Lion King and Kimba controversy

... Seriously? That incredibly trivial.

Does that really matter? Does that affect the story in anyway? It's a cartoon, it's exaggerate the expression King of the Jungle. They have animals act like the personalty of humans, that is not a story flaw.

As I said, it's a cartoon, personification. This is a BIG case of looking into something that really doesn't matter to the film.

And before anyone accuse me of Animation Age Ghetto. Keep in mind animation is suppose to be fantasy, not some realistic take on real life. It doesn't make sense to criticize animation for being unrealistic. You you might as well criticize it for animals that talk and sing, or speaking English, if your going to criticize it fantasy take on the jungle. :/

edited 3rd Jul '14 1:42:39 PM by AfroWarrior27

The function of a lion king seems pretty clear in the movies, actually. They coordinate the hunting pack of the lioness (as seen by Scar's interaction with Sarabi late in the first movie), protect the Pride from external threats (namely, the Hyenas) and serve as a sort of judge and jury to any "crimes" that may occur (such as Kovu's "betrayal" in the second movie. Notice he is sentenced to exile by Simba's command alone).

It's essentially simplified form of the early monarchs of Dark Age Europe.

Seconding and the first part of . And what do you actually want? A scene of Simba or Mufasa doing administrative work? The thing about "show don't tell" when you only have a limited amount of time to tell your story is that you have to prioritize what you need to show and what you have to just tell. Kimba actually have such scenes, but 1) Kimba had more time, and 2) Kimba would lead into Kimba's time as ruler and thus had a reason to have such scenes. The Lion King start with Mufasa loosing the throne and ends with Simba getting it, there was no reason to show it and no good place to fit it in.

edited 3rd Jul '14 9:32:23 PM by painocus

How about the scene where Mufasa receives intelligence from Zazu? Granted, it was mostly an excuse to make a bunch of animal puns, but it still served the desired function of showing him doing his job as king. It even got turned into a song in the Broadway version, which was imported back into re-releases of the movie.

Can we complain about the lack of Kingly things done in other Disney movies.

King Stefan orders spinning wheels to be destroyed and the Sultan amends his own law.

That's about it.

No, no, that's not true. King Stefan disfigured an innocent fairy and tried to wage war against the magical realm.

edited 5th Jul '14 5:53:57 AM by maxwellelvis

Stop speaking nonsense, good man!.

Though in that regard, you could say Frozen features a surprising number of kingly (well, Queenly) stuff (Elsa's coronation, the negotiation of trade with the Duke, the plotting of the main villain, and so forth)

I thought this was based on a Mali legend of Sundiata, which translates directly to 'the Lion King'? We even read it in elementary school. It was pretty similar

edited 14th Jul '14 9:49:31 AM by Xopher001

Sorry to revive a dead thread, but I thought I'd share this recent video, that should hopefully put this whole thing to rest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1mIfQuo4

I brought up that video in the main Disney thread.

No, The Lion King is based on Hamlet (Evil uncle kills father, prince goes into exile before coming back to reclaim the throne). The only difference in plot is that it has a happy ending.

Pretty much every Lion King film is that, Simba's Pride is Romeo and Juliet while 1 1/2 is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.

The Lion King is no more similar to Hamlet than it is to Kimba. For one, the apparition of Hamlet's father's ghost is the very first scene, whereas Mufasa appears only in the last third; the bulk of the plot is a game of wits, where Hamlet is trying to figure out whether the ghost told the truth, and Claudius is trying to find out whether Hamlet knows about him murdering the previous king, which is nowere in The Lion King; Hamlet doesn't go to exile out of guilt, but because Claudius sends him away, fearing that Hamlet will kill him; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren't supportive father figures but treacherous false friends working for Claudius (and get their comeuppance for it), and so forth.

The themes and the beats of the two stories are completely different, the only common things being a king getting murdered by his brother, then the king's ghost appearing to the king's son.

But the creators say many times that this movie is based partially on Hamlet.

I just remember the Simpsons joke about this.

A king is murdered by his brother, who takes the throne instead of the king's son. The prince waffles and avoids taking his rightful throne from his uncle, until prompted by the ghost of his father and given encouragement by his old friend. Meanwhile, two goofier comic relief friends take him somewhere far away until he decides to go back, take his throne, and avenge his dad.

It has a happier ending, sure, but that's hardly unique for Disney.

There is a difference between Based On and Inspired By. Hamlet is almost a three hour soliloquy by Hamlet himself debating on taking revenge for his father's murder. It isn't until the climax that the other characters fully realize what he is planning. The Lion King is a child who blames himself for his father's death and lives in exile for years before deciding to confront his past. The murdered king, treacherous uncle and vision of his father are about the only things that line up with Hamlet, and none of which are in the same order of events.

Can't remember where I read this, but during production, the film was nicknamed "Bamlet" (combination of "Bambi" and "Hamlet").

I think that was just a joke by somebody in the production team.

I watched now the whole two-hour video by YMS. First of all, I admire the guy for reading and watching every single Kimba property (over 100 hours of anime) that he did not seem to particularly enjoy, to see how similar it is to The Lion King. And yes, by the end of the video, we learn that the two are very different in themes, and the few similarities there are mostly are visual (with the most similar shots coming from a Kimba movie released three years after The Lion King, or are taken wildly out of context) or boil down to the fact that there are only so many situations you can use when making a movie about lions in Africa.

I'm reminded of the plagiarism rant from Roger Meyers Jr. on The Simpsons.

Glad to see that this video is making more rounds and finally putting the kibosh on this whole stupid thing.

Que furious rebuttal videos..

But he went so in-depth on every conceivable detail that it'd be impossible to make a rebuttal.

The only thing he does not bring up is that how greatly Disney works typically deviate from the work they are adapting. Disney's Frozen, The Jungle Book or Pinocchio provide an entirely different experience than The Snow Queen, Kipling's The Jungle Book or The Adventures of Pinocchio.

So, technically, if Disney decided to adapt Kimba into their own version, it is entirely possible that the end result would be something similar to The Lion King, with the characters' personalities getting greatly altered, the protagonist getting a Hamlet-inspired story arc not present in the original work, and a lot of the padding and the creepier elements (such as him carrying his father's corpse around) getting cut. However, there is no evidence that Disney, at any point, intended to adapt Kimba.

> But he went so in-depth on every conceivable detail that it'd be impossible to make a rebuttal.

challenge accepted!