The Lion King franchise

It could be a sort of general reverence of those who came before him.

Yeah the whole monarchy-imposed circle of life doesn't really makes sense anymore

It was a vague generalization meant for kids as how Lion Guard says it. I believe the line was "Kiara being the future queen and Kovu the future king" to Kion.

Zira has a tendency of using too human-like language, her Villain Song contains the phrases "drums of war" and "our flags will fly", despite the fact that there are no drums and flags used by the lions.

Nuka does wave a leaf flag in a mocking manner.

Considering that in The Lion Guard we have Kion, as the youngest of the two, lead the Lion Guard while Kiara is trained to be Queen, I imagine that the succession laws of the Pridelands are straight up Primogeniture. Whoever is oldest inherits the throne, no discussion.

Hollywood Reporter has an interview from Barry Jenkins where he defends the Mufasa movie from claims of being part of a “soulless machine”.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barry-jenkins-responds-criticism-mufasa-the-lion-king-trailer-1235886945/

Basically he says that there's nothing soulless about The Lion King, ignoring that the commenter probably meant the Disney 'live action' remake thing.

Always a good move when the first reaction to announcing your movie is clarifying "What no it's not a souless cash grab"

"There's nothing souless about the lion king"

That's true, everyone likes that movie. Aint talking about that one though Barry.

I mean, I kind of get his point. If I was an award winning director, and I spent years of my life making a movie, only for people to immediately dismiss it as soulless without even seeing it because it was loosely in a trend of movies they didn't like, I'd be pissed too.

Sure, but at the same time if your only defense is to call back to the movie that this movie's prequel (Reverse sequel?) is a remake of to defend it kinda bodes poorly. Like, he doesnt have anything to say about the 2019 one (wow I just realized this movie is already 5 years old where does time go) or anything about the movie he's himself making, but instead points to the beloved 1994 one going "This one's not a cash grab".

Like, it's a plain as day bad faith reply. No one's accusing the 1994 one of being that. He knows that.

To switch the topic, how many contradictory versions of the story of "how Scar got his scar" exist?

There's the one in The Lion King: Six New Adventures (angry cape buffalo) and the one in The Lion Guard (magical cobra); and this prequel movie will almost certainly give a third one.

Taka will likely challenge Mufasa for the throne, but Mufasa wins the battle and Taka gets the scar as a reminder of his defeat.

To be fair, what he actually said was "this is a timeless story, and writing within its confines is not a soulless endeavor. I'm contributing to something that's moved people for decades."

He did not say "my movie is good, because Lion King 1994 is good, so if you're criticize my movie you're criticizing the original film." That's a demonization at best, and an entirely made up position he never took at worst.

Edited by KnownUnknown on May 1st 2024 at 1:12:05 AM

He doesn't say that. He says "The 1994 one isn't a cash grab". He never says "Im contributing to it"

Like his actual quote im referencing:

Second, I never said he said his movie is good because the 1994 one is good. I said that when people say his new movie comes across as a cash grab, all he can do it point to the 1994 movie as not being one, rather than point to anything about his own movie.

You're the one making up positions and words here.

Edited by Ghilz on May 1st 2024 at 8:43:13 AM

I for one like that they're "cut and pastes." Mulan was bad to me for being too different. I didn't like Aladdin because Genie had a love interest, I liked it because I got to see Prince Ali in live-action.

Mufasa meanwhile is going to give people who don't like copy paste plots what they want - there is no preexisting plot focusing on Mufasa (unless there's novels I don't know about).

Edited by FOFD on May 1st 2024 at 11:36:41 AM

I find it hilarious Scar becomes an outlier, like the only named scarred lion who is evil. Kovu and Kion aren't.

Maybe Simba should get a scar too.

I mean, most fanon stories take the interpretation of the cobra not making him evil but that he had bad traits that got worse over the course of his life.

Really the Lion Guard thing of “Once he was a good Lion but turned evil because of venom in his brain” is kind of…eh?

Edited by theLibrarian on May 2nd 2024 at 3:39:01 AM

Yeah, it's not a good retcon.

Also, I was re-watching the first part of The Lion King (classic) on Disney+, and I hate that they use the new CGI-heavy intro instead of the old one. It's not that I hate the CGI or anything (although it's a great example of the logos getting longer and more elaborate as time goes on). The problem is the music — I distinctly recall the original logo having nothing but ambient noise and animal sounds, just like the first few credits, so it's all the more impactful when that NANTS IGONYAMA hits.

The new logo doesn't do that, like, at all. We get 30 seconds of big Orchestral "WE ARE DISNEY!" music, which completely kills the build-up to that epic sun.

Edited by Dracoblade on May 2nd 2024 at 11:28:38 AM

To this day I've never understood the need to add an updated logo to an older film. That's hardcore OCD.

Also they used the version with some animation changed such as the awful crocodile animation during "I Just Can't Wait To Be King".

The studio should treat the Vanity Plate as part of the film, something that shouldn't be changed just because the movie is getting a re-release. Like, the ambient animal sounds in the original are already building up to the epic "Nants ingonyama" chant with the rising sun.

Oh shit yeah, no wonder it feels so off.

They did this to their HD remasters right?

The “for decades” part of the quote is very important, if he’s noting they affect the Lion King has has on viewers over its entire tenure. He does not specify only the 1994 film, which is noticeable since if we was saying what you’re claiming he’s saying he would have.

And yes, the tone of that quote is all about how the Lion King franchise as a whole is. It a soulless endeavor - he’s basically saying no installment in the franchise should be called soulless. He doesn’t literally say “my movie is part of that” but that implication is clearly the point of what he’s saying, especially given the context of what he’s responding to.

It feels like you’re specifically trying to build a read of that quote that’s as negative and craven as possible. Which, tbh, is the kind of reaction that probably informs why he felt the need to say something in the first place.

Oh yeah there are people who are upset that the book-only cub is not mentioned in Mufasa.

The Lion King: Six New Adventures has a weird status: it's an obscure book that the rest of the franchise outright blatantly ignores and treats as completely non-canon, but for the fandom it seems to be one of the cornerstones. It's true that, for a while, "The Tale of Two Brothers" was the only backstory we had for Mufasa and Scar, and Kopa was the name of the cub. If you were a fan of that book, it's understandable that you are upset that the franchise basically de-canonizes it.

Disney tends to treat most of their direct-to-video sequels and other supplementary material (TV series, etc.) as non-canon. I'm surprised Kiara is even in this at all.