Live Action Lion King Movie

It's pretty clearly indicated in the original film that Shenzi is the leader of the hyenas. Other than bossing around Banzai and Ed, she's the one who seemingly does all the dealing with Scar, and ultimately, the one who makes the decision to turn on him and eat him at the end of the movie (based on a confession that only she and her two cronies heard).

The argument that the hyenas have some unseen, off-screen leader who for some reason never deigns to show herself during the course of the film is, to say the least, flimsy.

Yeah, that's what I always thought, too. It seems some people just can't accept that the original was more woke than they assumed. Or that they were less woke about the original than they'd like to admit.

New topic and discussion.

I find it ironic out of all the things that either could've been changed or kept the same, the writers of the remake chose NOT to change the reason why Simba was so rebellious towards Zazu. Especially when it invokes Values Dissonance and Unintentionally Sympathetic in today's age of civility.

The argument about betrothal. How Simba is actually morally right about that, and Zazu is wrong (along with any advocates for that old "tradition" in the first place). Why didn't the writers change that plot point to something that Zazu can actually and unashamedly be right about?

It could've been something simple, like opposing territorial expansion, or denying Simba his own self-warranted authority to explore the elephant graveyard (which is the most straightforward solution).

But instead, nearly every other significant plot change that the writers came up with was inferior to the original's plot, and the one change that they could've made to characterize Zazu and Young Simba better (so as to make you want to root for Zazu some more), they don't.

Then again, that's just another example of the average Disney remake being cut and dry.

I just think it would make for yet another good discussion on some of the absurd writing choices for this movie, once again.

Edited by BrightLight on Dec 9th 2019 at 2:48:09 AM

To be fair it was never Zazu's idea in the first place. He just mentioned it to Simba but it wouldn't be him who'd actually arranged the whole thing (though in his official capacity he might be the one to manage the actual wedding ceremony I guess.)

He did kinda trigger Simba by saying that's tradition and that Simba couldn't and shouldn't change it.

But really, that whole plot point could've been revamped into something better with a rewrite.

It's just that, ironically, out of all the changes the writers made, they didn't feel a need to change this one, with it's problematic values dissonance.

Well, if we really want to make it politically correct, they should just have ditched the whole "true king" thing and made the pride lands a democracy. And not just a lioncracy, either.

But then we wouldn't have much of a story, now would we?

I think keeping the arranged marriage plot in is fine, really. It fits the setting, which is a kingdom, and the story, which is about good and bad kings and true heirs to the throne overthrowing evil usurpers.

I recall seeing a video review a while back talking about how all the unsettling undertones to The Lion King aren't that apparent in the hand-drawn version, as it doesn't look real and therefore feels more like myth. Whether as in the remake, these implications stand out more because everything looks real so we're made to think longer about "why do these kings get to eat their subjects" or "why does one species have to be segregated from all the others".

The most the remake does is try to tie the hyenas' destruction to environmental overuse, which is one take but still seems like avoiding the inevitable questions.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Dec 8th 2019 at 5:43:22 AM

The hyena segregation seems to have a basis in reality, at least. Apparently lions and hyenas will routinely attack each other with little to no provocation in the wild.

Interestingly, apparently lions are more liable to steal prey from hyenas than the other way round.

So yes, lions and hyenas hating each other's guts is a completely Justified Trope, and it would make perfect sense for a lion kingdom to kick out the hyenas (especially since the hyenas pose more of a threat to them than the other way around, it seems).

The unrealistic thing here is that the hyenas left any lions alive at all after taking over.

Oh yeah, and the hyenas eating Scar at the end? That's chillingly accurate as well.

Here's a National Geographic video about the subject as well.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 8th 2019 at 3:06:35 PM

Oh it's no surprise that large predators would be rivals. What's called more into question is how the exclusion of hyenas is treated as a moral good by the story, even though real lions aren't any better to ecosystems than hyenas are. If anything they'd be worse since hyenas's scavenging helps prevent the spread of disease.

Well, they are natural rivals, and the writers assigned a morality to the two sides for the sake of having a story.

That morality is important for the story, because it provides a better justification for Simba to overthrow Scar. If Scar being king didn't really have any negative consequences, Simba's victory would be much less satisfying.

That's pretty much it, yeah. So response to the remake basically boils down to how much a viewer can tolerate the new visuals against their suspension of disbelief. For some, their disbelief works only with the cartoon, for other it includes the remake too.

Hyenas were depicted as evil for the same reason Disney altered Kaa to be evil it’s Jungle Book adaptations - because Animal Stereotypes, and the hesitance to write outside of them.

The problem with Lion King in that regard was in how the anthropomorphic nature of the lions’ “kingdom” combined with playing those stereotypes razor straight meant those stereotypes were thus folded into the “human-like society” angle of the story, coming off as the movie positing the existence of a race that’s naturally wasteful, unintelligent and detrimental to society, and can only peacefully exist by being separated.

Which... yeah.

I could see one tweaking the story to fix those issues. Play the hyenas more sympathetically and have them swept up by Scar's rhetoric due to their desperate situation. So now, they're less evil henchmen and more easily manipulated masses. Have Simba learn that his father's ways may have not been the best way to maintain the Circle of Life and end the film with him letting hyenas and lions live peacefully side-by-side in the Pride Lands. Don't necessarily demonize Mufasa completely, but make the situation more morally grey on his side and show that he did make mistakes as king.

It could be a relevant way of showing the new generation learning from the mistakes of the old, and how easily tyrants can prey upon the disenfranchised to gain power for themselves.

But the movie didn't go that way, so what are you gonna do?

Edited by chasemaddigan on Dec 8th 2019 at 10:43:12 AM

Holy shoot, even your imaginary version with all the patches and fixes in place is better than both official versions of the movie combined.

Lion King remake may be up for animation awards.

Disney must be so happy.

I feel like the only award it has a shot at is best visual effects because love it or hate it, the movie looks really freakin' good.

With LK and Hyenas, what I'd do personally is say that not all hyenas are bad, just that specific group of them. Or that Hyenas are 'bad' for some kind of cultural/political reason, such as having bad leadership.

Actually, I think the first idea is what they've retconned things to being.

Well, they did seem to be living in a tense balance with the lions, even if separated, before Scar showed up and basically threw the doors open for them.

Admittedly, it should be noted that from a Lion's perspective, a Hyena is pretty close to being Always Chaotic Evil in the same way a mouse would consider a house cat Always Chaotic Evil.

Mind you, the Lion King tends to preach a non-species centric "Circle of Life" philosophy that considers the rivalries of different animals acceptable. So it's somewhat hypocritical for them to consider Hyenas "evil" (though it would be a rather amusing hypocrisy).

Their relationship with Hyenas, in theory, should be to view them in a more amoral lens, ala "The Hyena steals our Antelope-and we don't love that-but when they die, their bodies become the grass, and the Antelope eat the grass, and we eat the Antelope". Essentially, friendly enemies. Indeed, the Circle of Life philosophy seems to be "brotherhood between natural enemies".

So, even if Hyenas were good, they'd still presumably be enemies with Lions, just friendlier ones. Presumably, these particular Hyenas are doing something that is bad for the local ecology, such as overhunting and the like.

I feel like there's a reason Mufasa banished hyenas to the Elephant Graveyard. For example, maybe a bunch of hyenas killed Mufasa's father either by accident or on purpose and in a fit of rage, he sent them away once he became sworn in as king.

Well, that's what Scar said. The Elephant Graveyard was once a plentiful place of food but the Hyenas didn't bother to limit their hunting unlike Mufasa, which is why it has become a wasteland and the Hyenas have been intruding into the Pridelands before Scar invited them in.

Edited by Shadao on Dec 9th 2019 at 4:20:39 AM

But this isn't about hyenas stealing antelope kills. This is about hyenas murdering lion cubs.

And as those articles I mentioned before state, hyenas are a match for lions when hunting in a pack. They are not just rivals for food, they are existential threats to each other.

In lion kingdom terms, the hyenas are the guys wanting to usurp the throne, and perfectly capable of doing so given the opportunity.

In human terms, the hyenas have quite a bit in common with the Mongols and their relationship to the Chinese, always threatening invasion and conquest (and succeeding sometimes, too). There is even a visual similarity in how the hyena lands look barren and burnt: Mongol warriors used the tactic of the scorched earth a lot, and, being steppe nomads, did not see any value in cities, opting to burn them down instead.

Perhaps that is a good way to distinguish lions and hyenas here: their ways of living and ruling are anathema to each other. The lions value order and peace, while the hyenas value freedom above all else and prefer war, perhaps under an honourable warrior system. That would make for a much better justification of why the hyenas live separately.

One review pointed out how it's odd that Mufasa has only one cub. Now there would be a motivation to banish the hyenas: they murdered all his other cubs.

Edited by Redmess on Dec 9th 2019 at 1:25:04 PM

Note, all these reason why lions in our world hate hyenas are pretty much the same reasons why real world hyenas hate lions. There isn't a moral high ground between reality's predator rivalries. Human storytellers just picked the lions' side of the story because by human standards lions look cool and hyenas look weird. In an alternate world, human beauty standards might be different and instead we have Disney's The Hyena Queen.

See, but would it be right to say:

If you're feeling unease at describing human races as inherently irreconcilable and better off segregated permanently, then you see why some viewers get uneasy at hearing these same descriptions being reused in stories like Lion King.

Edited by Tuckerscreator on Dec 9th 2019 at 5:21:00 AM

It really depends on if you interpret the analogy of different animal species as racial/cultural or political/class. If the hyenas represent violent neo-nazi's or predatory capitalists the whole thing takes on very different meaning.

It’s kind of a stretch to say they represent either of those groups. The use of the hyenas as a separate social entity is to general for either of those, which is one of the reasons why the racial analogy is easier to make: race is a general thing, even as a social entity. So is class, walk of life, etc.

The hyenas don’t have many traits beyond their own “we’re disenfranchised, and we need food” vs he lions’ take of “they’re disenfranchised, and it’s their own fault for being incapable of having civilization.”

I can’t remember who said it first but a great to sum up the Lion King’s problem is that society abhors monarchies, but loves stories about kings.

Writers and audiences eat up stories about destined kings fighting off evil races of savage barbarians (see also, LOTR - something that even Tolkien himself realized was problematic before he died) with the power of destiny and inherent right. It’s just that these kinds of stories crash and burn when the elements and messages are looked at closely, because ultimately they’re very old fashioned.

Even the Circle of Life itself has that problem. It’s a great example of a doctrine to support serfdom, and probably wasn’t intended as one. “The predators may eat you, your children etc at any time with no ability from you to change it, but it’s okay because one day after their long and unchallenged lives they’ll die and eventually poetically become grass that you can eat,” isn’t much different from “the nobility can use you however they want without any ability from you to change it or your lot in life, but that’s okay because if you trust in the system and act in your place after everyone is dead you’ll be rewarded in Heaven and they won’t.”

Edited by KnownUnknown on Dec 9th 2019 at 6:07:13 AM