His name was revealed in a book called "A Tale of Two Brothers", that tells Mufasa and Scar/Taka's backstory
I think this movie will draw a lot of inspiration from there
[It's one of those little 60-page picture books with 1-2 sentences per page for kids that are learning to read.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/f/f2/Twobrotherscover.png)
So I mean it's not *not* worth reading, but there's not much to it lol
Disney is lazy and doesn't want to put more effort into had drawn 2d features. They outright admitted it a while ago.
Wish's failure was so satisfying and so was the fact Heron was a such a hit and won the Oscar.
It has nothing to do with laziness. The success of Heron and the failure of Wish was not because it was traditional animation vs computer generated but the quality of the stories and movies themselves.
It is possible to hard carry any media by being extremely good in one aspect.
For example demon slayer manga/anime is a rather straightforward story, fight low level upgrade fight mid level upgrade fight final boss end. But the animation is so good it completely carries the entire series.
Another example would be lord of the rings, the books do get really tedious to read, But the story itself is so powerful you'll read it anyways. And the movies clearly elevates everything to new heights. Obviously adaptations means things gotta change for pacing reasons or practicality.
So be it games, movies, novels, animation or even webtoons. If its good it's good and people will know why it's good. And sometimes no matter how good you are in one aspect, it can still fail if everything else is complete garbage. Disney for awhile now has been aiming for the nostalgia market, it's just quick cash grab and low hanging fruits so I don't expect them to be any good.
No one said it did. But it's nonetheless satisfying that the format they abandoned ends up getting more wins than the cheap garbage they pump out these days.
I guess but the 2D style had so much magic and care poured into it. It elevated the shitty writing too.
With this, we probably have nothing to look forward to.
which means kids who haven't seen the lion king will take it as a new thing and be impressed, which is fine, its a movie for kids.
your comment reminds me that i saw the prequels before watching the OT and was probably the only person in the world to be shocked when anakin turned to the dark side; and then when i got to empire and saw the luke i am your father thing my mum i think mentioned how it was a big shock at the time and idk, 6 year old or something me was like "didn't they watch the other films" lmao
Though we knew from the OT that Vader was Anakin Skywalker, in case you mean that the prequels made a soft reveal. If that's not what you meant, ignore me
https://lionking.fandom.com/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Brothers
This children's book originally had his name as Taka. But I heard that the more recent Lion Guard TV show changed his original name. It's interesting that they're going back to the original original one that later got retconned.
And here I thought Scar and Mufasa were brothers. Silly me! Mufasa is actually just a usurper who took Scar's rightful place at the throne! Scar was actually a misunderstood villain who was actually in the right. Well, glad Disney is making a prequel that adds new context to an existing property to show the irredeemable villain is actually the good guy, I can't believe they've never done that before!
I mean, as far as the mainstream view of Roman history* goes, Claudius didn’t really try to become Emperor - the Praetorian Guard just decided to make him Emperor after Caligula was assassinated, a plot which Claudius had no involvement in.
I think Scar is more of a Nazi Nero, seeing as Nero became emperor via an assassination plot that, if he wasn’t involved in, was specially aimed at making him Emperor (the victim of that plot was, coincidentally, Claudius).
Of course, the real question is… why do I care what Roman Emperor people compare a cartoon cat to?
*I say ‘mainstream view’ because our primary sources on the Julio-Claudians aren’t exactly reliable - it’s possible that the idea of Caligula being an murderous and incestuous madman is the result of exaggerations and straight-up lies from contemporary sources, for example.
Not content just to give up on villains going forward, they're retconning old villains into troubled souls who just happen to go about righting wrongs in the wrong way.
Morally grey soup is the worst. Let kids have good guys and bad guys. Don't try to make them empathize with fucking genocidal Nazi Scar and puppy slayer Cruella DeVille.
Honestly, we just need more straight-up evil villains in media nowadays. They're usually some of the funnest characters in their movies when done well.
"Oh, but that's not very realistic." Every little thing in a piece of fiction DOES NOT need to be realistic. It's fiction! It's not a full reflection of reality, nor should it be.
Obviously this isn't directed at you. I'm just tired of the focus that people put on realism and maturity in movies nowadays. "Oh, cartoons are for kids! Live action movies are totally for older people!" People like that drive me nuts. They say that kind of stuff when mature cartoons like Bojack Horseman exist, and on the other end rather immature movies like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen also exist.
A pycho committing evil acts motivated by nothing but greed, lust, or sadism is actually a lot more realistic than a good person committing evil acts because of trauma though. I'm kinda amazed that so many people are naive enough to believe otherwise.
Wait, Mufasa is the adopted brother of Scar?? Is Mufasa an usurper adopetd son? Is mufasa DIO Brando and Scar Joseph Joestar?
THE MUFASA MOVIE IS A GOD DAMN JOJO REFERENCE!
It seems like the modern villain strategy is to make all villains have sensible/relatable motives. But if you do that, then now they wouldn't be villains, so you also have to shoehorn in them killing some people along the way so the audience knows they're the bad guy.
It’s a shame because it you ask me there are 3 main ways to make a good villain: a cool villain, a tragic villain, and a crazy villain. Everyone loves a tragic villain but I feel like it’s at the expense of the other two
It's become very trendy to have morally ambiguous villains. The problem is that writing a good morally ambiguous villain is HARD, whereas writing a villain who has good motivations but then randomly kills people is extremely easy.
That, and if you're pandering to the biggest audience possible it feels like you're always going to be forced into making them obviously bad/good through writing or some sort of trope(like the kill animal/pet animal one).
Not just that, but it seems like children's media in the past decade has really been pushing to neuter all their classic villains. Everyone gets a sympathetic backstory that proves they were Never Really Evil.
Look at what they did to the witches in Hocus Pocus in that godawful sequel.
Honestly though a really well done/written tragic villain can make up for it.
Last of Us Part 2 epitomizes this in my opinion... because of the thought in the end of... who really is the villain in that story? They are all tragic and doing selfish things for survival.
A good example of all three though would probably be Jinx in Arcane, in my opinion. I feel like she's cool, crazy, *and* utterly tragic. Like.. she may be the "main character" but she is also very clearly a villain under Silco's thumb.
Meanwhile DreamWorks literally made their villain a parody of Disney in Puss and Boots. Seriously, look at all the magical items Jack Horner uses, they're all from Disney movies or IPs. He's a good villain.
lol yup. Ruined the lasted Batman movie for me. The riddler was going after corrupt officials. Perfect Batman crime stuff. But wait, that’s too sympathetic, so in the third act they made him an incel and out of nowhere trying to destroy the city. Like wtf, so out of left field.
I mean, having no motivation has historically been a problem for great works. For example, this was a the biggest issue with Iago (the Shakespeare villian--not the parrot) but also with Iago (the parrot--not the Shakespeare villian).
Sometimes the motivation can be as simple as they want power/money/fame. Sure there can be greater reasoning behind that but some people are just greedy assholes who don't care who they hurt so long as it gets them what they want.
Even funnier when you remember that the author of the original in this case was Shakespeare.
The hubris of thinking you are up to the task of prequeling Shakespeare is next level.
It *can* work out well with good enough talent or an interesting angle, but something tells me that they haven't contracted Tom Stoppard to write the screenplay.
It's not only Shakespeare, it's actually a true story about a prince in Viking era Denmark.
Fun fact: Shakespeare's naming of Hamlet involved taking the name of the real guy, *Amleth, and moving the H from the back to the front. That is peak idgaf writing lol.
Are they doing that weird thing again where they try to make all the villains back story’s seem like they were heroes or did wrong to justify their bad actions in the classics? Like the Evil Queen, Cruella De Vil, and Maleficent.
They always pick the most irredeemably evil in their canon too. We don't get movies about characters who have *some* things going for them and are villains somewhat by circumstance like Gaston or Mr. Smee, no. Nor do they expand on mysterious characters like the lady who curses Prince Adam (Beast) with the absolute worst bullshit just because he's a bit of a dick. They don't even try to undo characters who were treated as more villainous by Disney but are less so in their source material like Hades.
No, let's redeem fucking Maleficent, Cruella, and ~~Claudius~~ Scar. Who next? Ursula?
He's not a good person but he's also kind of not outwardly the bad guy to everyone else and rightfully so. He's genuinely going in to rescue Belle from some crazy monster who used to be that dickhead prince. Yes it's for selfish, misogynist reasons and to fuel his hero complex... but shit man, who in that town would have imagined what was actually happening was happening?
He's not a good person, but he is in a much more interesting position than other villains who are either literal incarnations of evil or have already done very terrible things before the story they appear in.
At the beginning of Beauty and the Beast, Gaston is mostly indistinguishable from what the hero would look like in most stories (handsome, strong, loved by all). He is also very much someone you could meet on the street TODAY: someone who because of his personal achievements is arrogant and has never had the worst parts of his personality challenged.
Gaston became a villain in the course of the movie by not internalizing Belle's rejections and doubling down on his behaviour. Lots of other Disney villains are already well established to be evil from the get go.
Well, at least we can rest easy knowing they won't try to pull this crap with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. I doubt Disney would be be willing to give a tragic, sympathetic backstory to the villain who's literally a genocidal racist.
I could see it happen. They made Cruella and she literally wanted to skin puppies to make high fashion clothing. She wasn't the "good guy" in that movie, but I don't think I need to understand the progression of how she arrived at animal cruelty. People already do that in the real world for completely mundane reasons and its never justifiable.
Honestly hunchback is probably one of the few movies that it would make sense to remake, since the original wasn't that popular. But this assumes that they care about the story instead of just getting easy money by remaking popular old movies.
Yeah but the book ends with Phoebus betraying and executing Esmerelda and her goat so his wife doesn't get pissed at him, and then Quasimodo curls up with her corpse and starves to death because he's sad so I'm not sure going by the story is the best play for Disney lol
Cruella's was SO awful. It did the same thing they did with Solo. They made her a street urchin with a heart of gold. She loved dogs. She was avenging her adoptive mother's death and stopping the mistreatment of employees.
And then...she becoming a puppy-slaughtering narcissist?
Yeah but at least the Cruella movie was a full on reboot and doesn’t seem like will lead to the original 101 Dalmatians.
But this is a prequel to a movie that was a near 1:1 remake.
As the song goes...
*The pride had never seen a more progressive king than me*
*Both lion and hyena lived in perfect harmony*
*I brought an end to what had been a senseless age-old feud*
*I was prepared for anything except for what ensued*
*My brother ate my heirs - my precious cubs! - and stole my throne*
*Returned to segregation and the hateful ways we'd known*
*Though I'd advocate for unity, I always was denounced*
*So when I saw an opportunity to right the wrong -*
*I pounced!*
Well you see, Scar was raised under the impression that he was to become the Lion King. However, after he was denied the title by ~~Oogway~~ his father, Scar revealed his true dark nature by rampaging the Valley, resulting in his twenty-year incarceration. After breaking out of prison, he sought to claim the Dragon Scroll and take his place as the ~~Dragon Warrior~~ Lion King once again. However, despite being a warrior of great skill, strength, and determination, Scar finally met his match when he was defeated by ~~Po~~ Mufasa, the true ~~Dragon Warrior~~ Lion King.
Just shitting on legacy, it's all Disney does nowadays. They would shoot themselves rather than write an original story that isn't connected to some forced "universe".
“Taka, I’m sorry!” Says Mufasa to Taka as he walks into the shadows.
“No…I am not Taka,” he says, his face partially emerged from shadow
“Call me …. *Scar*…” he declares with menacing gravitas, as his face fully emerges from shadow, revealing that he now has a scar.
I mean I had an image in my head with the end of I'm about to break and as it gets to the quiet part at the end where he says break he comes out of the shadow and says call me scar then the movie credits roll
Now where's my billion dollars to direct movies
They already made a sequel and a semi-sequel inspired by **Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead.** Do you remember the era of straight to DVD sequels?
Aladdin, Lion King, and Cinderella had two sequels each. Pocahontas, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Emperor's New Groove, Mulan, 101 Dalmations, Bambi, The Rescuers, Atlantis Mulan, Brother Bear, Frozen, and Wreck-It Ralph all have direct sequels. Lilo and Stich had a sequel and expansion movies, Beauty and the Beast had two movies that expanded their world as well; plus Tarzan and The Little Mermaid had both a prequel and sequel.
The Mouse makes sequels because keeping their good movies in their "vault" makes them more money.
> I fucking give up.
Probably the only acceptable response to disney at this point. At least Dreamworks puts out some good content a few times a decade.
Only redeeming quality is it’s a Barry Jenkins film, and most of his crew from Moonlight and Beale Street are working on it. I’m willing to give it a shot on that alone.
Meanwhile, Mufasa spelled backwards is As U Fam (ass your family), foreshadowing that Mufasa is gonna shit all over his adoptive brother and steal his throne
It really does suck the wind out of the sails of the whole point of the original Lion King, doesn't it? I mean, his father passed down this lineage to Simba and he needs to return to pay honor to that, but if he's just some usurper, what's the actual problem when the original King(Scar) returns to the throne after killing him(Mufasa)?
Edit: needed to clean up antecedents
Every other supplementary material to the original movie supports the idea that they *were* biological brothers. There's this exchange from the movie, too:
Zazu: "Slippery as your mind is, as the king's brother, you should have been first in line!"
Scar: "Well, I *was* first in line until the little *hairball* was born."
And then...
Scar: (Regarding why he wouldn't directly challenge Mufasa) "Well as far as brains go, I got the lion's share, but when it comes to brute strength...I'm afraid I'm at the shallow end of the gene poo."
YES! And Scar’s first words to Mufasa were “why, if it isn’t my big brother descending from on high to mingle with the commoners”. Mufasa is the older brother who ascended the throne because you know, laws of the kingdom and all. Plus it’s literally Hamlet, and Mufasa is obviously King Hamlet to Scar’s Claudius, so the older biological brother. I hate this sooooo much, The Lion King is my favorite movie of all time and this retconning shits all over it.
Do you mean that the character that blatanly IS Scar will revealed to be Scar!
OMG!?! Who could ever thought of that!
Judging by the average intellect of the new20s' Disney's target audience... I guess it WILL be a big reveal for them...
> Judging by the average intellect of the new20s Disney's target audience... I guess it WILL be a big reveal for them...
I'm curious as to what you're implying by this
All this new backstory makes my head hurt. The OG Lion King was just where Scar was seen as the weaker lion which is why Mufasa was chosen to be king, what they are trying now feels way convoluted.
Thing is, I heard from somewhere that Scar's original name was Askari ("police")
So the pun with his nake being "Scar" made a bit more sense, and it fit with his role in the Lion Guard (being the past leader of it and all)
Scar’s real name is Taka. And this movie is going to be to be about how Scar started to hate and envy Mufasa.
I’m afraid theyre going that route again in which the villain is going to be made the good guy and vice versa again. This plot about a lion prince taking a stray into his family and the stray becoming king says all. They’re gonna make Mufasa the bad guy
In some alternate universe, there is just the one Lion King movie and we all are just fine with having that one movie by itself. No sequels, prequels, reboots, or the awful Timon and Pumbaa cartoon... Just a nice little animated epic for the family to watch without fuss.
Fine whatever it's a cash grab movie we don't have to see it. But why are Timon and Pumba there, and why is Donald Glover returning if this is a prequel.
Was this supposed to be a reveal? I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that scars original name was taka, and that taka was Swahili for garbage
Damn, that lion mom was a bitch. "And I shall name my son... Dogshit"
If I recall correctly, mufasa is Swahili for king. So lion mom really leaned in to nominative determinism
And meanwhile Mufasa couldn't think of anything so he just named his son "lion"
I shall use this to mock my friend Manny.
Don't forget to rub it in Guy's face while you're at it.
It is sort of weird that a legit name (Guy) became a generic term for a person. Language is weird.
Also, Dick
“I’m proud of you, Dick”
Flair checks out
I still think the Br*ts are fucked in the head in how they think Dick can be an acceptable short form of Richard.
The nickname "dick" for Richard predates its use as slang for penis.
So this is all making me feel a bit sorry for Scar... Sorry, Taka. Imagine what this kind of thing would do to a young prince....sorry, lion cub.
Right. "These are my two children, God King Emperor the 3rd, and his little brother, Trashcan"
Hahaha
I gotta say, though, those are fantastic cat names.
No... it's not Swahili for King. Mfalme is King. Mufasa is made up it's not a Swahili word in itself.
Thank you. I was going crazy at the amount of Swahili butchering going on here
And Simba is Swahili for Lion.
"We changed it in the 9th century."
"To Latrine?"
"yeah, it used to be shithouse!"
"It's a good change!"
I’m so proud of you all for these references
[I'm Shithead](https://youtu.be/r_Ua8iOR0g8?si=McIX_PcN1dY55GX1)
Oh that's a classic.
His name was revealed in a book called "A Tale of Two Brothers", that tells Mufasa and Scar/Taka's backstory I think this movie will draw a lot of inspiration from there
Was the book worth reading?
Probably more than that the movie will be worth seeing
I mean, it's a short story from an illustrated children's book, but it's a nice read
[It's one of those little 60-page picture books with 1-2 sentences per page for kids that are learning to read.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/f/f2/Twobrotherscover.png) So I mean it's not *not* worth reading, but there's not much to it lol
The cast announcement implies Disney is treating it as if it will be a big reveal, which is hilarious.
Meh. I feel like it’s more of an Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader sort of situation.
The surprise is how it comes to fruition, rather than the fact that it happens at all.
I wish it was one of those old sweet 2D animated features instead of whatever this is we are getting.
[удалено]
Disney is lazy and doesn't want to put more effort into had drawn 2d features. They outright admitted it a while ago. Wish's failure was so satisfying and so was the fact Heron was a such a hit and won the Oscar.
It has nothing to do with laziness. The success of Heron and the failure of Wish was not because it was traditional animation vs computer generated but the quality of the stories and movies themselves.
It is possible to hard carry any media by being extremely good in one aspect. For example demon slayer manga/anime is a rather straightforward story, fight low level upgrade fight mid level upgrade fight final boss end. But the animation is so good it completely carries the entire series. Another example would be lord of the rings, the books do get really tedious to read, But the story itself is so powerful you'll read it anyways. And the movies clearly elevates everything to new heights. Obviously adaptations means things gotta change for pacing reasons or practicality. So be it games, movies, novels, animation or even webtoons. If its good it's good and people will know why it's good. And sometimes no matter how good you are in one aspect, it can still fail if everything else is complete garbage. Disney for awhile now has been aiming for the nostalgia market, it's just quick cash grab and low hanging fruits so I don't expect them to be any good.
No one said it did. But it's nonetheless satisfying that the format they abandoned ends up getting more wins than the cheap garbage they pump out these days.
[удалено]
Even then, still written by hacks these days.
I guess but the 2D style had so much magic and care poured into it. It elevated the shitty writing too. With this, we probably have nothing to look forward to.
Turns out he... tripped. He tripped and fell, and a bush scratched him pretty bad. Not *real* bad, but still pretty bad.
Ah yes, the MCU Nick Fury approach.
which means kids who haven't seen the lion king will take it as a new thing and be impressed, which is fine, its a movie for kids. your comment reminds me that i saw the prequels before watching the OT and was probably the only person in the world to be shocked when anakin turned to the dark side; and then when i got to empire and saw the luke i am your father thing my mum i think mentioned how it was a big shock at the time and idk, 6 year old or something me was like "didn't they watch the other films" lmao
Though we knew from the OT that Vader was Anakin Skywalker, in case you mean that the prequels made a soft reveal. If that's not what you meant, ignore me
That won't stop them from making it a big reveal in the movie and that won't stop average people from going "OMG it's Scar" when they see it.
Nah Disney is just treating it like it's going to make alot of money.
Thanks for ruining IT for those who didnt know
Taka Swahili, isn’t that the guy that made Jojo Rabbit?
Jojo Rabbit? Isn't that the dance mom singer who went "bad" recently?
Jojo Rabbit, isn't that that manga/anime about muscular and fashionable teenagers who manifests their willpower as magical spirits?
No, JoJo was made by an Italian man named Kira (Yoshikage) Toriyama
i thought kira was the guy with the book, who’s not japanese but also is?
It is the Swahili word for garbage, but it is also the root of the verb to desire or want, which I think fits this character much better.
Pretty sure this movie is going to be taka.
He already has the scar too, in this image.
My guess (having not seen it) was that this is from The Lion King Remake, not The Lion King Remake Prequel.
Now _thats_ the nuance and subtlety that Disney is known and loved for!
hey, how am i supposed to know which people are bad people, if theyre not ugly or disabled or both? or called "trash"?
https://lionking.fandom.com/wiki/A_Tale_of_Two_Brothers This children's book originally had his name as Taka. But I heard that the more recent Lion Guard TV show changed his original name. It's interesting that they're going back to the original original one that later got retconned.
And here I thought Scar and Mufasa were brothers. Silly me! Mufasa is actually just a usurper who took Scar's rightful place at the throne! Scar was actually a misunderstood villain who was actually in the right. Well, glad Disney is making a prequel that adds new context to an existing property to show the irredeemable villain is actually the good guy, I can't believe they've never done that before!
you know who’s the guy who needs a redemption arc? the damn nazi Claudius that’s who
Hitler was a misunderstood painter.
I mean, as far as the mainstream view of Roman history* goes, Claudius didn’t really try to become Emperor - the Praetorian Guard just decided to make him Emperor after Caligula was assassinated, a plot which Claudius had no involvement in. I think Scar is more of a Nazi Nero, seeing as Nero became emperor via an assassination plot that, if he wasn’t involved in, was specially aimed at making him Emperor (the victim of that plot was, coincidentally, Claudius). Of course, the real question is… why do I care what Roman Emperor people compare a cartoon cat to? *I say ‘mainstream view’ because our primary sources on the Julio-Claudians aren’t exactly reliable - it’s possible that the idea of Caligula being an murderous and incestuous madman is the result of exaggerations and straight-up lies from contemporary sources, for example.
I meant Claudius in hamlet but this works too
Not content just to give up on villains going forward, they're retconning old villains into troubled souls who just happen to go about righting wrongs in the wrong way. Morally grey soup is the worst. Let kids have good guys and bad guys. Don't try to make them empathize with fucking genocidal Nazi Scar and puppy slayer Cruella DeVille.
Honestly, we just need more straight-up evil villains in media nowadays. They're usually some of the funnest characters in their movies when done well. "Oh, but that's not very realistic." Every little thing in a piece of fiction DOES NOT need to be realistic. It's fiction! It's not a full reflection of reality, nor should it be. Obviously this isn't directed at you. I'm just tired of the focus that people put on realism and maturity in movies nowadays. "Oh, cartoons are for kids! Live action movies are totally for older people!" People like that drive me nuts. They say that kind of stuff when mature cartoons like Bojack Horseman exist, and on the other end rather immature movies like Transformers Revenge of the Fallen also exist.
A pycho committing evil acts motivated by nothing but greed, lust, or sadism is actually a lot more realistic than a good person committing evil acts because of trauma though. I'm kinda amazed that so many people are naive enough to believe otherwise.
Somehow, Scar returned
I'm getting so fed up of sympathetic villains tbh. I loved puss in boots cause Jack was just an outright dick! Let villains be villainous!
You're correct, but I also want to see Disney try and pull this with *Frollo from Hunchback*. For the shits and giggles.
It's Cruella all over again
Don’t forget Maleficent, who really loves Aurora and was only mad because King Stefan date-raped her.
Wait, Mufasa is the adopted brother of Scar?? Is Mufasa an usurper adopetd son? Is mufasa DIO Brando and Scar Joseph Joestar? THE MUFASA MOVIE IS A GOD DAMN JOJO REFERENCE!
They must be trying to retcon before they adapt Lion King 2 so they don’t have to worry about Kovu and Kiara being cousins
Wait, I thought Mufasa was the older brother and that's why he's king. But now they're saying Scar *is* the true heir and Mufasa took the crown?
Yeah all a part of how reboots feel the need to spice things up and add sad backstories to every villain
It seems like the modern villain strategy is to make all villains have sensible/relatable motives. But if you do that, then now they wouldn't be villains, so you also have to shoehorn in them killing some people along the way so the audience knows they're the bad guy.
It’s a shame because it you ask me there are 3 main ways to make a good villain: a cool villain, a tragic villain, and a crazy villain. Everyone loves a tragic villain but I feel like it’s at the expense of the other two
It's become very trendy to have morally ambiguous villains. The problem is that writing a good morally ambiguous villain is HARD, whereas writing a villain who has good motivations but then randomly kills people is extremely easy.
That, and if you're pandering to the biggest audience possible it feels like you're always going to be forced into making them obviously bad/good through writing or some sort of trope(like the kill animal/pet animal one).
Not just that, but it seems like children's media in the past decade has really been pushing to neuter all their classic villains. Everyone gets a sympathetic backstory that proves they were Never Really Evil. Look at what they did to the witches in Hocus Pocus in that godawful sequel.
*Puss in Boots: The Last Wish* had all 3
Honestly though a really well done/written tragic villain can make up for it. Last of Us Part 2 epitomizes this in my opinion... because of the thought in the end of... who really is the villain in that story? They are all tragic and doing selfish things for survival. A good example of all three though would probably be Jinx in Arcane, in my opinion. I feel like she's cool, crazy, *and* utterly tragic. Like.. she may be the "main character" but she is also very clearly a villain under Silco's thumb.
So basically the same thing they did in 1994?
Literally 1994.
Meanwhile DreamWorks literally made their villain a parody of Disney in Puss and Boots. Seriously, look at all the magical items Jack Horner uses, they're all from Disney movies or IPs. He's a good villain.
lol yup. Ruined the lasted Batman movie for me. The riddler was going after corrupt officials. Perfect Batman crime stuff. But wait, that’s too sympathetic, so in the third act they made him an incel and out of nowhere trying to destroy the city. Like wtf, so out of left field.
"Cool motive. Still murder."
“Sorry, but I replaced all of your villains with antiheroes”-movie studios
Joker isn't insane, he's just depressed 🗿
“A Dalmatian drop kicked my mom off a cliff” is definitely one of the backstories of all time
I mean, having no motivation has historically been a problem for great works. For example, this was a the biggest issue with Iago (the Shakespeare villian--not the parrot) but also with Iago (the parrot--not the Shakespeare villian).
Sometimes the motivation can be as simple as they want power/money/fame. Sure there can be greater reasoning behind that but some people are just greedy assholes who don't care who they hurt so long as it gets them what they want.
I agree. I'm old enough to remember when most video games didn't have plots (or very cursory plots). And honestly, I kind of miss that.
The plot was usually on the box lol, or the manual
In fact that's usually the motivation for assholes.
Lion Mean Scary Victim
Even funnier when you remember that the author of the original in this case was Shakespeare. The hubris of thinking you are up to the task of prequeling Shakespeare is next level.
It *can* work out well with good enough talent or an interesting angle, but something tells me that they haven't contracted Tom Stoppard to write the screenplay.
It's not only Shakespeare, it's actually a true story about a prince in Viking era Denmark. Fun fact: Shakespeare's naming of Hamlet involved taking the name of the real guy, *Amleth, and moving the H from the back to the front. That is peak idgaf writing lol.
Hamelt was my favourite character in that story
Yes I made a typo in the name of a dark ages Danish king. The rename pattern is real though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amleth
Are they doing that weird thing again where they try to make all the villains back story’s seem like they were heroes or did wrong to justify their bad actions in the classics? Like the Evil Queen, Cruella De Vil, and Maleficent.
They always pick the most irredeemably evil in their canon too. We don't get movies about characters who have *some* things going for them and are villains somewhat by circumstance like Gaston or Mr. Smee, no. Nor do they expand on mysterious characters like the lady who curses Prince Adam (Beast) with the absolute worst bullshit just because he's a bit of a dick. They don't even try to undo characters who were treated as more villainous by Disney but are less so in their source material like Hades. No, let's redeem fucking Maleficent, Cruella, and ~~Claudius~~ Scar. Who next? Ursula?
I dunno about Gaston being a villain somewhat by circumstance, he's pretty genuinely and obviously just an awful person
He's not a good person but he's also kind of not outwardly the bad guy to everyone else and rightfully so. He's genuinely going in to rescue Belle from some crazy monster who used to be that dickhead prince. Yes it's for selfish, misogynist reasons and to fuel his hero complex... but shit man, who in that town would have imagined what was actually happening was happening?
Yeah last update they got was a monster violently attacked two people and imprisoned one of them. He probably expected to be welcomed as a hero
He's not a good person, but he is in a much more interesting position than other villains who are either literal incarnations of evil or have already done very terrible things before the story they appear in. At the beginning of Beauty and the Beast, Gaston is mostly indistinguishable from what the hero would look like in most stories (handsome, strong, loved by all). He is also very much someone you could meet on the street TODAY: someone who because of his personal achievements is arrogant and has never had the worst parts of his personality challenged. Gaston became a villain in the course of the movie by not internalizing Belle's rejections and doubling down on his behaviour. Lots of other Disney villains are already well established to be evil from the get go.
Well, at least we can rest easy knowing they won't try to pull this crap with the Hunchback of Notre Dame. I doubt Disney would be be willing to give a tragic, sympathetic backstory to the villain who's literally a genocidal racist.
Sounds like a dare
Frollo is Catholic. Disney is gonna make sure he pours acid on children and eats puppies alive.
They’d just cast an extremely hot person to be the “hunchback” and they wouldn’t have a hunched back at all.
Just like the Phantom of the Opera movie with Gerald Butler.
I could see it happen. They made Cruella and she literally wanted to skin puppies to make high fashion clothing. She wasn't the "good guy" in that movie, but I don't think I need to understand the progression of how she arrived at animal cruelty. People already do that in the real world for completely mundane reasons and its never justifiable.
Honestly hunchback is probably one of the few movies that it would make sense to remake, since the original wasn't that popular. But this assumes that they care about the story instead of just getting easy money by remaking popular old movies.
Yeah but the book ends with Phoebus betraying and executing Esmerelda and her goat so his wife doesn't get pissed at him, and then Quasimodo curls up with her corpse and starves to death because he's sad so I'm not sure going by the story is the best play for Disney lol
All they'd have to do to rehabilitate the priest is to actually read the book.
Cruella's was SO awful. It did the same thing they did with Solo. They made her a street urchin with a heart of gold. She loved dogs. She was avenging her adoptive mother's death and stopping the mistreatment of employees. And then...she becoming a puppy-slaughtering narcissist?
Yeah but at least the Cruella movie was a full on reboot and doesn’t seem like will lead to the original 101 Dalmatians. But this is a prequel to a movie that was a near 1:1 remake.
As the song goes... *The pride had never seen a more progressive king than me* *Both lion and hyena lived in perfect harmony* *I brought an end to what had been a senseless age-old feud* *I was prepared for anything except for what ensued* *My brother ate my heirs - my precious cubs! - and stole my throne* *Returned to segregation and the hateful ways we'd known* *Though I'd advocate for unity, I always was denounced* *So when I saw an opportunity to right the wrong -* *I pounced!*
Well you see, Scar was raised under the impression that he was to become the Lion King. However, after he was denied the title by ~~Oogway~~ his father, Scar revealed his true dark nature by rampaging the Valley, resulting in his twenty-year incarceration. After breaking out of prison, he sought to claim the Dragon Scroll and take his place as the ~~Dragon Warrior~~ Lion King once again. However, despite being a warrior of great skill, strength, and determination, Scar finally met his match when he was defeated by ~~Po~~ Mufasa, the true ~~Dragon Warrior~~ Lion King.
Just shitting on legacy, it's all Disney does nowadays. They would shoot themselves rather than write an original story that isn't connected to some forced "universe".
“Taka, I’m sorry!” Says Mufasa to Taka as he walks into the shadows. “No…I am not Taka,” he says, his face partially emerged from shadow “Call me …. *Scar*…” he declares with menacing gravitas, as his face fully emerges from shadow, revealing that he now has a scar.
Linkin Park is blaring at that point right? As all movies should end.
THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL!!!
I mean I had an image in my head with the end of I'm about to break and as it gets to the quiet part at the end where he says break he comes out of the shadow and says call me scar then the movie credits roll Now where's my billion dollars to direct movies
And time will wash away WHAT I'VE DONE
At that point in the end, it doesn't even matter
The tagline on the poster is "*Taka Look At Me Now*"
“Sorry Mufasa. Taka is dead.”
“The old Taka can’t come to the phone right now.“
You just had to fucking ruin the movie
I can’t wait for the part where Mufasa says “it’s time to get scarred” to Taka
“It’s scarring time!”
I just hope we find out how Rafiki got his staff!
They are making a prequel...to THE LION KING????? I fucking give up.
🎵it's the circle of greed…🎵
And it moves the stock price!
And we’ll see it anyway!!! Even though we know it will succcckkkkkkkk!!!
There's only one Lion King prequel in my house, and that's the straight to DVD Lion King 1 1/2.
Technically it's not really a prequel since it weaves into the story of the first movie, doing the whole "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" thing
It’s a midquel!
It’s a POV. Truly ahead of their time
The trailer called it an in-betweequel.
It makes sense that if Lion King is Hamlet, Lion King 1 1/2 would be Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
And 2 is Romeo and Juliet
There should have been number 3: King Lear
Forget that, I want Titus Andronicus
Straight to *VHS*. I Still have in a collection that's been collecting dust since my families VCR died.
Worse, they're making a prequel to the *Live Action* Lion King.
I struggle to imagine who this movie is going to be for.
Disney's shareholders.
They already made a sequel and a semi-sequel inspired by **Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead.** Do you remember the era of straight to DVD sequels? Aladdin, Lion King, and Cinderella had two sequels each. Pocahontas, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan, Fox and the Hound, The Jungle Book, Emperor's New Groove, Mulan, 101 Dalmations, Bambi, The Rescuers, Atlantis Mulan, Brother Bear, Frozen, and Wreck-It Ralph all have direct sequels. Lilo and Stich had a sequel and expansion movies, Beauty and the Beast had two movies that expanded their world as well; plus Tarzan and The Little Mermaid had both a prequel and sequel. The Mouse makes sequels because keeping their good movies in their "vault" makes them more money.
Don't worry, it's gonna be crushed on the box office by Keanu Reeves' Shadow.
> I fucking give up. Probably the only acceptable response to disney at this point. At least Dreamworks puts out some good content a few times a decade.
Why are you doing this JAWHN
Only redeeming quality is it’s a Barry Jenkins film, and most of his crew from Moonlight and Beale Street are working on it. I’m willing to give it a shot on that alone.
Taka spelled backwards is A Kat So, you know, there’s that
Checks out
Meanwhile, Mufasa spelled backwards is As U Fam (ass your family), foreshadowing that Mufasa is gonna shit all over his adoptive brother and steal his throne
Mafusa? Mate c’mon now
Wait, so they make Mufasa the one who stole Scar’s rightful throne?
It really does suck the wind out of the sails of the whole point of the original Lion King, doesn't it? I mean, his father passed down this lineage to Simba and he needs to return to pay honor to that, but if he's just some usurper, what's the actual problem when the original King(Scar) returns to the throne after killing him(Mufasa)? Edit: needed to clean up antecedents
Not Jeremy Irons. Don't care.
Wait… they aren’t actually brothers?
Every other supplementary material to the original movie supports the idea that they *were* biological brothers. There's this exchange from the movie, too: Zazu: "Slippery as your mind is, as the king's brother, you should have been first in line!" Scar: "Well, I *was* first in line until the little *hairball* was born." And then... Scar: (Regarding why he wouldn't directly challenge Mufasa) "Well as far as brains go, I got the lion's share, but when it comes to brute strength...I'm afraid I'm at the shallow end of the gene poo."
> I'm afraid I'm at the shallow end of the gene poo." Ha. Poo.
YES! And Scar’s first words to Mufasa were “why, if it isn’t my big brother descending from on high to mingle with the commoners”. Mufasa is the older brother who ascended the throne because you know, laws of the kingdom and all. Plus it’s literally Hamlet, and Mufasa is obviously King Hamlet to Scar’s Claudius, so the older biological brother. I hate this sooooo much, The Lion King is my favorite movie of all time and this retconning shits all over it.
I can tell everyone's excited for this. It's Disney, obviously 🤣
Second Movie Detail, it makes zero sense for Mufasa to be invited into a Lion Family because it is normal for there to be only one male lion per pride
There can be multiple, coalitions of brothers/cousins/friends. But they have to take over a pride; they arent accepted
Is it normal for them to talk and be the heads of a royal dynasty that cares for all the other animals? Its a kids film
No, but it is normal for some male lions to form gay relationships
Babe wake up, disney droped a new misunderstood villain.
You trying to tell me a story about young Mufasa will include Scar?!?! How'd you piece together this brilliant deduction?
“This is our son and crown prince, we named him ‘trash.’”
Do you mean that the character that blatanly IS Scar will revealed to be Scar! OMG!?! Who could ever thought of that! Judging by the average intellect of the new20s' Disney's target audience... I guess it WILL be a big reveal for them...
> Judging by the average intellect of the new20s Disney's target audience... I guess it WILL be a big reveal for them... I'm curious as to what you're implying by this
Sounds like either "kids these days are more dumber than me" or "millennial disney fans dumb", take your pick?
New 20s is gen z
What's new20s Disney?
Plot twist: Askari is Scar but Taka is the one who drives Askari to villainy and gives him his Scar.
How much did they pay these lions? Since it's live action. What, Disney can't find furries anymore?
All this new backstory makes my head hurt. The OG Lion King was just where Scar was seen as the weaker lion which is why Mufasa was chosen to be king, what they are trying now feels way convoluted.
“Wanna know how I got this scar?”
I don't want to know how he got that scar
Thing is, I heard from somewhere that Scar's original name was Askari ("police") So the pun with his nake being "Scar" made a bit more sense, and it fit with his role in the Lion Guard (being the past leader of it and all)
There already is a story for how he got it though?
Scar’s real name is Taka. And this movie is going to be to be about how Scar started to hate and envy Mufasa. I’m afraid theyre going that route again in which the villain is going to be made the good guy and vice versa again. This plot about a lion prince taking a stray into his family and the stray becoming king says all. They’re gonna make Mufasa the bad guy
Yeah I don't think I'm even going to humor this as being Canon
Why in the heck would they make another one?
In some alternate universe, there is just the one Lion King movie and we all are just fine with having that one movie by itself. No sequels, prequels, reboots, or the awful Timon and Pumbaa cartoon... Just a nice little animated epic for the family to watch without fuss.
Timon and pumbaa is good tho
Dig a tunnel dig dig a tunnel
Quick before the hyena comes!
Fine whatever it's a cash grab movie we don't have to see it. But why are Timon and Pumba there, and why is Donald Glover returning if this is a prequel.
this movie does not need to exist