Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[LittleBuford]

I understand and can see that point of view. But to me if the intent of the original filmmakers is they weren't biological brothers and the remake just makes that clear to rectify something previously left open to interpretation then that isn't a retcon. That is just honoring the original intent of the original filmmakers.

Everyone can make their own opinion of it. But that to me is one of the most nitpicky reasons to want to see a film do badly.

I don’t think it’s a good reason for wanting the film to do badly either, but neither do I agree that it was “something previously left open to interpretation”. There was absolutely nothing in the original film to raise it as a possibility, let alone open it up to interpretation. It would be like suddenly revealing that Remy and Emile aren’t biological siblings—by no means something impossible, but certainly not anything hinted at in the original film.

 

[LittleBuford]

I mean it never occurred to me but I’m accustomed to theories and retcons like this. As I’ve mentioned previously I’m kind of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to world of film.

I think even you may find this one too much (suggested to me this very day by the YouTube algorithm!):

 

[Disney Irish]

I don’t think it’s a good reason for wanting the film to do badly either, but neither do I agree that it was “something previously left open to interpretation”. There was absolutely nothing in the original film to raise it as a possibility, let alone open it up to interpretation. It would be like suddenly revealing that Remy and Emile aren’t biological siblings—by no means something impossible, but certainly not anything hinted at in the original film.

I see your point. I guess I just come from an area where brother is used as a term not only for biological relations but also close friends and other non-blood male familial relations. For example I regularly call my male friends brothers. So when one male calls another "brother" I don't automatically just assume that means blood biological brother.

So this is why I call it leaving it open to interpretation, it all comes from ones own perspective even if its not out right stated in the film one can interpret it multiple ways.

 

[LittleBuford]

I see your point. I guess I just come from an area where brother is used as a term not only for biological relations but also close friends and other non-blood male familial relations. For example I regularly call my male friends brothers. So when one male calls another "brother" I don't automatically just assume that means blood biological brother.

So this is why I call it leaving it open to interpretation, it all comes from ones own perspective even if its not out right stated in the film one can interpret it multiple ways.

In the context of the film, I really don’t see how one can interpret the word except in its fraternal sense. Scar refers to Mufasa as his “big brother”, and Zazu chides Scar “as the king’s brother” for not being first in line to pay his respects at the birth of Simba. Of course, these usages would still apply to an adopted brother, but certainly not to a friend or non-fraternal relative.

 

[Agent H]

I think even you may find this one too much (suggested to me this very day by the YouTube algorithm!):

Yeah. That’s a lot of leaps in logic even for me!

 

[Disney Irish]

In the context of the film, I really don’t see how one can interpret the word except in its fraternal sense. Scar refers to Mufasa as his “big brother”, and Zazu chides Scar “as the king’s brother” for not being first in line to pay his respects at the birth of Simba. Of course, these usages would still apply to an adopted brother, but certainly not to a friend or non-fraternal relative.

I guess we just come from different backgrounds where the usage of the word varies. Which is what makes these discussions interesting to see everyone's take on things.

Anyways, my take is if the original filmmakers intended one thing but the audience thought it meant something else. Well the original filmmaker wins in that regard in my opinion, as its their vision.

If people want to call it a recon, ok. But I cannot see that based on how the original filmmakers intended it.

 

[LittleBuford]

I guess we just come from different backgrounds where the usage of the word varies.

It has nothing to do with what backgrounds we come from. I offered examples from the original film’s own script that make clear the word is being used in its fraternal sense. That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course, but it does mean that they are most definitely brothers, not just friends or non-fraternal relatives.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yeah. That’s a lot of leaps in logic even for me!

Oh, it’s pure clickbait, of course. The nonsense people can publish (and make money from) on the internet is staggering.

 

[Disney Irish]

It has nothing to do with what backgrounds we come from.

I understand your point of view, but that doesn't mean my background doesn't inform my perspective. As I mentioned if I hear someone call another brother, even when adding "big" to it as a qualifier, I don't automatically assume they are biological brothers. There are all sorts of situations where that can happen. Heck, there is a even a mentoring program called "Big Brothers Big Sisters" I used to be involved with where the mentor/mentee would regularly call each other big brother/little brother in conversation.

So agree to disagree on that. But I hope this helps you understand why my background helps color my opinion.

I offered examples from the original film’s own script that make clear the word is being used in its fraternal sense. That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course, but it does mean that they are most definitely brothers, not just friends or non-fraternal relatives.

And I agree those are valid examples on how one would conclude that biological link. I'm just not conceding that its not possible to also conclude that its a non-biological link. Which is why I leave it up to the original intent of the filmmakers, they are the final authority on it in my opinion. If you disagree with the filmmakers and say that should have made it more clear in the original if that is what they intended, well that is up to you.

 

[LittleBuford]

I understand your point of view, but that doesn't mean my background doesn't inform my perspective. As I mentioned if I hear someone call another brother, even when adding "big" to it as a qualifier, I don't automatically assume they are biological brothers. There are all sorts of situations where that can happen. Heck, there is a even a mentoring program called "Big Brothers Big Sisters" I used to be involved with where the mentor/mentee would regularly call each other big brother/little brother in conversation.

So agree to disagree on that. But I hope this helps you understand why my background helps color my opinion.


And I agree those are valid examples on how one would conclude that biological link. I'm just not conceding that its not possible to also conclude that its a non-biological link. Which is why I leave it up to the original intent of the filmmakers, they are the final authority on it in my opinion. If you disagree with the filmmakers and say that should have made it more clear in the original if that is what they intended, well that is up to you.

I already made clear that the fraternal sense doesn’t in any preclude the possibility of their being adoptive brothers (hence why I wrote “That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course”). My point was only that the non-fraternal uses of the word obviously aren’t what’s going on in the script. Zazu’s comment to Scar would make absolutely no sense except as a reference to a fraternal relationship. And the fact that Scar succeeds Mufasa (as his brother and therefore next in line in the absence of Simba) proves the point.

I have to say this is a very strange debate to be having. It’s one thing to argue that their relationship as brothers may or not be biological (there’s room there for discussion), but quite another to be suggesting that one might watch The Lion King and walk away with the notion that Scar is simply some sort of friend or non-fraternal relative of Mufasa’s (which very clearly is not the case)!

 

[Disney Irish]

I already made clear that the fraternal sense doesn’t in any preclude the possibility of their being adoptive brothers (hence why I wrote “That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course”). My point was only that the non-fraternal uses of the word obviously aren’t what’s going on in the script. Zazu’s comment to Scar would make absolutely no sense except as a reference to a fraternal relationship. And the fact that Scar succeeds Mufasa (as his brother and therefore next in line in the absence of Simba) proves the point.

I have to say this is a very strange debate to be having. It’s one thing to argue that their relationship as brothers may or not be biological (there’s room there for discussion), but quite another to be suggesting that one might watch The Lion King and walk away with the notion that Scar is simply some sort of friend or non-fraternal relative of Mufasa’s (which very clearly is not the case)!

Ok

 

[LittleBuford]

I mean clearly someone did walk away from the movie in 1994 thinking they might not be biological brothers because I did. And I was providing my reasoning on why I did based on my background. If you can't accept that, well sorry.

I understand your points, and agree that it’s easy to conclude the biological relationship. I would just hope that you could also see how it’s just a plausible for someone to also conclude a non-biological relationship.

I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying. I’ve repeatedly made clear in my last few posts that I am no longer talking about whether their relationship as brothers is biological or not. That is irrelevant to the point I’m now making. I really don’t know how to articulate myself more clearly than I already have, and since I would simply be repeating myself if I tried, I’ll leave it there.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don’t think you’re reading what I’m saying. I’ve repeatedly made clear in my last few posts that I no longer talking about whether their relationship as brothers is biological or not. I really don’t know how to articulate myself more clearly, and since I would simply be repeating myself if I tried, I’ll leave it there.

I deleted my post before you replied.

We obviously aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this so I concede and just say you're right.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I wasn’t bothered by it, but I have to say it felt like a retcon to me too. It’s irrelevant what those who made the film were thinking behind the scenes; if it wasn’t conveyed in the finished product, it may as well never have been the case. Did anyone ever watch The Lion King and come away with the impression that Mufasa and Scar weren’t biological brothers? I certainly didn’t.

And Dumbledore is gay.

And Vader is Luke’s father after the audience is told otherwise. Leia is his sister, after they kissed.

if the original filmmakers intended one thing but the audience thought it meant something else.

Or the original filmmakers were overruled by studio execs.

Or they decided to leave it not explicitly stated, so people would make a (natural) assumption.

Or it’s implied by how different they look.

 

[Ghost93]

I'm sorry, but I 100% agree with LittleBuford that there is NOTHING in the original Lion King that implies the two were anything but biological brothers. I think the story makes a lot more sense with the idea that Mufasa was born into royalty and part of a long lineage of kings and that Scar was a biological brother who resented Mufasa from a young age due.

I don't hate the Mufasa movie — it's a VAST improvement over 2019 The Lion King and was much more pleasant to sit through than other recent Disney flicks like Moana 2 — but its absurd to act like Mufasa and Scar not being related and starting out as good friends isn't a retcon.

Btw, retcons aren't always a bad thing. Sometime they improve a story (Vader becoming Luke's father), sometimes they severely weaken it (Somehow...Palpatine has returned ). I slightly prefer Scar and Mufasa being related, but it's not something that I feel so strongly about that it ruined Mufasa 2024 for me.

What felt like a bigger retcon to me is Scar being straight and attracted to Sarabi. Jeremy Irons's performance in the original felt extremely gay-coded.

I say it "felt" like a retcon, because I know of the deleted scene where Scar tries to marry Nala, so that probably wasn't the intention to make Scar gay. But IDK, a lot of Disney villains from that era felt like they took on queer stereotypes.

 

[LittleBuford]

What felt like a bigger retcon to me is Scar being straight and attracted to Sarabi. Jeremy Irons's performance in the original felt extremely gay-coded.

Interesting! I’ve heard this from other gay Americans who cited Jeremy Irons’ way of speaking as the reason they got this impression. As a gay Brit, I never viewed (or heard) the character that way.

 

[LittleBuford]

And Dumbledore is gay.

And Vader is Luke’s father after the audience is told otherwise. Leia is his sister, after they kissed.

This is the kind of response that should be reserved for people who are angry about the retcon. I made clear I was not.

Or they decided to leave it not explicitly stated, so people would make a (natural) assumption.

In what way was it a “natural” assumption?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The little side discussions like this are why this website is so interesting, who could foresee we’d be discussing whether 2 fictional lions are brothers?

Scar talks about being next in line before Simba was born, that always signaled to me that he was a brother, if he wasn’t part of the royal bloodline he’d have no claim to the title.

 

[Disney Irish]

And in the original Mufasa's ghost says to Simba, "you are the one true king". If Scar had any claim to the throne through biology you think this line would have been phrased different or not put the emphasis on the "true" part.

So you can take lines from the original and put other meaning to them based on how you view the lineage of Scar.

 

[Agent H]

The little side discussions like this are why this website is so interesting, who could foresee we’d be discussing whether 2 fictional lions are brothers?

Scar talks about being next in line before Simba was born, that always signaled to me that he was a brother, if he wasn’t part of the royal bloodline he’d have no claim to the title.

I kinda prefer this to the normal “civil discourse” that goes on in this thread.