DVDizzy Forum

Bambi is a monumental achievement in cinema, with the sparse dialog and the heavy concentration on drawn acting to carry the plot...it really is a celebration of the animated art form.

The Lion King is essentially a remake, with parts of Henry IV and Hamlet thrown in -- but the film is weakened by Katzenberg's cynical belief in stunt casting and sitcom dialog, and in terms of art, the film simply cannot compete in a honest comparison with the artwork or animation in Bambi. Truth be told, it doesn't bear up to most of Walt's pre-Xerography films, and I'd even include the package films of the 40's.

They often say that Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty had really simple stories that could be told in like, 5 minutes. That's an extreme exaggeration, but just for the sake of this post...

Am I the only one who thinks The Lion King is also a really simple story? To me it's a cub runs away from home, then runs back home. Really.

Yes, they tell the story with complications, great characters, and their relationships, and great drama, and that's what makes it so great, but actually I think it has a very simple story.

Maybe it's "deceptively simple", like it's simple at it's heart but there's all these complex things going on within the simple premise like in Cinderella and the others.

You know, it's actually so much like Snow White or Sleeping Beauty. Seriously. A member of royalty's parents (or just one parent?) are dead, they run away into hiding with little funny characters, then they reclaim their royalty. Even Cinderella has the whole high-born, diminished, then back to high position again, and that one also had magical help. The Fairy Godmother is Rafiki or Mufassa's ghost in The Lion King. And there's even falling in love with another member of royalty, who helps bring the high-born member back to their own royalty (I've heard too many people say Nala's a princess...is that right?).
EDIT: Okay, well, since she only becomes royal by marrying him, I guess it's just that the main high-born member falls in love.

Well, that's just what I was thinking.

I think it has acquired to me in the past that The Lion King has a simple story. Especially when compared to Pirates of the Caribbean 3, now that movie's story was super busy.

Disney Duster wrote:The Fairy Godmother is Rafiki

That totally gives me the urge to draw Rafiki wearing FG's clothes!

Great soundtrack, and the scene where Simba meets his father's ghost is, yes, very Hamlet, but it's very touching!

Nala becomes a princess by marrying Simba...

Interesting comparisons, Duster. You know that makes my favorites in Disney's Cinderella series both Zazu. Actually, I had thought of that before. I mentioned here, years ago, that if I were to have signed on with a different name, it would have been Lady Zazu.

Zazu gets no love whatsoever. I scourged Disney World looking for one piece of Zazu memorabilia and came up empty handed.

Disney Duster wrote:They often say that Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty had really simple stories that could be told in like, 5 minutes. That's an extreme exaggeration, but just for the sake of this post...

Am I the only one who thinks The Lion King is also a really simple story? To me it's a cub runs away from home, then runs back home. Really.

All Disney movies are really basically simple.

Disney Duster wrote: (I've heard too many people say Nala's a princess...is that right?).

If we want to get subliminally technical, Nala really Simba's half sister..... Going by Lion's pride social methods.

Prudence wrote: Nala becomes a princess by marrying Simba...

More like Queen.

Super Aurora wrote:

Prudence wrote: Nala becomes a princess by marrying Simba...

More like Queen.

Well, "if we want to get subliminally technical," she probably wouldn't be a Queen. After all, there would be others popping out Simba-babies and, besides, lionesses don't have much standing in the real world.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: More like Queen.

Well, "if we want to get subliminally technical," she probably wouldn't be a Queen. After all, there would be others popping out Simba-babies and, besides, lionesses don't have much standing in the real world.

Also, Sarabi is still the Queen Mother and technically the Queen as such.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: More like Queen.

Well, "if we want to get subliminally technical," she probably wouldn't be a Queen. After all, there would be others popping out Simba-babies and, besides, lionesses don't have much standing in the real world.

Point taken

As for Sarabi, well she was no where be seen in the second movie therefore must of been dead.

Wait so Sarabi, a queen, had Nala, so Nala was already a princess without Simba?

Disney Duster wrote:Wait so Sarabi, a queen, had Nala, so Nala was already a princess without Simba?

No. What I was referring by is that Lion prides go by usually one male and many females. Meaning the male obviously sex up all those female lions. I know this is disney so that's why i pointed out "technically" that Nala would be Simba's half sister since there was no other male lion besides Mufasa...and Scar. (I doubt Scar is her father lol). I was just nitpicking.

I see. So Sarabi, the Queen, had Simba, and Nala was had by some nameless lioness no one cares about...haha?

Disney Duster wrote:I see. So Sarabi, the Queen, had Simba, and Nala was had by some nameless lioness no one cares about...haha?

Nala's mother is named Sarafina. No one cares about her father's identity.

Disney Duster wrote:They often say that Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty had really simple stories that could be told in like, 5 minutes. That's an extreme exaggeration, but just for the sake of this post...

Am I the only one who thinks The Lion King is also a really simple story? To me it's a cub runs away from home, then runs back home. Really.

There's a difference between a simple story, and oversimplifying a story. If you think The Lion King's is just a cub that runs away and comes back you really need to watch it again. And yes, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty had a lot of padding (mostly with the cute characters) that could've been shortened, but even Snow White suffered from that. I think that's Walt's main flaw. The pace of a story wasn't his strongest point.

KubrickFan wrote:If you think The Lion King's is just a cub that runs away and comes back you really need to watch it again. And yes, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty had a lot of padding (mostly with the cute characters) that could've been shortened, but even Snow White suffered from that. I think that's Walt's main flaw. The pace of a story wasn't his strongest point.

I think that's one of the best things.
There is nothing more beautiful than a scene like when Aurora walks trough the forest , singing to herself, just walking around, with the beautiful visuals and music.
It gives a feeling of ultimate beauty.

Newer films are way too rushed, no place for beauty anymore, the story has to be hurried, every moment is quickly ruined by some joke, things just got really fast and slapsticky.

Marky_198 wrote:

KubrickFan wrote:If you think The Lion King's is just a cub that runs away and comes back you really need to watch it again. And yes, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty had a lot of padding (mostly with the cute characters) that could've been shortened, but even Snow White suffered from that. I think that's Walt's main flaw. The pace of a story wasn't his strongest point.

I think that's one of the best things.
There is nothing more beautiful than a scene like when Aurora walks trough the forest , singing to herself, just walking around, with the beautiful visuals and music.
It gives a feeling of ultimate beauty.

Newer films are way too rushed, no place for beauty anymore, the story has to be hurried, every moment is quickly ruined by some joke, things just got really fast and slapsticky.

You're right. The fairies weren't slapsticky at all, nor the drunken messenger.

Marky, from what you're saying they may as well must make a film of "The Very Hungry Catapillar" or how about not even bothering to tell a story at all?

Duster, there's a world of difference between Sleeping Beauty and The Lion King. I know you insist Sleeping Beauty does have many levels, but I simply can't see them.

The Lion King on the other hand has so many levels:

Is it about nature's balance and cycle? After all Scar upset's the delicate balance out of greed.

Is it about accepting and living up to one's duty? Does Simba simply run away and then change his mind?

Is it about love and the need to ultimately belong with others of your own kind? After all, Simba could stay at the oasis with Timon and Pumba.

Is it a political thriller, with a political coup removing the rightful leader? (Note its African setting too).

Is it about the British Empire's abuse of Africa? (Note Scar's British voice and how he destroys the kingdom).

Or is it simply about growing up? Even then, is it about growing up, or about how the older you get, the darker and more dangerous the world reveals itself to be. You could argue that while with Timon and Pumba, Simba grows older physically, but doesn't grow up mentally.

That's the beauty of The Lion King. It can be a story about a kid growing up and ultimately getting justice on his uncle (which is a pretty fairy-tale-ish story - even though its played out in an unusual location and with animals). Or it can be one or more of the above. It's far from simple (but its also far from complex).

I love you, 2099net. Glad someone else sees that TLK had more going on than "fart" jokes (which were nearly non-existent anyway).

But I partially see Marky's point--I know TLM kind of speeds from plot point to plot point, though that's an extremely short movie. I just wonder if they'd given it ten/twenty more minutes, if the movie would seem less "fast." Still, I think the fairies, dwarfs and mice were beyond overboard. That's like 20-30 minutes pointlessness.

Marky_198 wrote: I think that's one of the best things.
There is nothing more beautiful than a scene like when Aurora walks trough the forest , singing to herself, just walking around, with the beautiful visuals and music.
It gives a feeling of ultimate beauty.

Newer films are way too rushed, no place for beauty anymore, the story has to be hurried, every moment is quickly ruined by some joke, things just got really fast and slapsticky.

They're two different things. A scene like Aurora's walking through the forest is actually poignant for telling what kind of character she is. It's her introduction. But a scene like the fairies bickering and making a pie and a dress for her is going overboard with all the slapstick. I disagree with the fact that newer films are always rushed. Yes, the pace has gone up, but there's more to tell most of the time. They just have to be careful not to overdo it, but that's not really happening in my opinion.

Yes, I agree with Kubrickfan and 2099net. Seriously I just watched Cinderella the other night and Can't help but found the mice so....pointless. Like when Jaq and Gus went to get beads and cloths for the dress. I mean did we need see that stupid antic? Or when they went to go get food. Or the dress signing song.

As for sidekicks in the 90's, they were like double blade sword. On one hand some were big part of the story or actually help with the story like Genie or Timon and Pumbaa, but they also suffer from overacting comic antics and gags.

I can't help but notice that the sidekicks characters after Timon and Pumbaa became nothing more than copy carbon of them. Especially sequels one like that Tip and Dash dudes. Pure Timon & Pumbaa rippoff right there.

KubrickFan wrote:And yes, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty had a lot of padding (mostly with the cute characters) that could've been shortened, but even Snow White suffered from that. I think that's Walt's main flaw. The pace of a story wasn't his strongest point.

But the interaction between the "cute characters" often is what the film is about. Snow White is about the relationship between Snow White and the seven dwarfs. That there's a jealous queen who poisons an apple and gives it to Snow White, is nice for the plot, but the heart of the movie is about the interaction between the princess and the dwarfs. In Cinderella, the story of the mice and Cinderella are interwoven. It's the mice who make Cinderella's dress. And it's the mice and Bruno who ultimately save her.

I agree with you on Sleeping Beauty, because the time given to Aurora and the three fairies is very out of balance. But all in all, most Walt-era films are about character-interaction. You can see this in The Jungle Book, which has virtually no plot at all, but it's still one of his best films because of the relationship between Mowgli and Baloo.

2099net wrote:You're right. The fairies weren't slapsticky at all, nor the drunken messenger.

You leave out a lot of Marky's criticism. You only reply to one word he used, "slapsticky". The difference is that, in the older films, the 'slapsticky' things were part of a character or told us soemthing about that character. It derived from him/her, or the situation he/she was in. It flowed naturally from the action. That's very different from Pumbaa's fart jokes or Hugo make fart sounds with his armpit. And another thing what Marky was trying to say, is that in older films, there was time for beautiful, sincere moments. In newer films, serious moments aren't allowed to be serious anymore. It has to have a gargoyle or a hyena in it to make jokes so that the younger ones aren't getting bored.

2099net wrote:Marky, from what you're saying they may as well must make a film of "The Very Hungry Catapillar" or how about not even bothering to tell a story at all?

That's not fair. That's not what Marky said.

You give many multiple readings of The Lion King, which are all valid, I'm not arguing that. But if you want, you can come up with as many readings of Sleeping Beauty. You can't see them and neither can I, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. After all, you are seeing all kinds of readings in TLK which I don't see, because I see it as a lazy rip-off from Kimba, the white lion.

Super Aurora wrote:I can't help but notice that the sidekicks characters after Timon and Pumbaa became nothing more than copy carbon of them. Especially sequels one like that Tip and Dash dudes. Pure Timon & Pumbaa rippoff right there.

Tip and Dash acted so much like Timon and Pumbaa that I wouldn't have been surprised if they yanked off their heads at one point and revealed they were T & P cosplaying!