The Lion King Discussion

[Pasta67]

*Sigh* I can't believe I'm about to jump into this minefield...

Well first off, welcome to the forums, nikki828! I hope you enjoy your stay here.

The only people who ever say that are people with the wrong opinion...

...Sorry you don't agree, but you won't even accept that it's possible that I'm right and you're wrong - so which one of us is being unreasonable again?

I might have missed it in your post somewhere, but I don't really see you accepting the fact that you could be wrong either.

Well, not that there's anything for either of you to be wrong about. Y'know, seeing as how these are your OPINIONS. There's no such thing as a "wrong opinion" when it comes to stuff like this, Laz. If someone says they like a movie, you can't just go up to them and say "Nope, that's incorrect." It doesn't work like that, and I'm surprised that you don't know that by now, considering how long you've been on this forum.

Honestly, why the hell are you guys making such a big deal about this? T/P Fan, if Lazario doesn't like the movie, then leave it alone. I think it's obvious that he's not going to change his mind, so it's a lost cause trying to do so. And Lazario, if you don't like the movie, then that's cool as well. There's no need for the arguement that this is slowly turning into.

Just remember:

your opinion =/= fact

Sure, it's a FACT that you don't like the movie, but that doesn't automatically make it a FACT that the movie is bad. Does that make any sense at all?

[Luke]

Sure, it's a FACT that you don't like the movie, but that doesn't automatically make it a FACT that the movie is bad. Does that make any sense at all?

It does to me and anyone else who is able to respect others' opinions!

[AwallaceUNC]

It does to me and anyone else who is able to respect others' opinions!

...or think rationally
...or engage in civil discourse
...or display maturity
...or be pleasant, like, ever

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

The only people who ever say that are people with the wrong opinion, or people who haven't thought about what they're thinking / saying. Otherwise, everyone's just going to agree with you and say, "hey- you're right. So let's not ever have anymore opinions at all because they never do anyone any good." I've heard it all before. And you're only half right.

And the only people who say that are insaine people who have no time on their lives and just want have fun arguing who people like me have pity on.

Because if you really think The Lion King is so great, you'd be able to answer that question. If you think Simba is a really original character, you're nuts or you haven't seen enough animated films. Nothing in his character's range or cannon is anything new or different. And you're right in thinking it doesn't particularly have to be, no one expects this to be Shakespeare or, like I mentioned before, Gone With the Wind. But the film forsakes a lot of true entertainment value so that it can say it's all about natural characters and a semi-realistic portrayal of what happens in the animal kingdom - so it had to be better. It sentimentalized and softened up animal instinct but expects to get credit for being tough or survival-of-the-fittest. In short, it was a failure. Character-wise, the film didn't work.... Taken on their own, they might be "okay." But when added to this film, they don't work. They're out of place. And it's important that they do come together, which they don't... I don't nitpick what deserves to be left alone, and you just don't like that someone intelligent doesn't think this movie's all that...Too often these three "animated classics" cross the line into territory that the viewer can barely comprehend - how many of us have ever been animals singing about one day being King of the Jungle? Oy!..Anyway, to take a page out of Joplin's handbook, which I contested mostly because I agreed with the overall idea (just not the way it was used against some), some Disney movies take you to a whole new world full of magic and wonder as well as danger. These 3 animated classics are really just about danger and things that we can't really understand. Basically, putting us in the trenches. It's a formula Disney had not mastered by 1994. Because it had to choose - either focus on the emotional, sappy and spear us the survival-of-the-fittest, or focus on the animal kingdom war and not get so soft. So it ends up with a movie where every scene is made of fluff, not complete, not good enough. Expecting us to root for a one-dimensional character for which nothing he's experienced has been elaborated (or even put on a level we can relate to), in an absurd situation that is unimpressive and incomprehensible in both a kids' film and an adults' film, then realizing it's failed to make the serious aspects work, it pours on the sugar hoping they can make these animals look lovable while they're reduced to killers...This film is a failure on every level other than the artwork. Sorry you don't agree, but you won't even accept that it's possible that I'm right and you're wrong - so which one of us is being unreasonable again? I forget sometimes. I've proven that person isn't me, because here I am again, elaborating and explaining. You don't much seem to be capable of that. But I don't care - it makes my job easier.

I didn't want to argue because, well I'm not a person who really has FUN arguing. But since you "want me to argue", I'll just do it ONCE and respectfully.

You say TLK didn't have "originality", well how many films are "original"? You're forgeting there are only 7 plots since ever thought of since the beginning of time. How is Simba not original? So maybe there are characters in the past who resemble similar character traites to Simba, but who doesn't? You can't name ANY Disney movive(or movie in general) that DOESN'T steal something from the past. Even Snow White wasn't original, it was based on a fairy tale after all. Of course, other films are more original than others and they create new ideas(that's one of the reasons I hate Finding Nemo, it really didn't have any new ideas), but still, TLK is really original as far I can see. And even the filmmakers themselves admit they used some inspiration and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. No need to try and convince me it's not original, because, well it is.

And once again, I find all of those things great, the songs and voice-actors are literally perfect. And nothing you can say can make me change what I feel, just like nothing I can say will change what you feel. That's why it's called an OPINION! Geez.

As for nitpicking, I just said that to save time on other things, but since I'm arguing for you, just read what 2099net said if you think you're so "right".

A lot of people I bet have wanted to be "kings" or "rulers" as a kid. Maybe not you, but just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean nobody has. Duh.

TLK might be about danger, but that's because it's really a story about "good v.s. evil". "Danger" is just one element of the film. You're forgetting that "trust" "choices" "Hakuna Matata" are just some of the elements used in this film. Simba is far from a "1-dimensional character". He ranges from a kid who just wants to have fun, to a serious hero who wants to save people he cares about.

Quote me saying that I said you're wrong and I was right. I NEVER said such a thing. I was just defending it after you jumped on me all because I used my post as a joke(in case you didn't know, at the end of a post usually= a JOKE). I really don't care what you like/dislike. Maybe you shouldn't try to use your opinion as facts so then we can respect other opinions instead of people calling people dumb, therefore, posts like this wouldn't need to be made. If you don't like it, fine. But I think it's better than every Disney movie for so many reasons, it'll just get tiring to list all of them. In other words, I really like this movie. And considering how popular the movie is, I'm not the only one. Can't you read that without trying to "correct" me with your personal and bias opinions?

Honestly, why the hell are you guys making such a big deal about this? T/P Fan, if Lazario doesn't like the movie, then leave it alone. I think it's obvious that he's not going to change his mind, so it's a lost cause trying to do so.

Exactly. I completely agree. I wasn't trying to force Lazario to like anything. I just don't see why Lazario had to jump all over me all because of a simple joke-like post. Can we just respect other's opinions? Hopefully, if Lazario reads this, he'll respect my opinion. I actually respect people's opinions, including his. Frankly, he doesn't seem to respect anyone's except himself, which never leads to any good.

...or think rationally
...or engage in civil discourse
...or display maturity
...or be pleasant, like, ever

Amen!

[The Sorcerer's Apprentice]

I actually respect people's opinions, including his. Frankly, he doesn't seem to respect anyone's except himself, which never leads to any good.

Right on Timon/Pumbaa fan! . I am fairly new to this forum so I didn't want to jump into a never ending argument, but someone needed to set Lazario straight. Forcing your opinions on to others is NEVER the way to get people to like you. I don't like Lord of the Rings, but it doesn't mean I think the movies are bad (and that everyone else is dum for watching them) - I just don't connect with them myself.

Anyway back to the topic at hand. I am 19 now, and wish I had seen TLK at the Cinema when it came out. I remember everyone talking about it at the time. There was one occasion, just after it came out on Video that it was being shown at a church hall near me (my mum bought me to some kind of kids fun day there). I remember being taken home (in tears) before the film ended, desperatly wanting to see what happened to the little lion cub. Well, a couple of years ago I got to finally see it for the first time in its entirety. It quickly became one of my favorite films of all time. I know have the gift set with the lithographs and the soundtrack.

If things get too stressful in life I still think to myself "hakuna Matata!".

well, I would say a little more . . . but I think many of you have already put into words why this is such an enduring and delightful film!

[Lazario]

I might have missed it in your post somewhere, but I don't really see you accepting the fact that you could be wrong either.

Good point. Well, I know a lot about movies and I've given this a great deal of thought. I don't just sit and accept things, whether I like it or not. I accept the facts that make things what they are, and comment on it. But there are certain things I know. I'm still feeling my way around speaking about this movie. Not everything I'm saying is set-in-stone accurate. But the point behind it has more merit than certain members are accepting.

There's no such thing as a "wrong opinion" when it comes to stuff like this, Laz.

No one's arguing that he didn't like the movie. I'm not even arguing that he's stupid, though he thinks I am. I mean, a lot of things in life are stupid - food, sex, air, paper clips. Stupid meaning simple. And we still like them. But the great thing about art is that it doesn't have to be so simple, or stupid. And often times, it's not. There are movies that reward the audience, and in the end, it makes a difference if someone's there to see them. And there are some movies that are mostly, plain stupid, and don't affect the audience because they don't require an audience to be there. For instance, a song's catchy whether or not someone's singing it. This movie just plays the audience like a violin. It appeals to the simplicity within people, as Disney has done in the past on occasion. But not for the entirety of a feature-length movie this long. Even Bambi gave something back to the viewer if they stuck through Bambi's natural struggle. Plus, Thumper is a timeless, funny, quirky, excellent character. The movie also had memorably dramatic songs that actually commented on the film itself and had relevance to the characters, and the art of Bambi actually also had a great deal of bearing on the characters and what they were going through. The Lion King's songs are not for the characters, they're for the kids in the audience. Which is not commendable, but it could work. The rules are somewhat flexible. If they didn't then turn and expect the audience to be adults and understand the full scale of an animal's responsibility to a tribe of other animals, and exactly what that requires. Sort of like taking a kid to a cult meeting just because they have colorful drawings all around, a catchy initiation anthem, and free food. Then letting them stay for the rhetoric and the ritualistic ceremonies where they sacrifice a lamb for their moon God. It's the same as saying, you came for the food and fun, now you have to stay and learn the ways of Moon-God Master-Luna-Devine (or whatever, you get the picture). It's not smart, fair, or much acceptable.

Lazario, if you don't like the movie, then that's cool as well. There's no need for the arguement that this is slowly turning into.

Are you going to make me repeat the thing I said to TP-fan or did you actually read what I wrote. Agree-to-disagree doesn't work in my book. Just like it doesn't work in real life. When, for instance, someone is said to have committed a crime, the two sides don't say "we can't agree on whether or not this person did it, so we'll just agree to disagree. So the crime in question didn't happen and nothing will be done about it." If someone is about to fall off a cliff, if the two sides can't decide on the proper way to save the person, they don't say, "we've agreed to disagree, so we'll just all go home and we'll do nothing about this." Life doesn't work like that, nor do I. We just keep looking at the facts we've each presented, we think about it, we re-present them if the other person doesn't understand, and one of us either agrees, ignores the other, or one Presents a statement for exactly why a decision cannot be reached on the discussion. If the third of those is too hard for someone, then they ignore or bow-out of the discussion (which isn't as complicated or ceremonius as it seems).

...or think rationally
...or engage in civil discourse
...or display maturity
...or be pleasant, like, ever

If you don't like me, you know where you can go.

I didn't want to argue because, well I'm not a person who really has FUN arguing. But since you "want me to argue", I'll just do it ONCE and respectfully.

I don't call this an argument, I call it a discussion. I mean, I'm actually discussing things relevant to the movie, and here you are yet again whining about the manner in which I do it. If you don't know how to discuss the movie and don't care about your opinion - than maybe this discussion will go nowhere. But, as long as I still have something I think I can re-state about the movie, well, you see another reply.

You say TLK didn't have "originality", well how many films are "original"?

That's a broad statement. Yet my statements were not that broad. There are hundreds of ways one can go about presenting something in an original or outstanding way. This film just had the excellent artwork. And everything else was bottom of the barrel wrapped up in high production values.

How is Simba not original?

Because he's first portrayed as a kid of the 1990's- one of the reasons why he was voiced by a kid of the 1990's with a very recognizable voice and personality, as well as popularity. Don't forget how many other movies were being made with this very same situation. Kids in dozens upon dozens of movies were trying to be kids in situations that were radically different than a child's life. In kids' sports movies, kids were playing kids of the U.S. president, kids were moving all over the place- having to grow up too soon, using karate to defend themselves, kids were becoming sports stars, kids were going back in time - not just kids, but dozens of young people of every age and age group. Practically every movie about kids was about a kid who should have been having fun instead having to learn how to be a young adult, dozens upon dozens of which were pre-teenagers. Or facing danger. Look at the kid stars of the time and what they were famous for having to do in major movies and you won't be able to deny it - Elijah Wood, Drew Barrymore, Edward Furlong, Brad Renfro, Kirsen Dunst, Leonardo DiCaprio, Alyssa Milano, Natalie Portman, Tina Majorino. All of these kids made notorious movies where they were kids facing incredible circumstances and forced to bear a hero's burdon. The only thing that set Simba apart was he was animated and in the jungle. All those actors were playing kids of drunks and drug addicts, hired killers or vampires, brothers of young psychopaths, victims of unbelievable crimes. Being a kid in the movies of the early to mid '90s was nothing like the '80s or many movies nowadays. Simba just sang about it - even his predicament wasn't original. Every movie centered around a president or king at the time had a strong element of how one must conform to the strict rules, kid or adult, because you're born into it or you can't escape it. So they think to make us feel for the character, he has to be one-dimensional. And there are practically no detours from this, the movie just focuses on Simba. The other characters are never shown unless it relates directly to Simba, which is how of course it differs from other, far superior Disney movies. Combine this with the fact that there is no element of magic whatsoever, you have a very A-typical Disney film and all you can try to compare it to is the other harsh-reality animal films - Bambi and The Fox and the Hound. Which makes it even a little less original, since it added the songs (which weren't the least bit inspired except for their somewhat infectuous harmonies) and the wacky supporting characters in keeping with the "new" tradition of The Little Mermaid and all films in that vein following it, namely Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast. It's an awkward package.

I'm not using the element of originality as narrowly as you think I am.

I find all of those things great, the songs and voice-actors are literally perfect.

They all have talent, that's for sure (though I'd argue with Johnathan Taylor Thomas' talent, but people seem to be pretty enamored with him since he has the amazing ability of being able to say his lines in a clear voice without stuttering). However they might be perfect, that would be for another completely different film.

TLK might be about danger, but that's because it's really a story about "good v.s. evil".

A subject they tackled and with effective results in Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Black Cauldron, Cinderella, and The Little Mermaid, to name a few of the animated persuasion. However, this film doesn't count. Not when all the evil in this film is made to be coincidental. With a main villain like Scar, a character void of any actual threat aside from his Manson-esque ability to gather an army (of hyenas!, enough said, you saw the movie), and his ultra-ripped off Shere Khan's swaggeringly dim charisma mixed with Jafar-like voice inflections. And these are the things that actually make him watchable. Only, he is not a villain, he's a pussy-lion, to be a little crude myself. He's got the claws, but so do all the other lions. Other than some poorly arranged delusions of grandeur, and the deceptive quality (which again, is like salad dressing - just pour it on and people think it's brilliant!), he's not evil. Just overestimated and arrogant. Unless this evil quality is supposed to include Simba's feeling of shame, it goes nowhere.

Quote me saying that I said you're wrong and I was right. I NEVER said such a thing.

Okay, so it's forgotten. Back to the movie.

Simba is far from a "1-dimensional character". He ranges from a kid who just wants to have fun, to a serious hero who wants to save people he cares about.

It takes more than a shot where dancing/grooving Simba ages a few times to accomplish this. Looks like you were impressed by a whole lot of nothing. No offense.

I really don't care what you like/dislike.

Nor do I. This is about what I feel is true. Just because I feel this goes beyond simple opinion, doesn't mean I carry on all discussions this way. So now that that's over with, back to the movie.

Maybe you shouldn't try to use your opinion as facts

I'm not. I'm saying the facts of the film back up my opinion. Not one formed before I learned the facts, but after. My opinions are like most, ever-changing. Which is why I'm stating facts backed up by opinions that aren't just mine. Or observations I should say that aren't just mine, but things you learn from seeing a lot of movies. And examining them.

And considering how popular the movie is, I'm not the only one.

And that's the miracle of how the passage of time will eventually bring much light onto misunderstood things, including entertainment, including movies. One day, people will see how bad this movie really is. Popularity... you'll see just how fleeting that is one day. I'm both a Disney fan insider and an outsider, so I've seen both sides, from 2 different angles.

Can't you read that without trying to "correct" me with your personal and bias opinions?

I don't correct opinions, I just argue the ground upon which they are founded.

I wasn't trying to force Lazario to like anything.

If that were the case, or if I thought that were the case, this discussion would have ended a long time ago. As far as respecting opinions, you expect that to stop me from trying to further elaborate upon my point of view? I don't call that respect. I call it refusing to discuss. You misunderstood me, no 2 ways about it, look how you keep perpetuating side comments on my manner. The second that stops, we return to constructive discussions. And the day I let others decide for me when I'm calling them stupid, that's the day I change my member-name to Puppet.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, I guess this "discussion" is done.

Though comparing laws to a merit of a movie and judging originallity by a voice-actor is confusing.

But overall, my opinion on TLK still remains.

[2099net]

A subject they tackled and with effective results in Sleeping Beauty, The Jungle Book, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Black Cauldron, Cinderella, and The Little Mermaid, to name a few of the animated persuasion. However, this film doesn't count. Not when all the evil in this film is made to be coincidental. With a main villain like Scar, a character void of any actual threat aside from his Manson-esque ability to gather an army (of hyenas!, enough said, you saw the movie), and his ultra-ripped off Shere Khan's swaggeringly dim charisma mixed with Jafar-like voice inflections. And these are the things that actually make him watchable. Only, he is not a villain, he's a pussy-lion, to be a little crude myself. He's got the claws, but so do all the other lions. Other than some poorly arranged delusions of grandeur, and the deceptive quality (which again, is like salad dressing - just pour it on and people think it's brilliant!), he's not evil. Just overestimated and arrogant.

Laz, I may call you Laz may I?

I really don't understand what you are saying about Scar. The whole point of Scar is that he is a "political" evil rather than an evil of force. I thought you of all people would be able to comprehend and appreciate this.

Yes, Scar is physically weak and at times appears somewhat - for want of a better description, posh. But he gains power not by his physical attributes (although they are still powerful enough to cower the hyenas), but through plotting and manIpulation of events and facts. (And he still manages to put up a substantial physical fight at the end of the film when he has to, rather than delegate "untasteful" violence to his followers).

Let's face it, Hitler wasn't exactly a strapping example of manly perfection and power, but he was a damn sight more evil and powerful than, arguably, any other person in the 20th century*. He manupulated others to gather an army and do unspeakable evil.

It's strange, but in a film devoid of human characters, Scar is probably one of the most "human" of all Disney villains, because he exhibits all of the attributes of creditible, all too common real-life evil today.

Besides, I really don't agree that characters like the Queen in Snow White or Maleficent are better examples of evil. What did Maleficent actually want? She had no motivation apart from being evil because she could, and the Queen's evil in Snow White is born out of arrogance and vanity, just like Scar's (and she doesn't have "claws" either, having to trick Snow White into eating a posioned apple, which even then didn't kill her. Some powerful witch she is.)

* I really thought long and hard before including a reference to evil (see Godwin's Law for why) but I think it is valid, being as the Be Prepeared sequence itself is making the comparison.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Everyone is free to like or not like TLK, and I'm sure it's not necessary for a movie to be very "original" for a lot of people to like it - on the contrary, it might seem sometimes.

However, the "Simba as a kid of the 90s" point is an interesting and valid one, in my opinion. I think I've seen or heard that kid in a lot more places than in the Lion King over the past few years... Nothing wrong with that, perhaps, but I wonder sometimes if that sort of character is eventually going to seem very dated.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

However, the "Simba as a kid of the 90s" point is an interesting and valid one, in my opinion. I think I've seen or heard that kid in a lot more places than in the Lion King over the past few years... Nothing wrong with that, perhaps, but I wonder sometimes if that sort of character is eventually going to seem very dated.

Yeah, his voice will get dated because these days, kid's voices sound like computers.

Seriously though, JTT's enthusiastic personality was perfect for young Simba. Even though he was a popula celebrity, you'd be surprised that even Walt's films had celebrities voicing his characters.

[Lazario]

I really don't agree that characters like the Queen in Snow White or Maleficent are better examples of evil. What did Maleficent actually want? She had no motivation apart from being evil because she could

That's why she was so amazing. Because evil is not something the innocent or good-hearted can ever truly understand. At least, not in fiction or fantasy (traditionally). Maleficent was pure evil. Evil breeds confusion and chaos, and sort of infects the brain, the brain which is in charge of sorting things out. So she existed for the purpose of creating evil for the sake of evil itself. An evil that was not bound by any sense of logic or reasoning. True evil needs no motivation. True evil is best served cold, too cold for any beating heart to guide it for Scar's pathetic plans. A thinking evil is an easily outsmarted evil. While pure evil has to be fought not just on the outside, but from within. Simba's conflicts start with Scar's deception and move to his feeling of shame and guilt. So really, there's no question that Scar is the light evil here. He's more like a guy who switched babies in a hospital maternity ward, not someone who poses a real imminent, grave threat.

However, I agree with you about Snow White's Queen. She was just jealous, greedy, sinful, and best of all, nasty and cruel. But she was a good, humanistic thinking evil.

The whole point of Scar is that he is a "political" evil rather than an evil of force. I thought you of all people would be able to comprehend and appreciate this.

I understand what you're getting at. But I approached this from a kid's point of view, certainly the one I started out with when I first saw this movie (and didn't care for it). All the more evidence that they made a mistake. Besides, the whole point of a political challenge or battle shouldn't be that the commonwealth / peasents are treated like inferiors to their leaders. They should be capable of taking care of themselves in the absense of a true leader. Now someone said this was Disney trying to stay true to an African animal tribe. That I can accept... But can that person? Because this film already starts out taking a great number of liberties with their subject matter. So the fact that they pick and choose elements of the plot that should remain faithful to this tribe... doesn't make it legitimate in the least. Rather, the fact that the other lions are portrayed as defenseless or unwilling to care for their own families until Simba takes his father's place is more of a plot contrivance (much too convenient, and cheap = a cop-out) than being faithful to the subject. For instance, how many members of the audience in the characters' position would be stupid enough to let their families and/or tribe/people starve and die just because they didn't have the right leader? Furthermore, the characters knew what to do and had agreed on a course of action but never took the steps because they were still waiting on Simba. I didn't buy it.

Oh and sorry if you didn't disagree with me on that point. It was a natural avenue to segue into the most bothersome element of the plot.

Let's face it, Hitler wasn't exactly a strapping example of manly perfection and power, but he was a damn sight more evil and powerful than, arguably, any other person in the 20th century

No disagreement there. But these two examples are quite different. First of all, the times. Second of all, environment. Third of all, I don't believe Hitler ever fought his own battles. I may be wrong on that one. But we can see how differently he and Scar would have handled the final confrontation.

and the Queen's evil in Snow White is born out of arrogance and vanity, just like Scar's (and she doesn't have "claws" either, having to trick Snow White into eating a posioned apple, which even then didn't kill her. Some powerful witch she is.)

I see you're using the kid's logic there, way to go. But she is a woman, after all, of royal blood. So all she had to portray, by fairy tale standards, was a lust for the satisfaction of cruelty (I believe after thinking she received the heart of Snow White, in the fairy tale- she ate it). All we can say, really, is that the movie rushed her to make the apple because, 1) She had to be fairest in the land because she had a hot date coming up soon, 2) She had other plans for SW but Disney thought the book was a little too... family unfriendly. Those plans of course could have been meant to take place at any point in the story. Or 3, she was desperate for a plan she could count on. She was much crueler in the original fairy tale, but in this movie she's still very wicked and cinematically scary. Besides, this was 1937... the harshest thing audiences had seen up to that point was the little girl who drowned in Frankenstein.

Though comparing laws to a merit of a movie and judging originality by a voice-actor is confusing.

(Count to five... Count to five...)

I was making an example. It backs up a manner of thinking, it's not to be interpreted literally. Because we are discussing art. And if you didn't understand the point I was trying to make, you need to go back to school, because even a 1st grader would understand what my example meant.

You know, you were right. This whole discussion was absolutely pointless. But not because either one of us was right or wrong. Not because one of us liked and one of us disliked the movie. It is because you are either playing one huge practical joke on me (which I won't be able to appreciate now since I was trying to be intelligent in this discussion), or you are one of those people who only displays intelligence when you are not communicating with words. I don't speak click and stomp.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

That's why she was so amazing. Because evil is not something the innocent or good-hearted can ever truly understand. At least, not in fiction or fantasy (traditionally). Maleficent was pure evil. Evil breeds confusion and chaos, and sort of infects the brain, the brain which is in charge of sorting things out. So she existed for the purpose of creating evil for the sake of evil itself. An evil that was not bound by any sense of logic or reasoning. True evil needs no motivation. True evil is best served cold, too cold for any beating heart to guide it for Scar's pathetic plans. A thinking evil is an easily outsmarted evil. While pure evil has to be fought not just on the outside, but from within. Simba's conflicts start with Scar's deception and move to his feeling of shame and guilt. So really, there's no question that Scar is the light evil here. He's more like a guy who switched babies in a hospital maternity ward, not someone who poses a real imminent, grave threat.

Well certainly she was pure-evil for a reason, or maybe she was just insaine. Thing is, the movie never really lets us know why she was evil. Not that it has to, but Scar's character development is why I like his character more(and his catchy musical number ).

(Count to five... Count to five...)

I was making an example. It backs up a manner of thinking, it's not to be interpreted literally. Because we are discussing art. And if you didn't understand the point I was trying to make, you need to go back to school, because even a 1st grader would understand what my example meant.

You know, you were right. This whole discussion was absolutely pointless. But not because either one of us was right or wrong. Not because one of us liked and one of us disliked the movie. It is because you are either playing one huge practical joke on me (which I won't be able to appreciate now since I was trying to be intelligent in this discussion), or you are one of those people who only displays intelligence when you are not communicating with words. I don't speak click and stomp.

I was trying to be repectful to you with my last post. That's why I didn't discuss with anything you said of the movie with your last place.

I still don't know how I was making fun of you. I never meant anyone to get insulted. If you did, well sorry, but maybe you should calm down in this thread a bit. But still, what's with the insulting language.

[Lazario]

I still don't know how I was making fun of you. I never meant anyone to get insulted. If you did, well sorry, but maybe you should calm down in this thread a bit. But still, what's with the insulting language.

You didn't insult me. And I was just being colorful.

[2099net]

Lazario, just for me to make another point on the nature of Scar's "political" evil, a thought struck me earlier today.

Is it a coincidence that while one half of Disney was working on The Lion King and Scar, the other half was working on Pocahontas with Governor Ratcliffe? (and presumably some others were working on Hunchback of Notre Dame with Judge Frollo)

It's interesting, because all are villains in the same mold really. People who manipulate others and not really fighters. Both like to bully others with their authority (remember, Scar did have some standing in the pride) and both are motivated by pure greed, rather than some of the other, more whimsy motivations of earlier Disney Villains. (although Frollo isn't really motivated by greed, its more of a fanaticism)

Now, I'm not saying Disney was copying itself. What I'm saying is the time was right for such villains to be presented to the public. I guess it was around this time child labour was becoming a popular issue. When was TV Nation on TV, which had its own section on corporate crime? I can't speak for America, but over here politics was being hit by scandal after scandal - most about corruption and greed (and also sexual antics - see Frollo) which helped to promote a healthy cynicism of those in power and their motivations.

I think one of the reasons The Lion King and Scar were so successful is they just reflected a mood of the time. Either because they were in sympathy of a trend, or perhaps they helped to create such a trend? But of course, like so many other products of their time, it doesn't mean it will neccesarily stand-up when viewed years later.

[Isidour]

Maleficent = Pure Evil
Scar = Lawyer, Politician "level" evil

easy isn´t?

Maybe Laz didn{t liked it(but who knows, maybe he is just trying to hide it ) but it{s respectable.
I didn´t liked the Black Cauldron, but if someone likes it is OK, no need to give a reason or to fight. Now when we all do a debate where no one try to convince others but just to make their points, excelent, that´s why forums borned isn´t?

[Lazario]

It's interesting, because all are villains in the same mold really. People who manipulate others and not really fighters. Both like to bully others with their authority (remember, Scar did have some standing in the pride) and both are motivated by pure greed, rather than some of the other, more whimsy motivations of earlier Disney Villains. (although Frollo isn't really motivated by greed, its more of a fanaticism)

I know what you're getting at. But my point is that not all heroes are the same. If the hero is built into a character where part of his or her heroic ascension has to do with fighting a worthy opponent, the opponent should be worthy, or at least as villains go, a threat. I'm saying it demeans the story and the point of Simba's character that Scar is lazy, 'posh' as you put it, political (which to some extent I agree with you on), and unwise. We are led to believe while Simba would thrive in charge of the kingdom, Scar would have, through stupidity and lack of proper breeding, brought about his own downfall. Stopping evil isn't always necessarily a matter of bringing about the inevitable before it's prolonged. And if that doesn't make sense (which in some circle it doesn't to me, taken as a statement), consider this: Scar in Simba's kingdom would have been fine, Scar in his own kingdom - doomed. Simba in his own kingdom, fine; Simba in Scar's kingdom... fine, again. I think it's a matter of choices they make, yes, but also the mentality that leads them to those choices. Simba could have been a great hero (with better character touches), but Scar is a less than average villain.

Now, I'm not saying Disney was copying itself.

Wouldn't have mattered if you did. I do think this is still the characters weren't right from certain developmental stages.

I think one of the reasons The Lion King and Scar were so successful is they just reflected a mood of the time. Either because they were in sympathy of a trend, or perhaps they helped to create such a trend? But of course, like so many other products of their time, it doesn't mean it will neccesarily stand-up when viewed years later.

I'll tell you, it wasn't successful for it's "timeless" tale. It was successful because of it's smear campaign - no matter where you went, hype and propaganda for it was literally smeared all over the place, wall to wall, door to door. Disney must have spent a large fortune in advertising for that ridiculous piece of fluff, because they went so far out of their usual way to make people just watch advertisements for the movie, that musical segments of the film became video hits for VH1! VH1 being a channel which, at the time, kids and teens just didn't watch. They forced people to look at it and people started thinking (as they often do in these cases), even if they won't like it, they should probably see it anyway. But unlike smaller hype-machines for Aladdin or The Little Mermaid, Disney didn't have a very good movie to show for it all. And they probably bought most of the 'critical acclaim'.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, I wasn't planning on posting in this thread again, and just leave it as a "agree to disagree", but I really want to know something from "Lord Lazario".

I'll tell you, it wasn't successful for it's "timeless" tale. It was successful because of it's smear campaign - no matter where you went, hype and propaganda for it was literally smeared all over the place, wall to wall, door to door. Disney must have spent a large fortune in advertising for that ridiculous piece of fluff, because they went so far out of their usual way to make people just watch advertisements for the movie, that musical segments of the film became video hits for VH1! VH1 being a channel which, at the time, kids and teens just didn't watch. They forced people to look at it and people started thinking (as they often do in these cases), even if they won't like it, they should probably see it anyway. But unlike smaller hype-machines for Aladdin or The Little Mermaid, Disney didn't have a very good movie to show for it all. And they probably bought most of the 'critical acclaim'.

Why do you constantly think companies pay critics to like a movie? They are people "trained" to watch a movie and don't watch it because companies pay them to do so. Did you ever consider that it's not critics that get paied by the company, but it's that your opinion doesn't equal theirs, therefore you make radical judgements? Just asking. I'm not trying to defend critics or anything(if you know me long on this board, you'll know I don't think highly of the critics as others) but saying they get paided to say things is just beyond ridiculous. Maybe they actually liked The Lion King? Ever considered that?

Also, you also say this movie isn't as good as "Aladdin" or "The Little Mermaid", I'd be willing to differ, especially with Mermaid.

Sure maybe the villain in Mermaid is cool, the only problem is, Ursula is the only likeable character in the entire movie, nobody else is.

[Disney-Fan]

Also, you also say this movie isn't as good as "Aladdin" or "The Little Mermaid", I'd be willing to differ, especially with Mermaid.

Bring it on! For every reason The Lion King is good, I'll give you two reasons for Mermaid! One of Disney's classiest classics.

[Disney's Divinity]

I know what you're getting at. But my point is that not all heroes are the same. If the hero is built into a character where part of his or her heroic ascension has to do with fighting a worthy opponent, the opponent should be worthy, or at least as villains go, a threat. I'm saying it demeans the story and the point of Simba's character that Scar is lazy, 'posh' as you put it, political (which to some extent I agree with you on), and unwise. We are led to believe while Simba would thrive in charge of the kingdom, Scar would have, through stupidity and lack of proper breeding, brought about his own downfall. Stopping evil isn't always necessarily a matter of bringing about the inevitable before it's prolonged. And if that doesn't make sense (which in some circle it doesn't to me, taken as a statement), consider this: Scar in Simba's kingdom would have been fine, Scar in his own kingdom - doomed. Simba in his own kingdom, fine; Simba in Scar's kingdom... fine, again. I think it's a matter of choices they make, yes, but also the mentality that leads them to those choices. Simba could have been a great hero (with better character touches), but Scar is a less than average villain.

I don't mean to enter a discussion that's between certain members, but I always thought that, Scar being pathetic, was done purposefully. His power as a villain was always supposed to be (I thought) connected to his relationship with Simba. At the end, it seemed to be showing how Scar wasn't really a threat at all (in reality), he had just been elevated to a threat by Simba's own problems from the past. He was more like a nightmare that Simba finally realized wasn't worth worrying over.

Also, you also say this movie isn't as good as "Aladdin" or "The Little Mermaid", I'd be willing to differ, especially with Mermaid.

Sure maybe the villain in Mermaid is cool, the only problem is, Ursula is the only likeable character in the entire movie, nobody else is.

I, personally, think that Mermaid basicly molded all the films after it, in one way or another (except Beauty and the Beast and Lion King). Rather characters were likable or not IS purely opinion. Personally, if you delve deeper into the story, you'll find that all the characters are very humanized. Honestly, although Ursula is my favorite character from the movie, I think that the only characters who could possibly be flat or unlikable are Scuttle and Grimsby. IMO, there is never a character that is unlikable, if you attempt to understand their situation as best possible.

[bambifan56]

Hey there guys. Well after some dormancy I decided to stop by again. I just witnessed "The Lion King" for the first time since I was a kid and WOW. May overshoot *dare I say* Bambi as my favorite of all time. I was just blown away . What a great story, animation and music (I was already an Elton John fan as well.). I'm sure there are many others who have already talked this into oblivion, but just to rehash it. I plan on seeing it about 20 more times to satisfy my obsessive compulsive disorder . How is everyone doing BTW. Also TLK special edition is pretty sucky on special features, I was pretty disappointed. I think I may have received a bootleg copy. It's pretty much copy paper for the cover and the cheap DVD label on both the discs.