Lion King and Kimba controversy

Well to shed some light on that perspective, I think it would sort of undermine your efforts if all anyone did was compare your work to someone else's(regardless of whether it's praise or criticism). It'd be like saying "your work saying your work is good because it's like another studio's work rather than your own".

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things

I know this topic is 2 years old, but since these things stay here forever I thought I should clear up some misunderstandings.

He was kind-of busy being dead. He died in '89 (in the middle of the production of his own Kimba remake no less) and The Lion King came out in 1994.

Save for shifting focusing unto the main character's kid (which many Disney sequels did anyways) and Zira having a few, small similarities with one-off minor Kimba villain Bella Dona (who pretended to be Kimba's aunt) there isn't really any similarities between the second film and Kimba, apart from those that were left behind from the first film.

No. Kimba saw a vision of his mother in the stars, while his son, Rune, saw a vision of him in the clouds. Simba, if anything, is more of a mix between Kimba and Rune, having mostly the former's plot and the latter's personality and character development. (The Simpsons joke still messed-up though.)

Actually this controversy does not bug me as much as "Disney hates Jews".

Still, TLK is my favorite animated movie. Just about everything about it is perfect to me.

You know, I have to wonder why Pit is obsessed with this site. It’s gonna ruin his life!

Disney hates Jews is evidently a urban myth though, this one actually has basis in reality.

"All you Fascists bound to lose."

There have been a lot of stories about lions being the kings of the jungle beforehand, and you'll always find similiar motives in older stories. You can just as well accuse "Kimba" of being "The Jungle Book" in reverse (instead of a human having to deal with the difference between jungle and civilisation after being raised by animals, you now have a lion who tries to fit into the wilderness again after having lived with humans for to long). The one good argument is that there is a similiar rock in the anime, but again, someone standing on a rock is not exactly a new thing either.

My opinion is only based on the Wikipedia article covering the controversy, but I don't think there are significant similarities between the two works. There's one location (Pride Rock) that looks the same, but the plot of Kimba has nothing in common with the plot of The Lion King. Here's the plot summary of Kimba, from Wikipedia:

In Africa during the mid-20th century, as mankind encroaches, the white lion Panja gives the jungle's wild animals a safe haven. However, he angers nearby villagers by stealing their cattle and their food to feed the jungle carnivores. (In the English dub Panja merely frees the cattle.) A professional hunter, Viper Snakely (known as Ham And Scrambled Egg in the original Japanese), is called in to stop these raids. He avoids directly attacking Panja. Instead, he records the sounds of Panja and uses them to trap his mate, Eliza, who then becomes bait in a trap for Panja. Panja is killed for his hide, and the pregnant Eliza is put on a ship, destined for a zoo.

Leo (Kimba in the English dub) is born on the boat. Eliza teaches him his father's ideals. As a huge tropical storm nears, she urges her cub out through the bars of her cage. The storm wrecks the boat, and he flounders in the ocean. The fish help him learn to swim. As he begins to despair, the stars in the sky form the face of his mother, who encourages him. Guided by butterflies, he makes it to land. Leo lands far from his ancestral home and is found and cared for by some people. He learns the advantages of human culture, and decides that when he returns to his wild home he will bring culture to the jungle and stand for peace like his father.

The show follows Leo's life after he returns to the wild, still a young cub, and how he learns and grows in the next year. Leo soon learns that only communication and mutual understanding between animals and humans will bring true peace.

The closest similarities are that the mentor character is a monkey, one of the villains is a lion with a scar (not a relative of Kimba), and there are comic relief villainous hyenas. That doesn't seem like enough to claim that the movie is ripping it off.

That doesn't mean The Lion King couldn't have originally been intended as an adaptation of Kimba - Frozen was originally intended as an adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Snow Queen", and the only thing those two works have in common is "both contain a queen who is associated with snow". But if it was, it changed so much over the course of making the movie (like Frozen did) that neither The Lion King or Disney owe anything to Kimba.

Anyways, after learning more about Kimba, I cannot support this conspiracy theory anymore. All great artist borrow ideas and concepts. I mean, Stephen King got most his ideas from RL (the basic starting points).

No, the writers for Lyon King cannot be blamed for "stealing the story" from anywhere. A better exercise would be trying to explain the problems with the story, and there are many.

edited 29th Jun '14 1:42:24 PM by KlarkKentThe3rd

Such as?

I have not completely seen any of the anime series (although I have seen a few episodes from all of them) so I can only speak from my experience with the manga, but let's look at Kimba's two main villains:

Viper/Hamegg:

• smug and flamboyant
• ex-Nazi
• killed Kimba’s father
• sent Kimba himself into exile
• was defeated and speared by Kimba just to end up mauled to death by another villain (Claw).

Claw/Bubu:

• dark-furred and black-maned lion (in a story where all the other lions have lighter fur)
• has a scar over his left eye
• usurped Kimba’s kingdom while he was in exile
• tyrant
• has a group of Hyena comic-relief henchmen (only in the anime though)
• was ultimately defeated by Kimba who thus regained his throne

Now let's compare to The Lion King's Scar:

• smug and flamboyant
• vaguely Nazi-ish
• dark-furred and black-maned lion (in a story where all the other lions have lighter fur)
• has a scar over his left eye
• killed Simba’s father
• sent Simba himself into exile
• usurped Simba’s kingdom while he was in exile
• tyrant
• has a group of Hyena comic-relief henchmen
• was ultimately defeated by Simba who thus regained his throne
• was speared by Simba just to end up mauled to death by another villain (his own Hyenas)

The only quality Scar has that these two don't is being Simba's uncle (although a Kimba anime villain was pretending to be his aunt to betray him and take over the throne in one episode, she also did the "holding someone by the paws over a cliff" thing). And the only quality these two has that Scar don't is Viper being a human and having different motivations and backstory (he is being blackmailed by a victim from a concentration camp he worked on, I'm pretty sure this was removed from the anime however) neither of which would be compatible with Claw anyways and thus would have to be removed when creating a Composite Character of them.

This could just be a big coincident, but when mixed with all the other similarities I'm really starting to doubt it. The Lion King is more similar to Kimba than Disney's Jungle Book is to Kipling's Mowgli stories for example (or The Lion King is to Hamlet for that matter).

edited 1st Jul '14 12:40:20 PM by painocus

More or less all Disney villains are smug and flamboyant...that's practically the job description. The use of dark colours in order to underline their inner darkness is also a run-of-the-mill design. It is also typical for Disney that the hero never directly kills the villain. He always dies because of his own stupid actions (if he dies at all).

Okay, I admit, it was a long time ago that I last saw Kimba, but wasn't it so that he was born in captivity? Nobody send him into exile, at least not directly.

I've seen the first episode; he was born into captivity.

"They say I'm old fashioned, and live in the past, but sometimes I think progress progresses too fast."

Hamegg sent his mother away while he knew that she was pregnant. I count that.

It's more a combination of all those design elements than just being darker furred.

Wasn't Scar the villain who started the "smug and flamboyant" Disney villain archetype? I'm not entirely certain what order the Disney films come out in, so I'll have to check to be sure.

Edit: There was Hook and Shere Kahn, and maybe Prince John, Ratigan and Jafar if we stretch it a bit. So there are some, but it is not really the standard (at least yet).

edited 1st Jul '14 2:38:27 PM by painocus

I'd say Captain Hook was the first actual flamboyant and hammy Disney villain. Before him, most Disney big screen villains were really played very seriously and aiming more for scares.

You're forgetting Cruella De Vil, who probably codified more modern Disney villain traits than Hook, and certainly more than Prince John. Ursula and Gaston also had several qualities of that archetype.

edited 1st Jul '14 2:38:25 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

I dunno. Cruella, Ursula and Gaston just doesn't come off as the same combination of smug and flamboyant as Hamegg or Scar to me. Maybe I'm just spiting hairs, but again it is a combination of all those elements I listed rather than just one or two of them.

Edit: For reference, Claw looks like this: [1]◊ (From the late-80's/early-90's anime. In the manga and earlier anime his mane was pitch-black and he was (sometimes) a bit leaner looking, but I didn't find any good images.)

edited 1st Jul '14 3:23:35 PM by painocus

The flamboyant villain archetype was introduced with the Queen of Hearts and modified with Rattigan - we are just less aware of that because Rattigan was the first "serious Villain" with a proper villain song, which then became popular with Ursula. But for the Disney Renaissance, Scar is very much in style. Gaston for example is also a prancing around constantly.

And the point is that they relationship between Heamag and Kimba is very different from the one between Scar and Simba. The latter is more personal.

edited 1st Jul '14 3:35:59 PM by swanpride

Apart from being in a pseudo-Victorian dress I don't remember her being particularly flamboyant. It's been a while since I've seen Disney's Alice however (since I didn't like it much) and I have only seen the Norwegian dub. And I think she was more arrogant than smug.

Kimba and Hamegg wasn't personal? Kimba almost murdered him in rage-fueled revenge before having a moral breakdown.

edited 1st Jul '14 3:42:20 PM by painocus

You mean prancing around, with her staff in the hand and alternating between being "friendly" and screaming to cut off heads while enjoying to "win" in a silly game is not flamboyant?

In the end, you could perhaps find parallels between Kimba and more or less every story about a kingly lion. Doesn't change the fact that thematically Lion King and Kimba are totally different. Like I said, Kimba has more parallels to Jungle Book than Lion King has to Kimba.

Apart from prancing (which you kind of have to do if you are in that kind-of dress) I don't find any of that particularly flamboyant.

The Jungle Books (well the Mowgli parts the Jungle Books) having more similarities with Kimba than Kimba has with the Lion King? Are you joking? The only similarity with the Jungle Book are that both have a protagonist raised by a different spices, being set in a jungle and having a tyrannical, big cat as antagonist. The character similarities I've mentioned with Hamegg/Claw/Scar alone is more than that.

(Edit: And if you are talking about Disney's Jungle Book that came out after Kimba.)

edited 1st Jul '14 4:12:27 PM by painocus

How are we defining "flamboyant" here? In its most general meaning of "showy and ostentatious," it goes right back to Queen Grimhilde, with her swirling cape and peacock throne and extreme facial expressions. She was both dignified and flamboyant.

Similar to the way Scar and Hamegg is I guess, which I don't really consider Grimhilde to be, at-least not personality-wise. But again, this is devolving into hair-splinting about what is and isn't flamboyant/smug or different types of such. It was only one of my points, and as a whole I think the list stands as suspiciously similar even if there are alternative explanations for some parts of it. (If you guy's want to debate further Dinsey's history of flamboyant villains be my guest, but it is getting dangerously close to off-topic.)

Now let's take a look at Kimba's plot up to him taking back his throne, shall we?

Panja, the lion Jungle Emperor, and his wife is awaiting a son. Villain Ham Egg kills Panja and sends his wife and unborn son away. The mother dies, but saves her son, Kimba, in her last minutes. As he escapes he sees an apparition of his mother in the sky. He ends up in a human city, but is saved and taken in by the Fat and Skinny duo of Kenichi and his uncle. Years later (I think, the exact passage of time is a bit vague) he travels back to the Jungle with Kenichi. There he meet his Love Interest and realizes that Claw had taken over the jungle in his absence (with his hyena henchmen in the anime). Kimba tries to take revenge on Hamegg, but can't bring himself to kill him. Hamegg is however instantaneously killed off by Claw. Kimba decides instead to take back his throne by defeating Claw (who dies as a result in the manga, but keeps living in the anime).

Now let's look at The Lion King:

Mufasa, the Lion King of the savannah, and his wife is having a son, Simba. Villain Scar kills Mufasa, while he is trying to save his son, and sends said son away. He escapes and ends up in a jungle, but is saved and taken in by the Fat and Skinny duo of Timon and Pumbaa. Years later he travels back to the Jungle with Timon and Pumbaa, after meeting his Love Interest, realizing that Scar had taken over the savannah in his absence with his hyena henchmen and talking to an apparition of his father in the sky. Simba decides instead to take back his throne and tries to take revenge on Scar, but can't bring himself to kill him. Scar is however instantaneously killed off by his own hyenas.

Mix into this Rune's (Kimba's son from later in the manga) story-arc of being a Bratty Half-Pint, escaping the Jungle in shame, returning to the Jungle after his father dies and deciding to grow up and take his responsibility after seeing an apparition of his father in the clouds. And you pretty much have the Lion King. And this is even without comparing similar supporting characters (Coco and Zazu, mandrills-incorrectly-labeled-as-baboons Dan'l and Rafiki, etc.) and similar design decisions (having black tips on the lion's ears, Simba originally being white-furred, Scar's entire design, the iconic rock, etc.).

edited 1st Jul '14 6:28:02 PM by painocus

My own two cents, yeah I would say there is obviously some level of influence of Kimba mostly on a visual lvel, but most of the arguments are bullshit.

Evil relative? Um yeah Hamlet -which Disney admitted was an influence, sure that trope predates Hamlet and it definitely predates Kimba by a much longer margin.

Simba sounds like Kimba. Yeah Simba you know MEANS LION.

Kimba's father is killed before Kimba was even born. Simba's dad died when Simba was a cub. In fact the whole "Young Prince loses a parent and then grows up to claim the throne" has more similarities to Disney's own Hamlet.

I forgot that Kimba also talks to his father before deciding to take back his throne. But it was one-way and it was to his flayed skin rather than to a cloud formation.

The main villain being Simba's relative is one of the differences between The Lion King and Kimba. And what part of the "prince growing up to reclaim his throne"-plot does The Lion King and Hamlet share that Kimba does not also? (Apart from the Uncle-thing). And what about everything else in my break-down of the two plots?

The "Kimba was unborn; Simba was a cub" difference could easily be explained by them transplanting Rune's plot-line unto Kimba to give Mufasa more screen time and a more fleshed out relationship with his son.

edited 1st Jul '14 5:45:36 PM by painocus

Scar doesn't even send Simba away (at least that isn't his intention)....he tells him that he is the one who is responsible for his fathers demise and send sends the hyenas after him to kill him.

If you simplify a plot that much that you don't even mention the nuances, then you'll naturally find parallels.

Someone mentioned a request for those "story problems" I mentioned. Well, I'll just redirect them to Confused Matthew's infamous video review. He is not correct on every of his points, but I do agree with the majority of it. And I will add one more I noticed:

Why are there lion kings? What kingly things do they do? Ruling over anyone requires spending time to make decisions, and careful planning. A king is a politician, who rules over a group, makes some decisions for it, and leads that group. These lions do no such thing, and are just there. And since the whole Circle of Life thing (implying everyone is equally important in the food chain), I see not a single reason left for any kings, lions or not. So, the one problem I personally noticed is as such: the lion kings don't do anything. The audience is told they are kings, but is never shown them being kings.

I would not engage in heated INTERNET fights over this. I only mentioned this because I was explicitly asked to.

edited 2nd Jul '14 5:07:23 PM by KlarkKentThe3rd

Compared to how much more I had to simplify The Jungle Books to make them fit, that was nothing. And if it was a 1:1 copy we wouldn't need to have this debate, we'd just have to run the film and the episodes/manga side by side. Of-course some details are going to be a different even in a "rip-off" (in the lack of a better word). And again what does it matter that a few details are different if the big picture is suspiciously similar? Hell, name one other story that so closely follows that very layout (that was not based on Kimba or the Lion King)? And also (as I stated) that was just an overview of the major plot points, not going into the many other similarities found in the details. (Some of which I mentioned).

EDIT: Furthermore (in any incarnation) Kimba is a lot longer work than the Lion King. If you think you could fit everything that happens in Kimba into the Lion King without streamlining, changing or cutting anything you are mad. Composite Character, Compressed Adaptation and Adaptation Distillation exist for a reason.

Didn't Scar guilt Simba into running away and then send the hyenas to make sure? Or change his mind after sending him away and then sending the hyeneas to kill him in stead? If he really just wanted him dead to begin with he could have easily just killed him himself. Maybe it's the Norwegian dub just being vague. Although I could swearer I watched it in English too for not so long ago.

Wasn't it implied, if not stated, that the lions had authority over the other animals on the Savanna? And if not: monarchies can be more or less purely symbolic. (Like the one we have here in Norway or the one in Britain).

edited 2nd Jul '14 2:28:00 PM by painocus