spoken in Kenya) that literally means "thrown away", but in the context of a child who was born prematurely.
Considering there are no humans in the film, it's unlikely that the animals would have a concept of "trash" as being modern-day human garbage. Possibly "trash", to the lions, would be the inedible bones and horns left behind after a carcass is eaten, making "Taka" more of a morbid name than a refuse-related one.
Did nobody notice that all the good lions were golden and light and all the bad ones were brown and dark?
There is no Disney villain that has darker skin than the hero of the movie (no, not even Jafar.◊) In fact, a great deal of them are extremely pale. The black clothes is just a traditional villain thing.
Do Ursula and Shan Yu count? Granted, Ursula's purple (and an octopus-woman), and Shan Yu is gray, but Shan Yu at the very least IS completely human.
And since lions don't wear clothes... You can finish this, right?
They have fur. Basically the same thing as hair color. It seems people actually look for things to be offended by.
Think about it a little more realistically. If we are to believe that the exiled lions lived in the shadow lands, they would've probably be receiving less and less sunlight, and so, would've been a lot darker than the pride lions. And to backup, when Scar is ruling the pride, even the lionesses loyal to Mufasa/Simba are slightly more greyish than before.
I know it's a sequel, and I shouldn't be thinking about it too hard, but... where all those evil lions that appear on Lion King 2 were during the events of Lion King?
Things only get even more awkward when you consider that, apparently, Scar did have children...
In the canonical movie verse, Scar didn't have cubs, although: he made it clear he wanted them in the musical; in Fanon, Kovu is considered Scar's biological son; and logically, he would have to be. But as to the question of the evil lionesses... They must just be Les Collaborateurs, subjects who were loyal to Scar and see Simba as an usurper. The only question is why? Zira, obviously, because she was his mate. Maybe the rest are her sisters and cousins.
I thought Nuka *was* Scar's son? TLK 2 seems to imply it- Nuka did say that he should have been the chosen one, and "Scar wasn't even his father" with regards to Kovu.
Well, Scar told the lionesses to go hunt and Simba's mom was refusing. Perhaps Zira and co. were doing that when the final battle took place.
You missed the point. The question is where were they the whole first movie? As far as I knew, Scar was only supported by the hyenas.
Zira not being there might be justified if you assume that, at the beginning of the first movie, she was taking care of Nuka (who may or may not be younger than Simba and Nala, but is clearly quite a bit older than Kovu and Vitani), and at the end of the first movie, she was taking care of Vitani and had either just had or was about to have Kovu. As for the other lionesses... Well, nobody ever said that all of them came from Mufasa and Simba's pride. Some of them could be friends/relatives of Zira who joined up with her later.
They were hiding. Behind Pride Rock. In other words: 1. The sequel wasn't originally planned and only came into existence when The Lion King was so popular, and/or... 2. The movie was too short to allow them screen time, and in any case, did you really want all the little kids to believe that there might be lionesses out there who supported the Big Bad?
We do see a lot more lionesses when Scar is telling the pride about the stampede than we do when Simba returns.
I figured there was almost a generation between Mufasa's death and Simba's exile. The first movie, the Outcasts were normal lionesses. It became clear in the second movie Simba was not a flawless king. Those lionesses who grew up with Scar as king, any who preferred Scars rule over Simba's, and those that became dissatisfied with Simba's rulership left and became Outcasts. Malnutrition lead to the physical differences.
I always believed that Zira and her followers were obeying Scar´s orders of hunting. Zira, being Scar´s mate, or at least in love with him, believed he was a great leader and that they could find food to make Scar impressed. Zira took her young cub Nuka with them ( she was in her early pregnancy of Vitani and Kovu)and when she and the other lionesses returned, Scar was dead and Simba was the new king. The rest we all know. Simba banished them for being loyal to Scar.
It's also not an uncommon practice for female lions in a pride to experience affairs with wandering rogue lions, or bands of wandering male lions (yes, sometimes they band together for protection), so long as the alpha isn't around. So it's not a complete stretch that Nala's mother simply had a fling with an outsider lion before Mufasa told him to shove along.
Sequels most certainly do count as Canon, or are you in fact Walt Disney and DO have the authority to make that claim?
How does that play when the sequel contradicts the original (the presentation scene is different between the two movies)?
Replace "Walt Disney" with "the Disney Company" and the point about 1 1/2 still being canon until they say otherwise still stands. Although the two movies do have some major issues in fitting together cohesively.
Only the sequels made under the Disney Animated Canon count as canon to the original stories (hence the use of the term canon). The other sequels were made by another of Disney's studios (and I'm sorry, people who like the sequels, but it really shows).
That doesn't make a lick of sense. If you go by that standard there has only been one sequel (The Rescuers Down Under) that can be acknowledged. Granted, you can ignore the sequels if you wish, but to say they don't count because they weren't made by the feature animation division is a bit ridiculous.
How exactly did Simba get a strong and have a full grown mane by eating bugs?
Sure they're high in protein, but honestly... shouldn't he have been a little more scraggly?
Standard procedure for main characters is to give them 'heroic proportions'; muscular, well-built, handsome. Translate this into a lion and you wind up with individuals built like Simba, Mufasa, Scar and even Kovu. Thinness, meanwhile, is associated with treachery and thievery, meaning that if a character is considered scrawny or otherwise thing, particularly in an archetypal story such as this one, they are playing an archetypal role and pointing themselves out as being dangerous and untrustworthy. Basically, it's stylistic.
Alternatively, Simba ate a lot of bugs.
He certainly did in Lion King 1 1/2. But I can't help but wonder if he was sneaking a little antelope on the side every now and then.
I always figured he ate bugs until he was big enough to hunt and then he brought in game. Or he used his greater size and strength to get fruits and vegetables which Timon and Pumbaa couldn't have harvested.
One Fan Fic, "Chronicles of the Pride Lands", actually addressed this issue fairly realistically by having young Simba become violently ill because he had been living only on bugs and not the meat his body needed, and once he recovered he was then shown to go hunting along the edges of the jungle, that way able to feed himself without Squicking Timon and Pumbaa. The fact he was aided by spirit lions from the Other Side, and that they even gave advice to Timon to prevent it happening again, is where reality and the story part ways, but the point is valid. And I still believe this is what happened: Simba did hunt to get the meat to grow that big and muscular, we just never saw it. (Timon himself even points this out in one episode of the Timon & Pumbaa show: after something starts killing animals in the area, Timon suspects Simba because, paraphrasing, 'there's no way he got that big just eating bugs.')
He probably did what any solo lion who can't hunt would do: hijacked kills from smaller predators. We didn't see much of jackals, wild dogs, cheetahs and so forth, but presumably they're around.
When he was older maybe; when he was younger he'd have had to rely on Timon and Pumbaa to do the muscling for him.
Lions prefer to dine on...larger creatures, but will gladly eat bugs when herds are too scarce or too difficult to take down. Like red meat in a human diet, large mammals are instinctively preferred (and a dearer source). But a diet of bugs won't create a nutrient deficit.
Why do people keep saying that Scar and Mufasa are the only male lions in the first film so this means they are the only male lions in the pride?
Just because it's not onscreen doesn't mean it doesn't exist! They could have just decided not to show them as they had nothing to do in the film. I've only ever seen one Chinese man, but that doesn't mean I assume all the women in China mate with him.
Having even two full-grown male lions in a single pride is seriously unrealistic. Also, Scar wasn't very strong or athletic lion. He only took the title of the king by the virtue of being the only male around. He wouldn't have survived many challengers.
Exactly. If there were any other male lions around, they would either have to have Scar plotting to get rid of them, or we probably would have seen them trying to challenge Scar later. Given how crappy of a ruler Scar became, if there were any other male lions, even if they weren't Mufasa's cubs, then the lionesses would probably prefer even them over Scar.
Not unrealistic at all, if the males are brothers. Two or more brothers working together have a far better shot at taking over, and holding onto, a pride than even the most Badass solitary male; there's a pride in Ngorongoro Crater that had six brothers take it over, at least for a while.
Indeed, although coalitions usually top out at 4, something to do with being difficult to keep together.
When there's the stand-off between Zira and Simba and the lionesses after Kovu and Kiara first meet, Zira gets pretty close to Simba and Kiara.
Even with as fast as everyone could move, she could have done something to at least cripple Kiara, if not kill her or injure Simba, so why is there no threatening growls or orders of "Get back!"?
Because if Zira had attacked Kiara, Simba would have killed her and Kovu right there, and her plans for revenge would have been lost. And if she had attacked Simba instead, the other lionesses, including Nala, would have attacked her and killed her. It was to her advantage to not make any movements right there and instead, wait for the right moment to attack (that is, for Kovu to grow up, get close to Simba and then kill him).
Actually, Zira was quite eager to attack Simba in that scene until she noticed the other lionesses there. I think both parties were well aware Zira was too smart to launch an attack when she was outnumbered.
Simba acknowledges that Kiara is like him and he got into a lot of trouble.
So why does he send Timon and Pumbaa after her, since (a) they can't really fight so well, and (b) they're probably going to do something to get noticed?
Why not send one of the lionesses, who could probably stay hidden and could put up a fight against anything that might harm Kiara?
Perhaps he's willing to let her get into just a little bit of trouble. He knows from experience that an attempt to completely restrict her will not work, so he just sends those two to keep her out of real danger as opposed to mere mischief.
But how could they keep her out of real danger? I mean, they obviously couldn't catch up to her if she just took off, and they can't really fight (except for Pumbaa's special ability), so what would happen if, say, an Outlander was trespassing, saw her, and decided to attack or something?
Excuse me, in the first movie Pumbaa lays out a couple of hyenas, and that's without his stench, he can fight if he has to.
Simba trusts them: Timon and Pumbaa are his closest friends and were somehow able to keep him alive to adulthood, so the have to have SOME kind of survival skill. They've got Honorary Uncle status for Kiara so they might be able to talk her out of something really stupid. If nothing else, they'd be able to find him if she got in over her head.
Mundane solution: the audience knew Timon and Pumbaa, so the filmmakers decided to allow them more screentime in this manner as opposed to using a background character. Kind of a shame, as giving one of the lionesses greater characterization would have given the pride as a whole more life in the eyes of the viewers.
The scene where the hyenas capture Zazu and use the birdie-boiler on him could come right out of Looney Tunes: if it was meant to be realistic, there would at least be serious burns (and why wouldn't they have held him down until he died?).
Does anyone else see that as odd, in a cartoon that's generally meant to be realistic?
We might as well have had Scar hit Mufasa with a giant mallet. (Granted, given that Timon breaks the fourth wall in Hakuna Matata, I guess we shouldn't take it too seriously, but...)
The line "not in front of the kids"... bugs me, because it could've just as easily been "Not in front of the kid" and made perfect sense.
At what point were the sentient animals speaking English meant to be realistic?
Oh, right, and the whole IJCWTBK and Be Prepared scenes are realistic? If you want to complain about unrealism creeping in try the whole head-in-the-clouds scene.
That we have a trope for Acceptable Breaks from Reality implies that perhaps some breaks aren't so acceptable. One place to draw the line is wherever the break interferes with the internal consistency of that which the audience is supposed to care about. In the case of the hyenas "boiling" Zazu, the question is, was his life "really" at risk or not? The problem is that the writers could have worked it out such that the hyenas "get" Zazu without subjecting him to the device that's (presumably) meant to actually kill him (such as by holding him threateningly close to it). It's almost as though they beheaded him, then his head "cartoonily" reattached itself. Well, maybe not that bad — but if all breaks from reality are okay, why not that one? Too violent? So is boiling someone alive.
Zazu's a Butt Monkey. Just as a Bad Ass warps to follow the Rule of Cool, a Butt Monkey warps reality toward Slapstick Comedy. Therefore, anything that would lethal and dramatic to anyone else instead affects him in the most ludicrous way possible.
My take on it was that they didn't intend to kill him; it was just for laughs. You kill the bird, you run out of fun things to do with his corpse, you eat him, and that's it, but making him fly away and yell comically in pain is fun you can have again and again...
If the birdie-boiler bothered you, then Timon's hula dance must have sent you over the edge. Though honestly, that's one of my favorite scenes - even to this day I crack up at it.
Scar did the exact same thing to the hyenas in Be Prepared, and they weren't injured either. The geysers are mostly harmless, and since they live in the elephant graveyard the hyenas should know this (if nothing else, Ed has almost certainly attempted to drink from one at some point in the past). If they were trying to kill Zazu, they could have just bitten his head off. However, it's possible that they either intentionally let him go because he wasn't their target (if, as in the play, Nala's mother killed Banzai's father they would have a motive for killing her), or they used him as bait, luring the cubs into a position where they could be driven deeper into the elephant graveyard, keeping them on the hyenas' home turf.
Simply, I have always considered a film like this to be a mixture of both realism and cartoon logic. Indeed films like these do occasionally used quite a few moments of occurrences that come off as unrealistic, albeit to a minimum compared to what you see in your daily "Loony Tunes" shorts.
Consider this.... Mufasa dies after getting trampled by wildebeest. But, Zazu lives through getting sat on by a rhino, at the end of "I Just Can't Wait To Be King".
Well, Mufasa also fell off a cliff. The fall alone doubtlessly would’ve killed him, even without the stampede.
When Simba comes back with Timon and Pumbaa, why didn't any of the lionesses seize and eat them?
Everyone was starving at that point. They didn't know that they were Simba's friends, at first at least.
A) They were all too busy fighting the hyenas to notice or care; B) they saw Simba didn't attack them either; C) they saw Pumbaa save Timon and Zazu.
Because Simba tells them after the battle not to (presumably), and he's the king.
The fact that Simba doesn't, you know, see Scar throw Mufasa off the cliff, from the ledge he's perched on, is fridge logic in itself — what else would he have been looking at, at that moment?!
Even if we assume that he couldn't see them from where he was(and if he hadn't known Scar was there, he probably would have gone all the way to the top of the ledge), he would have seen Mufasa being thrown up into the air, rather than merely falling. But even worse, in Simba's Pride, Simba dreams that that scene is being recreated with him and Kovu, implying he had seen, or at least known, what had happened all along. What?
Watching the scene again could clarify this, adding what the above comment says: Mufasa rushes in and saves Simba, and puts him on a ledge. He then falls back in, Simba tries to spot him in the stampede. He sees Mufasa jump out onto the cliff, where he starts climbing. Simba then climbs up by a small, different route that's nearby, presumably to meet his father at the top. While he's climbing, Scar makes Mufasa fall, but all that Simba sees is his father screaming down to his death. Watch here starting at 2:35. He's very young at that point, but he could figure it out when he got older.
Since the response above me, I think, explains fairly well how young Simba could have failed to see what happened and thus not known Scar killed his father, I'll only answer the second point — first in meta fashion, then in-universe. On a pure storymaking level, it makes sense for the creators of Simba's Pride to depict the exact positions of Simba and Kovu to mirror Mufasa and Scar: it's both a Continuity Nod to the first movie and it makes the scene more dramatic and freaky. Within the movie world, there's the fact it's a nightmare where things don't have to make sense... and the fact that, once Simba figured out from Scar's confession what had really happened, his imagination filled in what he didn't get to see. The fact this happened to be so close to reality is just "coincidence". Though note that, either due to the lower budget for TV animation or perhaps the animators not having full access to the original sequence, it actually isn't identical to Mufasa's last moments. This could, again, be chalked up to creative license or to Simba imagining what had happened without actually seeing it himself.
And another thing: Mufasa wasn't thrown off the cliff. He fell, caught himself, and then Scar dislodged his grip while he was hanging onto the ledge.
His kingship couldn't have been too pleasant at that point. Aside from the fact that the lionesses had pretty much withdrawn consent for his rule before Simba even got there and the hyenas were getting pretty hungry and angry as well, he had just revealed to all the lionesses that he had killed Mufasa, betrayed the hyenas to Simba, and the kingdom was literally burning down around him. Not to mention how old and weak he should have been at that point, compared to Simba. Even if he had killed Simba, he would have been devoured immediately afterward.
He had nowhere to go and nothing left to do, and that wretched youngster had just come and bereft him of everything he had and, worst of all, he reminded him of Mufasa!!! Also, perhaps, if he killed Simba, he could have claimed the throne again, this time by the club law.
Also: being reminded of the same words he'd said to Simba before would be making Scar feel he was being treated just as dismissively, being forced to cringe and cower, considered as inferior as a cub. All of that would enrage him to the point he'd have to lash out. Above all else Scar always cared about getting the respect he believed he deserved. What we see as delicious ironic justice, he would see as the ultimate in injustice—howdarehe be treated the same as he had treated Simba?
And judging by his shocked expression when the hyenas turned against him, he wasn´t aware of the fact that the hyenas heard him saying that they "were the enemy". He probably thought that after he killed Simba, he could have rose to power again by using his hyena army. He didn´t know that his Mooks were now against him as well.
How could Scar have hand-picked Kovu to be his heir when he (assumedly) wasn't born until after Scar had died?
During the confrontation after Kovu and Kiara meet, Zira says Kovu was hand-chosen by Scar AND the last kitten to be born before her group was banished. Now, this implies that they left after Scar was killed. Kovu is obviously the same age as Kiara, within a few months, since he's the same size and cats - lions - grow at a fairly different rate after the first few months, depending on gender. I'm guessing Simba took a few months to get the Pride Lands back to normal before he could focus on taking care of any possible treachery within the pride - this is assuming that at the end of the first movie, the Pride Lands going back to being green takes a few months after he becomes king, and the fade is just a time-skip shown in one shot. So, how could Scar have hand-picked Kovu to be his heir when he (assumedly) wasn't born until after Scar had died?
Scar could have said, 'The next cub who is born will be my heir' and Zira is exaggerating, or Zira could just be flat-out lying (to herself, even).
Alternatively, none of the disloyal lionesses gave birth after Simba took power. Kovu may have been born not long before Simba's return.
Maybe Nala and Simba really did Feel the Love that Night and Nala was already pregnant by the time they got back. Kovu could have either been just born or Zira was nearly due (in which case Scar had told her that this baby would be heir). Either one is a good reason why we didn't see her in the fight; in the former she couldn't risk leaving Kovu alone, in the latter she couldn't risk the baby getting hurt.
The directors' commentary actually does confirm that Simba and Nala were "feeling the love that night" during that scene. While it isn't confirmed she actually got pregnant their first time, the fact we see a cub at the end of the movie would seem to suggest she did. In which case, if Zira was indeed already pregnant when Simba returned to overthrow Scar, she and Nala would have had their cubs close together (Kovu being born first would explain why he was a little bigger and bulkier) and the passage of time would allow for the dry season to end, the herds to return, and the land to recover. In which case, Scar could indeed have said her next cub would be his heir before he died.
Why are TERMITES bothering Nuka? Shouldn't it be fleas?
Since he lives in a termite mound, they just happen to be crawling over him all the time.
Who was Kiara supposed to hook up with if she hadn't met Kovu?
Okay, so... There's no male cubs shown in the Pride Lands pride during the second movie. Ever. Not even in the background. So... who would ensure more cubs if Simba died?
Well, that was a lucky break then, wasn't it?
Well, another thing I just realized. There's no other cubs shown at all. It's no wonder she's so rebellious - she never really had any friends besides Timon and Pumbaa, who were more her babysitters than anything.
I always imagined matured male lions who weren't in line for the kingship would go off to find prides in this very situation. Or, if they were too old for the queen-to-be, they'd mate with one of the other lionesses and the first son to be produced would marry the queen.
Given how there's the relatively common theory that Nala was a "gift" from another pride, Simba could have gone and found a pride that had a lot of male cubs in it and arranged a marriage for Kiara.
Aside from sentience and the ability to talk with other species, most of the animals are not very anthropomorphized - except Rafiki.
He paints, carries a complex (by animal standards) tool, and has religious beliefs. They could probably have made Rafiki an actual human shaman, and it wouldn't have changed much.
Yes, it would. It would have spawned more questions. Such as: where are all the other humans? Where did he come from? How come he can talk with other animals(okay, shaman, I got it...)? And so forth... Also, putting a human in a furry movie would instinctively call forth the matter of Humans Are Bastards.
It's a movie about animals. While humans are technically animals, most people don't think of them that way. Also, Simba and Mufasa both have religious beliefs; they think the kings of their past live on and watch them and guide them from the stars (and if Musafa's cloud appearance is anything to go by, those beliefs are correct).
My theory on this is that the animals in Lion King have a specific boost of what they are compared to real life. If that was hard to understand, picture this: animal' intelligence is a number. let's have Monkeys be a 6, lions a 5, and antelope a 2. In Lion King, We'll add 3 to the intelligence. Monkeys, like Rafiki, become 9, which would be religious belief and whatnot. Lions would then be 8, which is talking, drama, an so on. Antelope become only 5, which is simple.
In short, Rafiki is smarter because Baboons are smarter than lions and hyenas and so on.
Do Nala's eyes change colors or was it a coloring mistake?
Minor irk, but I re-watched the original movie and Simba's Pride the other day out of boredom, and I noticed Nala had green eyes in the original but has blue eyes in Simba's Pride.
Definitely a mistake. Simba's Pride had some notable differences in coloring compared to the original — Timon, for example, looks like he's spent too much time in the sun and gotten an impressive tan after the original movie.
Simba's nose also changed color. In The Lion King it's orange, but in Simba's Pride it's turned purple-pink. I know that a lion SHOULD have a pinkish nose, but couple it with the gradient on his muzzle and it makes him look like he has a cold.
Much of the color palette of LK 2 is pinkish. Not a change of which this troper is fond.
Looking at some screenshots, Simba's nose is pink in the original film and a darker purple-pink in the sequel, which leads to some Fridge Brilliance as lions' noses in real life do get darker as they age. If Disney was going this consciously, Simba's nose would be close to black a few years down the line.
Even in the first movie, sometimes it looks like Nala's eyes are blue instead of green. Maybe it was just a mistake at first, but then the animators decided to just go with it for the second movie.
Just a bit of Fridge Logic regarding the wildebeest stampede.
The large number indicates that the area was experiencing the annual migrations, which, in real life, is pretty much party time for African predators. Why, then, did the hyenas listen to Scar's food promises when they could easily sneak off enough prey to keep them going for months?
Hyenas are stupid (in this film anyway) and probably didn't think about the plan longer than five seconds. They just heard "You'll never go hungry again" and were like "Awesome!!" Besides, weren't the hyenas being oppressed by the lions other than Scar?
Or that the hyenas were just lazy. After all we did see them receiving meat from Scar (which begs the question of where he got it from—is he a better hunter than we think, or did he make use of the male/ruler prerogative to take his dinner before the lionesses and cubs?). Maybe they became so dependent on Scar that they wouldn't hunt any more. Also, by the time they may have realized they should have snuck food from the migrating herds, those herds were already gone. Scar's promises would have made them wait if they believed the herds would come back—it's not like they had any more indication a drought was coming than anybody else. As for the other lions...I'm not so sure 'keeping hyenas out of their territory' and 'keeping them from taking their food' counts as oppression. There were surely other places the hyenas could go for food...and while it may be true the lions had taken the choicest lands and herds, if the hyenas fixated on that to the exclusion of all else simply because they couldn't have it, well...
The Pridelands, which are controlled by the lions, are the only fertile grasslands seen in the area. You have the elephant graveyard, which is devoid of any vegetation and a desert bordering the Pridelands, neither of which any herds would want to go to. Thus, the herds are only going to stay in the Pridelands. The hyenas are forbidden from the Pridelands and the mere sighting of one of them is enough to send Mufasa charging off, so hunting there was out of the question unless they wanted to get mauled by a lion out of sheer principle.
Why do people keep assuming that there is no territory outside of the pridelands? You can only see so far from Pride Rock and Mufasa can only defend so much territory. Simplest solution: hyenas find area outside of Mufasa's control or seize control of part of it with brute force. Mufasa can't control more territory than he can patrol in a day, so this should not be too hard for an army of hyenas to accomplish. I'm starting to think the hyenas had an overpopulation problem, along with not having enough leaders with common sense. Also hyenas and lions don't like each other in real life, so why should they play nice with each other?
What kind of freaky canyon is Be Prepared taking place in?
First it's glowing green like Half Life radiation or something, and then it turns red. The rocks rising and the fissures and such can be said for dramatic effect, and I guess the red light could be classified as that too. But what was the green stuff? That around a while before the song started. Are there places in Africa with geysers that shoot out streams of glowing, green water?
Well, think about it. Has any Disney Villain Song included special effects that are completely realistic? Besides, without all that, Scar's song wouldn't be as catchy and/or creepy.
Don't forget, it turns yellow in between being green and red. Though that looks like it could just have been fire...
C'mon guys! Scar was calling in a favor Dr. Facilier owed him!
The movie could be taking place along the African Rift Valley, which is seismically and volcanically active as a result of the African plate and the one beside it slowly moving apart. As for the green water, ya got me.
This Troper just realized something that's less an IJBM and more a I want to make sure I'm not crazy thing.
It appears that Scar doesn't live in/on Pride Rock in the first movie, even if he is in the Pridelands. Now, the only reason I can think of for this is that it helps keep any males besides the king away from any in-heat females. So, does it make sense to anyone else that, aside from the king and cubs, any male lions have to live away from Pride Rock itself to keep the lionesses from having anyone else's cubs? It would also explain why we never see any other male lions, too, somewhat. Also, just to clarify some points I just thought of. The king, as a ruler, has more control over his instincts than other males, which could explain his being allowed to share a cave with the lionesses. This could also help prevent anyone taking advantage if there's a queen but no king yet, as would've been Kiara's case if not for Kovu. I still think that the lions in The Lion King are monogamous, just that males outside the leadership have some control problems. This also possibly brings up Unfortunate Implications about Scar's actions during his time as king, when you consider some lines from the second movie, so try not to think about it too hard.
That...is a very interesting theory! And entirely possible. Although for the record, in a Fan Fic I originally intended to write but abandoned telling Scar and Mufasa's cubhood, I was going to say Mufasa banished Scar to the kopje where he lived after some nefarious doings. (One reason I nixed it was because I realized it didn't make sense—even if Scar had never done anything to make Mufasa think he'd actually resort to murder to get what he wanted, whatever nefarious things he did would make Mufasa not trust Scar—certainly not enough to let Simba visit him). A more plausible alternative is Scar chose to live on that kopje so as to not have his muzzle rubbed in Mufasa's kingship all the time. Out of sight, out of mind...
Scar was a loner, he 'wanted' to be alone. Also, I fail to see how much good Scar would be against a rogue lion, he's not exactly heavily built.
I thought it was badass... the hyenas sound scarier singing in chorus there than they do at any point during the final cut.
Because it'd mean a delay from when Mufasa dies to the lionesses accepting, and then rejecting Scar to the point he has to let the hyenas in. In between, you'd have the questions of why the lionesses let Scar take over without question and what the hyenas thought of Scar seemingly dropping their end of the deal. Badass as the song was, of course.
They'd have to accept him because he was the only male around. Hell, this could happen withing weeks or months, it doesn't have to be years afterwards.
That's not the full deleted scene. Here's the full version, along with an explanation for why it was cut. (anyone who's seen the stage musical should find this scene VERY familiar)
When Scar became king and took over the pride, why didn't he kill all of the cubs?
That's what male lions do when they take control of a pride, to ensure that all the children in the pride will be theirs and propagate their genes, but Scar clearly didn't do it because Nala is still alive years later.
He's got less of a compulsion to kill ALL of the cubs, since Mufasa was his brother, and all. Could also give credence to the idea that Nala was his daughter.
In addition, the males try to kill all the cubs, but the females don't go along with it. The mothers try to protect their cubs, regardless of who their father is, and the lions usually don't go looking to pick a fight with the lionesses unless they must, so they'll wait until mom is out getting dinner before trying to kill the cubs - this seems like it would absolutely be the case with Scar, who was more brains than brawn. It's possible that Nala just had the magic combination of being lucky, very good at hiding, and a mom who was very good at keeping her alive.
Scar didn't take over the Pride in the traditional way (if such a thing even applies to the Lion King prides). It's not unheard of in the wild for multiple (rarely more than 3) males to take control of a pride together which is clearly what happened with Scar and Mufasa because that's the only way there would be two males to begin with. The death of Mufasa improved his social standing by making him the sole male in the Pride but he had no motivation to kill cubs some of which were most likely his own.
In the end of the midquel, when Simba hugs Timon and Pumbaa after the fight with Scar, did he somehow have a huge bruise across the top of his nose showing through his fur?
I always thought it was shadow from the rocks above, or didn't notice, but it was really purple (far more than any other shadows there) and moved with him.
I do not know. Probably animation errors, since this wasn't in the original movie, so it couldn't have been a bruise from the fight.
Scar lets dozens of hyenas move into the Pride Lands after he takes power, but only three of them actually helped him in any way.
He didn't have a 'debt' to any of the others, and if he hadn't brought them along, most of the problems in his reign would never have happened.
I assume Shenzi was their leader, and the other two were her two bodyguards/goons/brothers who "go where she goes" so to speak. Scar gave all his plans to Shenzi, who related them to her pack, but whenever possible she liked to be the one doing the dirty work herself.
He needed the hyenas to keep the lionesses from protesting his rule, and to help him keep any roaming pride-less lions from taking his throne.
Seeing as Mufasa charged off into battle at the mere mention of "Hyenas have been sighted in the pride lands", it would seem that they had to stay low and out of sight. Having any more than three hyenas would get them noticed.
Male lions with darker fur and manes are healthier than golden colour lions (it takes alot to grow manes dark), but the dark furred Scar is supposed to be weaker than Mufasa. Huh?
Truth in Television. The lions of the Ngorongoro Crater are especially well-fed due to the abundance of water, vegetation and game, and practically all of the male lions have dark manes. In the rest of Africa, light-colored manes are much more common because the lions have to work harder and don't get as much food. Also, lionesses are drawn to lions with dark manes because they show that the male is fit and healthy and well-fed.
During the Hakuna Matata sequence, when the trio are diving into the lake, Timon leaves a bigger splash than Pumbaa does.
Pumbaa barely leaves one at all... That just doesn't make any sense. There's no way the large warthog wouldn't even ripple the water while the tiny meerkat does.
It's supposed to be absurd, it's a deliberate visual joke from the moviemakers: Pumbaa, despite his vast bulk and non-aerodynamic form, is such a graceful diver that he barely makes a splash at all.
I dunno...maybe Timon made too much of a splash, too...
When Simba said "Well when I'm king that'll be the first thing to go" and Zazu replies "Not so long as I'm around" What exactly did Zazu mean?
I mean when Simba is king he can get rid of that rule if he wants, why does Zazu make it sound like he can stop Simba?
It doesn't nesessary mean Zazu can stop him, just that he will keep trying to stop him "as long as he is around". So the only way to get rid of that rule is to get rid of Zazu as a king's adviser too.
The time period of the films.
Obviously they meant it to be ambiguous, as it could be anywhere from the dawn of time to present day, but was it ever revealed if the film was set in a certain time period?
Nope. Like you said, it was made so you could pick any period for it to be set.
Why didn't Scar just kill Nala before she went off into the jungle?
Why would he?
He would probably be suspicious of her and not want to take any risks.
Why be suspicious of her? There's no reason for Scar to think Simba's alive, or that she's randomly going to run into him while she's, you know, out hunting for food. Did you forget that's why she was out there, to find food since the Pride Lands were all but barren? Killing her would have made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Good point, but Scar wanted nobody to leave the Pride Lands.
He probably didn't even realize she'd gone off anywhere. Given the state of the Pride Lands, he may have just assumed that Nala was making an extra effort to find food, however long it took.
If you consider the cut sequence of "Be Prepared (reprise)" to be canon, Scar banished Nala from the Pridelands for refusing to be his queen. This did not go over very well with the pride. Killing her would have probably reduced his lifespan to the next thirty seconds. In the musical, something similar happens, but Nala just decides to leave rather than being forced to (by Scar, anyway). Even if you just stick to the film itself, Scar not bothering with Nala is not so surprising. He seems to barely keep track of the situation in the kingdom, as shown by its multiple problems. If the hyenas didn't report her missing it is doubtful Scar would have known Nala ever left. The hyenas themselves would not have been very enthusiastic about hindering Nala's departure, even if there were a standing order to stop any and all attempts to leave the Pridelands. A small pack could probably subdue or even kill Nala, but she would probably take at least one or two of them with her. No one wants to be the one that dies, hence they'd leave just creatively reinterpret their orders, just like Banzai, Shenzi, and Ed did when pursuing Simba.
Why do the zebras and other prey animals bow down to and apparently revere the lions when it's made clear that the royal family regularly kills and eats them?
It had to be asked.
Lions are probably seen by the other animals as guardians of the Cycle of Life, and therefore they are respected by all other animals. Also, keep in mind that zebras, wildebeest etc are actually quite calm around lions whenever these aren't hunting.
Where did the Hyenas go?
It's vaguely mentioned that they ran away after Scars fall from power, but where did they go? Presumably such a massive population cant just dissapear into the wilderness.
Maybe they dispersed into smaller groups? Hyena clans often do that.
During the battle from pride rock, a large group is seen fleeing so those are the Hyenas that ran off. Bunzai, Sheenzi, and Ed however perished in the fire with the ones that remained after killing Scar. Come on, you don't honestly think Disney would allow them too live after being instrumental in Mufasa's death and oh I don't know....EATING HIS CORPSE AFTERWARDS?
They ate Mufasa's corpse?
Mix-ups aside (since, well, they did eat SCAR), they probably DID consume Mufasa's remains after Banzai recovered from his tumble into the bramble patch. That's a perfectly good dead lion laying RIGHT THERE. The hyenas, gluttons such as they are, aren't gonna let that go to waste. That's an awesome snack after a job well done, and Scar most likely deemed it a suitable reward (both to let the hyenas feast, and to watch them eat his dead brother. He seems like the sort of sick son of a bitch).
The trio did not perish.
It's unlikely the hyenas were killed in the fire given that it started raining only moments afterward and the fires were extinguished very quickly. Sure they might have gotten singed a bit, but there's no evidence that they all died. And yes, Disney commonly does allow the lesser villains to live.
The hyenas most likely left the Pride Lands for good in search of new territory. They probably realized things weren't going to get any better for them staying there, and also they feared the lions might retaliate against them some time in the future.
Hyenas are an aberration from the Circle of Life?
I just rewatched this movie today, and find it kind of odd that Mufasa has achieved a perfect order of harmony in the universe by simply kicking out all hyenas. Is there simply nothing that eats them, or nothing to provide to nature in the generational cycle? Obviously, Scar brought too many in and set no limits to hunting, but the effect of changing a habitat that dramatically isn't exclusive to hyenas, either.
I think there may be a simple explanation; the seemingly endless and magnificent Pridelands may actually be a limited fertile territory in the middle of a nasty desert; kind of like an oasis in the middle of a wasteland. That could explain why Mufasa and the lions are so determined to keep the hyenas away and why the delicate balance of this limited land is disrupted when the hyenas (who are much more numerous than the lions) are allowed into it. We tend to think of the Pridelands as an infinite place but, what if it's in the middle of the Kalahari or something like that?
You know the story takes place in Africa, right? They are African, not American nor British. Presumably they all speak Swahili, while using Englsh here is a Translation Convention.
Fine, then, why does Scar speak in a southern Swahili accent when everyone else has a northern one?
He studied abroad.
Maybe he picked up his father's accent while Mufasa picked up his mother's accent. Lions from different prides coupling to produce cubs and whatnot. Failing that, Scar's a bit prissy. You give the prissy ones the more stuffy-sounding accents.
Why do Simba's parents sound black but Simba sounds white?
Maybe Scar picked it up from Zazu.
When Scar was hurled off the cliff and the hyenas started to circle him, why didn't he attempt to run away?
He probably could if he tried, so why not?
Because he was likely too injured to make it vey far. The cliff he fell from wasn't exactly small so it wouldn't be completely unreasonable that he had some kind of injury by the time he hit the bottom. A little earlier, when he was fleeing from Simba, he looked down and saw the drop. That cliff looked to be about 20ft or maybe slightly less. Plus, when he fell, he was clearly shown bouncing off the rocks as he went which definitely helped him survive a fall from that kind of height but it would have left more than a bruise. Scar would have probably fractured something, if not outright broke a bone, but he was probably able to still get up because of the adrenaline that was no doubt coursing through his body.
In the unused concept for the first movie, how was Mufasa supposed to die? In a flood or stampede?
I've read how Mufasa was supposed to save Mheetu and Simba from a wildebeest stampede but I've also read that Mufasa was supposed to save Simba from a flood.
Also about Mheetu but how could Nala's mother have two cubs so close in age?
Why does it matter if he was cut from the movie?
Twins. Simple as that.
Mheetu is noticeably younger than Nala though. Not "newborn" young but still smaller; if Nala was a nine year old human than Mheetu seems more like four or six.
Lionesses normally have more than one cub at a time. Whether more than one survives to adulthood, however, is another story.
But Mheetu is obviously her far younger brother.
Maybe it was cut for that reason, but then again, lionesses have more than one cub at a time. Where are Simba and Kiara's fraternal twins then? The Lion King biology doesn't always make sense.
I think you mean "lionesses (normally) have more than one cub". As already said above, especially in Kiara's case with her being visibly older than her father was at his presentation, cubs other than the ones we see may have died offscreen. Life is not exactly the safest out on the savannah.
When do the stories take place?
I've seen a lot of people say it takes place early in human history but I always thought it was set in modern times.
Is there any indication one way or another?
It's left up to the individuals to decide when it was set. If you want it to be set either thousands of years ago, or just a month ago, that's up to you.
Just how freaking big is that herd??!
If you look carefully, the stampede lasts for about 4 minutes. These wildebeest look like they're doing 20, maybe 30 miles per hour.that would imply the herd is anywhere from 5 miles to 10 miles long!
Maybe they're "really" going at a different speed, or... the herd is just that big. Given how it took Mufasa and Scar at least several minutes to get there, after the stampede had already been going on for a few minutes, and we still see plenty of wildebeest, I'm inclined to say, yes, the herd really is that big.
The stampede only lasts for 3 minutes. I did some inspection, and there seems to be about 25 wildebeest per row, and 4 rows pass the screen every second. So 100 wildebeest per second, and the whole scene is 180 seconds, so... 18,000 wildebeest. According to here, an nomadic wildebeest herd can reach up to a thousand. Maybe they were Occupying that day.
In the sequel, did Vitani really expect Kovu to attack Simba right on the Pride Rock, in front of the cave where all the dozens of his pride's lionesses were?
I guess she would if Kovu was trained to the point he could have just jumped and snapped Simba's neck in a second before the lionesses would even have known, but judging by how ridiculously easy he got defeated when trying to defend Simba from Zira's pride, it doesn't sound very likely.
Even if he could have killed Simba instantly, which is unlikely no matter how skilled he is, Kovu would have almost no prayer of getting away alive. As Zira's plan, as far as I understood it, involved Kovu becoming king after a successful assassination, doing something suicidal would put Zira's followers in a very precarious position. Nuka, the only adult male in the group, besides Kovu, that we know of is not exactly a model lion. He'd be an easy kill for a rogue. Should Zira and her followers drive off the rogue or kill him, they would then be without a king, more or less dooming the pride. In short, Vitani was not thinking very clearly at all.
Never found the body??
According to Scar, both Mufasa and Simba died in the stampede. Ok, Mufasa is there, but where is Simba's body? Why is none of the lionesses, including his mother questioning that?
In the sequel, how could Simba think that Kovu set him up for an ambush? They were at a place that Simba led them to, having a talk that Simba instigated. Kovu hadn't planned on being alone with him at all.
Simple, Simba's paranoid. Think about it, he's alone in the wilds with a younger and probably fitter lion who he knows has been trained practically from birth to assassinate him and take his place then suddenly, from out of nowhere, they're surrounded by this lion's pride who are out for his blood because he banished them for supporting his tyrant of an uncle. It wouldn't be that difficult for Simba to jump to the conclusion that Kovu could have sent word to a pride member of his progress within the pride and had arranged for the rest of the pride to be on standby should he ever corner Simba alone. I mean, Kovu is shown to sleep outside alone while the rest of the pride are sleeping soundly inside the cave, it wouldn't have been that difficult for him to sneak off in the middle of the night, meet Vitani or another lioness, update them of his progress and tell them to have the pride waiting then sneak back to Priderock before the sun rose and everyone woke up again.
Zazu didn't tell anyone about what Scar did to him
Didn't Zazu think it'd be a good idea to tell all the lionesses that Scar had knocked him unconscious during the whole thing, specifically when he said he was going to go and get help?
You're assuming he knows Scar was the one to do it. In the scene in question he is turned away, panicking and prepared to fly off, when Scar's paw comes from behind him to strike him. He probably had no way of knowing what hit him, he may have thought it was a rock thrown up by the stampede, or that he ran into a branch or something.
How come only Simba and Nala aged?
Simba and Nala grew into full adults rather quickly, but no one else even gets as much as a gray hair.
I don't know about you, but I thought Sarabi looked older the last time we saw her.
I assume it's only been a few years and they're around the human equivalent of nineteen or twentyy year olds. Adults age slower than kids so if Sarabi was in her mud twenties when Simba was a cub she could easily still look young when he returns. I'm more concerned why Timon, a meerkat, doesn't age when wild meerkats rarely live past 7.
Actually, The Other Wiki says meerkats reach 12-14 on average. For those wondering, that's the same lifespan as lions. Also, aging is not very noticeable after a lion reaches three or four years old, and gray hairs aren't really noticeable/prominent in them as they age, so it makes sense that Simba and Nala are the only ones who look like they've aged.
How would Simba having two cubs work out?
According to sources Simba was to have two cubs in the sequel but one, the male, was scrapped. Lions typically have multiple cubs, yes, but we only see one cub at the end of the movie and Nala didn't seem to be in labor. I'm not an expert on how lions reproduce but I don't think they could have two young cubs. Was Chaka a "teenager"?
You'd be thinking wrong, then. Lions usually have more than one cub in a litter,from two to four cubs (assuming I remember the range correctly).
The OP's point wasn't whether lions were able to have more than one cub at a time, but that if there were more than one cub in the litter, we should have seen more than the single cub presented at the end of the movie, and one born later would not have been the same age. But there's a simple answer: the male cub was the only one presented because males usually inherit the throne. It was only when he died/got killed that Kiara was made the heir and presented at the start of the second movie; before that she was off to the side in the den.
Well, the cub we see at the end of the first film is not the same as the cub we see at the beginning of the second. The first is generally assumed to be Kopa, Nala and Simba's son, who was supposed to be killed by Zira. The death of her first cub would presumably have brought Nala into season again, resulting in Kiara.
From the concept art I've seen Naka and Kiara were the same age. I'm guessing they'd do a retcon where Nala has two cubs or make Nala still in labor. I'm guessing instead of the "It's a girl" joke they'd pull a "There were two cubs" joke.
How long was it between the Be Prepared scene and the stampede?
I mean, planning something as large as that stampede would have taken a very long time. The herd had to be in the right place at the right time and Scar also had to be able to lure Simba away from Priderock without arousing the suspicion of either Mufasa or the rest of pride. On top of that, he had to make sure that no one followed him and Simba down to the grove so there could be the possibility that they either took an alternate route than the one he and Mufasa later took to rescue Simba or he had to carefully watch Mufasa's patrols of the kingdom to make sure that there was no chance that he may run into Mufasa on the way to the gorge, he could have gotten the hyenas to do it but it still would have taken time. However, the movie implies that the stampede happened the very next day which wouldn't make sense because of all the aforementioned planning. Or am I reading far too much into this?
The stampede does not require that much planning, really. All he has to do is get the hyenas to make the herd go where he wants it to go. Since he apparantly knew that the wildebeest herd was close enough to be funneled into the gorge, the only planning required was getting the hyenas and Simba where they were needed for the plan to work. The part with the hyenas is easy. All they have to do is avoid Mufasa. Simba is a bit harder since Scar has to have a reason to give Simba to go to the gorge. However, none of the lionesses were suspicious of him, even after the stampede. Even Mufasa trusted him. Simba probably never mentioned Scar's involvement, though from Simba's point of view it was minimal. The cub's description of his and Scar's 'little secret' would have sounded like Scar simply slipped up and gave Simba the wrong idea. We, the audience, are the only ones that see Scar as he really is at that point. Saying Scar is plotting regicide and fratricide would not be comprehendable to the pride. When the lionesses do find out, they are shocked and incredibly angry, suggesting that such a crime was unthinkable to them until they were faced with it. In short, you're overthinking it. If it helps, just imagine that there is a one to two day gap between the elephant graveyard incident and the stampede. That gives plenty of time for a short grounding for Simba and for things to cool down.
Why does Zira assume that Kovu will be king just because he marries Kiara?
Why would Kovu inherit Simba's throne? He's not a direct relative, he's got no right to succeed Simba, Kiara does. Wouldn't Kovu be styled Prince Kovu while Kiara is styled Queen Kiara?
Using the British royal family here, since that's the one I'm most familiar with and because it's the best parallel to this situation. There's a reason that Prince Philip is not king- because he would outrank the Queen, who is the successor to her father's throne, much like Kiara should be to Simba's.
The plan actually wasn't for Kovu to marry Kiara, but rather to get close to her and, at the same time, to get close to Simba and gaining his trust, so he could have a chance of being alone with Simba and kill him. Kovu would probably become the next king because of him killing the former one, like in real life.
A translation for the Swahili singing?
Just wondering if there's a site or anything anywhere that says what the Swahili choir is singing in certain scenes. I know it says what the chant at the very beginning means at the main site here, but what about when Simba finds his dead father? When listening to that score, I swear I hear the choir singing "...Mufasa..." in the middle of it. Or the famous scene when Simba is running through the desert back to the Pride Lands, you obviously hear words being sung, including "Simba" which (probably common knowledge here) is Swahili for "lion." Any such site or article with the translation exists?
There are at least partial translations to be found at the Lion King Archive. There's a link on the fanfic recommendations page for it. I think most of the non-English lyrics are in Zulu rather than Swahili, though.
What are they looking at?!
Here's a random one: At the end of "We Are One" in Simba's Pride, Kiara has a really intense stare at... something. Simba notices, follows her gaze, and has an expression that's all, "Oh. Heh." But no matter how many times I've looked for anything up there at the edge of Pride Rock, I see absolutely nothing. What caught her attention, and if it's nothing, why in the WORLD did they animate it that way?
This is just guesswork, but they were looking up at Pride Rock itself. The whole song is about how Kiara and Simba are one because of their relation, thus their royalty, but Kiara is rebellious against ruling the pride Lands when Simba dies because in her words prior to the song, she doesn't even want to be Queen because it's not fun. Simba was looking up at Pride Rock, and she looked upset because it was all set in stone according to him. I honestly think that 'Oh. Heh.' expression was because he understood what she looked upset about and tried to reassure her that it was who she was positively (which she doesn't really want since she told Timon and Pumbaa, quite annoyed, that a princess was only half of who she was and can't think of an answer when asked what's the other half). Again, just guessing but I saw the movie recently for a bit of nostalgia and wondered that myself.
The above has it more or less right. Remember, Kiara at this point is characterized somewhat by a fear of bowing to destiny and losing her own individuality in the process. While Simba is trying to reassure her, she sees his face in profile with Pride Rock looming large behind him. Remember that Pride Rock is much more than just the lions' home. It's a symbol, like a palace or a throne, or even the White House. Kind of an oppressive reminder of what fate had in store for her down the road. Simba sees her looking rather distressed at something, turns, sees Pride Rock and, with surprising insight, gleans what she saw and tries to reassure her again, even if he probably chose the exact wrong thing to say.
Why didn't Mufasa's spirit tell Simba that Scar was the one responsible for his death?
When Mufasa's spirit appears to Simba, he tells him that he must return and take his place in the Circle of Life. But while he had his son's attention, why didn't he just say, "Oh by the way, Scar killed me, not you"? I'm assuming it was something Simba needed to learn on his own for the sake of Character Development.
Probably to keep it ambiguous whether or not Mufasa was actually talking to him (as opposed to just representing Simba's inner monologue).
That and Character Development. Simba had to learn how to be an adult on his own, not have Ghost!Mufasa guide him by the paw.
Kopa and Vitani
This is a fanon thing, obviously. I don't get how Kopa and Vitani could have been the same age. I can accept Nuka and Kopa but not Vitani. She seems too young come her first appearance, once Kiara is born.
Well, you could chalk appearances up to being malnourished. I've never heard this fan theory before. Most of the ones I've heard of involved Kopa and Kiara being twins. In that case Vitani should be older than Kopa.