Po'Rich
Well-Known Member
Despite what some developers may have said, the connection to Hamlet is also very marginal at best. Once you get beyond the idea that the king was killed by his brother and the heir prince feels angst, there is next to no connection.First, since when is this park required to only focus on the interaction of man and animals? Why is the interaction of animals and animals not enough at a park called Animal Kingdom? Why can’t learning about animal interactions help man be better at interacting with animals? Why can’t man learn to take a break from itself sometimes? I digress.
Second, this gripe about it being a book report ride comes down to personal preference for an original story; not a requirement for the park to fulfill its objectives. Countdown to Extinction would’ve been a book report ride if they had happened to make a movie or book about it beforehand — and doing so would’ve made it no less relevant to the park. There is nothing inherently at odds about Animal Kingdom and the ability to experience stories that were previously told in some way if they highlight animals or help us learn about animals. There is a valid broader argument about recent lack of originality at Disney parks on the whole, but I don’t find this proposed ride at this proposed park to be an offender when everything is so perfect about it.
Third, and the silliest point to have to make: The Lion King is a movie about animals. Period. Whether some plot points come from Hamlet or not, whether they speak English or Swahili or sing or not, the story has been adapted to represent a fictional animal “kingdom” (pun intended). The movie does not work if you keep all the scenes and dialogue and replace the characters with humans doing the same things. Because they’re not doing human things. They’re doing animal things, like roaring and hunting in the tall grass. It’s not about human society or human concerns. Lions do have power and succession struggles. Lions can feel sadness and depression. Hyenas do hunt in packs and prey on lion cubs. Warthogs do charge with their tusks. Mandrills do hold up newborn lion cubs off the side of cliffs to announce their birth to audiences of zebras giraffes and elephants (ok that’s a stretch but humans don’t do that either — this is fiction people!!)
“Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope.”
“But don’t we eat the antelope?”
“Yes, Simba. But let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass and the antelope eat the grass, and so we are all connected in the great circle of life.”
That ain’t Hamlet
The reason for the angst (which is a major part of both movies) is also completely different. In Lion King, Simba feels angst because he feels responsible for Mufasa's death. Hamlet never believes that he is somehow responsible for the king's death. His angst is over his course of action (does he murder Claudius based on the word of a ghost?). Once Simba knows that he is not responsible for Mufasa's death, he is quick to act with no hesitancy. There are no prolonged attempts to discover the truth and there is no moral quandary over murder as an action.
These are completely different stories, which further supports your point that Lion King is a unique fictional story about an animal kingdom.