How do people react to Scar's advances?
Page 3 of 4

Author:  RainbowJude [ Thu May 24, 2007 2:21 am ]
Post subject:  Nala's Father / Source Material

Chi wrote:
I played my The Lion King cast recording for my friend Becca once. Her response was: "Cool! Scar's gonna rape Nala! Something without a pun!"

Probably not the reaction Disney was going for... and it is also one that is, to my mind, rather offensive - or at least its expression is.

Megan the Phantom Girlie wrote:
Scar apparently.... wants to marry (Nala). Which is still kind of sick, what with so many fans of the "Lion King" movie assuming Scar is Nala's dad.

Yeslek wrote:
Nala is probably Scar's daughter (either his or Mufasa's, and I don't think Disney would have Simba "marrying" his half-sister. Though they'd still be related, she'd only be his cousin - a bit less incestual, don't you think? Though, in the long run, I doubt Disney really cares whose daughter she is anyway.)

Fantine wrote:
It is a question never answered. There are two male lions in the pride: Scar and Mufasa. So our little Nala has a little problem.
Who conceived her? A lion that wasn't part of the pride? In nature, I believe that only the leading male lion is allowed to mate with the lionesses from his pride.

The idea that Nala is Scar or Mufasa's daughter doesn't really make sense to me. I suppose there is nothing to refute it, but there is nothing to prove it either. Just because we don't see any other lions in the pride, doesn't mean there aren't any. In terms of their social structures, a pride of lions may have up to four lions (known as a coalition) that mate with the lionesses. A lioness may mate with more than one lion when she is in heat. We also don't know whether Nala is the cub of a lion that has been expelled from the pride or even if she is the cub of a nomadic lion. I don't think there's enough evidence to identify who Nala's father is. So I'm not sure that it's a vaild point through which to interpret the events of the play/film.

Beagle On Stage wrote:
(It was originally planned for) Scar to come onto Sarabi because The Lion King is based on Hamlet.

Yeslek wrote:
The Lion King is based on Hamlet. Claudius doesn't go after Ophelia, he's all about Gertrude.

That's a bit reductionist in terms of the source material of The Lion King. Yes, Hamlet provides a great deal of the inspiration for the plot of the show/film. However, another Shakespearean play, Henry V is also a source that has been used to derive narrative material. This is particularly evident in the characters of Scar and the three hyenas (the equivalents of Cambridge, Scrope and Grey). There is also a huge influence of Richard III in the character of Scar. Other "officially" named influences include the Bible, particlarly the stories of Joseph and Moses, and of course Disney's original "Circle of Life" film, Bambi. And that doesn't even broach the Kimba controversy. Although Hamlet is arguably the more influential of the sources on the final product(s), one can't just pretend that it's a straightforward adaptation of the story in the same way that West Side Story is of Romeo and Juliet. For The Lion King, there is no simple framework for comparing the sources used for the show/film to the show/film itself.

Author:  kitty17794 [ Thu May 24, 2007 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Woah, old thread. 8O

Disney has 'unofficially' said in a press conference (when the TLK dvd was released a few years back) that they never really put thought into Nala's father, but they imagined that it would be either Mufasa or Scar due to the way real lions are.

Author:  RainbowJude [ Thu May 24, 2007 9:02 am ]
Post subject:  Nala's Father / Scar's Advances

kitty17794 wrote:
Disney has 'unofficially' said... that they never really put thought into Nala's father, but they imagined that it would be either Mufasa or Scar due to the way real lions are.

They did. At the same press conference, the directors also joked that Roger Allers, the director-screenwriter, could be Nala's father. I prefer the Down/Maxwell theory:

Down/Maxwell wrote:
Theory: Nala is not the daughter of Scar or Mufasa. Mufasa and Scar took over the Pride Rock Pride and Mufasa mated with all the lionesses including Sarafina (already pregnant by the previous ruler) and Sarabi. Nala and Simba were the result.

Known Film Facts
-Nala and Simba roughly same age
-Sarafina is Nala's mother
-Sarabai and Mufasa are Simba's parents
-Nala and Simba are betrothed
-Mufasa is the leader of the Pride Rock Pride (PRP)
-Scar and Mufasa are brothers
-Scar and Mufasa share a father (Ahadi)
-Nala is never refered to as a daughter of either Scar or Mufasa, nor is she refered to as a relative of Simba's.

Known Lion Facts
-Dominant brother breeds
-Incoming male kills previous males offspring
-Lionesses are related
-Lionesses, not lions, form the base of a pride
-Males change often
-Males tend to wander before finding a pride
-Males are forced out at 3.5 years
-Males can only take over pride after ousting previous male
-Lionesses may deceive incoming males into believing cubs born following a takeover are their own.
-Females will fight to protect their cubs.

Theory: Nala is not the daughter of Scar or Mufasa. Mufasa and Scar took over the PRP and Mufasa mated with all the lionesses including Sarafina (already pregnant) and Sarabi. The result was Nala and Simba, not related by birth.

Support: As Mufasa is the dominant brother; only he can mate with the lionesses. Because of this, Nala would have to be Simba's sister. If Nala were Mufasa's daughter, Scar would have killed her upon ascension to the throne. Nala was left alive, so she can't be Mufasa's daughter. Scar is not the dominant brother, so he cannot have sired Nala. It's never established the line of Ahadi/Mufasa/Simba has held pride rock for the entire line. Given that Scar and Mufasa would have been forced out of Ahadi's pride at 3.5 years, they would have wandered before getting their own pride.

Based on rules of succession, Mufasa and Scar would have assumed the lionesses of pride, but only Mufasa would be allowed reproductive rights. We only see two cubs in the movie suggesting that Mufasa has killed all the cubs currently in the pride at the time of his takeover.

And given the mortality rate of cubs, the lack of cubs at pride rock in the present time, makes sense.

Conclusion: Nala's father will remain anonymous, as neither Pride Rock Male could be her father.

Author:  kitty17794 [ Fri May 25, 2007 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Theories....

RainbowJude wrote:
Mufasa and Scar took over the Pride Rock Pride

Not possible, as the TLK book series has their father Ahadi (and grandfather Mohatu) ruling the Pridelands, with the two brothers to later inherit it. So they weren't rogues who just came through and took over.

It is most likely, for the sake of keeping Disney clean, that Nala's father was a rogue. But who can ever know with Disney logic.

Author:  RainbowJude [ Fri May 25, 2007 12:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Nala's Father / Scar's Advances

kitty17794 wrote:
Not possible, as the The Lion King book series has their father Ahadi (and grandfather Mohatu) ruling the Pridelands, with the two brothers to later inherit it. So they weren't rogues who just came through and took over.

Which book series? Who wrote these books? Are we to consider them canonical without any supporting evidence? If that's the way that Disney wants it, with no deference to what actually happens in nature, then there's a whole lot of incest going on here.

Author:  wishicouldsing [ Mon Jul 02, 2007 2:34 am ]
Post subject: 

All though this is all very interesting and fun to speculate, I don't suppose it's honestly all that important, seeing as how the story is the way it is no matter who happens to be the babydaddy.

Just a thought.

Author:  i'm_back [ Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:56 am ]
Post subject: 

I recently saw the show, and I didn't think anything of Scar "coming on" to Nala. There weren't even gasps from the audience either. I think that this situation went along very well with the story line.

Author:  The Duchess of Mint [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:06 pm ]
Post subject:  I'm almost surprised...

Dear i'm_back,

Since Uncle Scar's character seems to be the type of character who might try to seduce one of the protagonists, I'm almost surprised that Disney didn't decide to put that type of situation into "The Lion King" (1994).

After all, we all remember "Aladdin", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", etc...:lol: for some of their less-than-child-friendly moments.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

i'm_back wrote:
I recently saw the show, and I didn't think anything of Scar "coming on" to Nala. There weren't even gasps from the audience either. I think that this situation went along very well with the story line.

Author:  Disney-Bway27 [ Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:31 pm ]
Post subject: 

In all fairness, Hunchback is a mature story in general. It's incredibly difficult to make it child appropriate, and Disney did as well as they could have, even if the movie itself was lackluster (a score to die for though).
Aladdin doesn't really have less-than-kid-friendly moments, though? :| I dun kno watchu talkin bout, Duchess.

Author:  EponineBarker [ Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

SilverTimotei wrote:
Most didn't even blink. Interesting to know however, that Scar was gonna come on to Sarabi in the movie, but they thought it would be too much for the kiddies. :roll:

It was Sarabi that Scar was going to come onto in the movie? I remember reading that it was Nala that he was going to advance on, but was cut from the film...

From IMDB:
Originally, Scar was going to send adult Nala away from Pride Rock because she ignored his romantic approaches, after which she finds Simba alive and well with Timon and Pumbaa. This idea was ultimately abandoned, as sexual harassment was considered improper in a family movie. However, the stage musical adaptation includes this plot development as part of director Julie Taymor's efforts to expand the female characters' presence in the story.

Author:  RainbowJude [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  BAMBI

Ralli Lorna wrote:
Disney always made everything all cute and cuddly. Ever read the book Bambi? It's all bloody and stuff and Disney made it so cute...

This perception that something needs to be "darker" to be better is so misguided. Bambi is a brilliant film and it is far more than being just 'cute'. Eric (who posts on here every now and again) once said that he thinks that Bambi is so amazing that it can stand up against any of the live action films of the same year and, when viewed today, it plays better and manages to feel more modern than any of them. I agree with him. Every time I watch it, I am astounded by the directing, the use of colour and camera angles, the huge amount of detail in some of the animation and the way that the detail gives way to nightmarish abstraction in some of the very emotionally heightened sequences. The book is by no means better simply for being more 'bloody and stuff'.

Bambi is a masterpiece that represents the end of an era, not only because of how the studio had to stop making feature length animated films but because it was the last of the animated films where Disney, the man, was completely invested in the project before things like live action and Disneyland started to occupy his mind.

Author:  EricMontreal22 [ Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: How do people react to Scar's advances?

Haha thanks for referencing me. Anyone who thinks Disney's Bambi is "cute and cuddly" hasn't seen it, at least in a while... The Great Five Disney pre war films (Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi and Dumbo) stand up, in terms of characterization, camera angles, direction, to any films of the era (yes including Citizen Kane) and actually feel MORE modern than them. Back then particularly (though I think this has--more or less--always been true) Disney wasn't creating films to sell merchandise or get kids interested--he wanted to make exciting, interesting, MOVIES, and they were, and are vital in that regard.

Pinocchio is a HUGE improvement on its fragmented, moralistic source material (which I would even go as far as saying wouldn't be in print anymore without the Disney film) and as for the belief that Disney white washed fairy tales--look at Snow White. It's darker than any of the live action adaptations (even my beloved Wizard of Oz) of the time, or even of recent times. With the fairy tales especially, these are stories that have always been retold for their audience.

As much as largely (with some huge "WTF moments") love films like Hunchback, I do get the criticism that Disney took a piece of art and simplified it (though they didn't any more than Universal did in the 30s), and I do think the "formula" that was haphazardly created by these early movies (comic sidekicks, etc) has become stale. Then again Rodgers and Hammerstein could be more than accused of doing the same of their best work (Oklahoma compared to Green Grow the Lilacs? Carousel next to the darkness of Lilliom? South Pacific compared to the novellas??). That said, the early prewar Disney films--before he became more interested in live action and amusement park rides, hold up as great works of CINEMA next to anything of their time.

I'm a HUGE Max Fleischer fan, but witness his two attempts at feature animated films at the time--they seem like prolonged shorts. Disney, got it, and there's a reason kids still watch the films (as well as adults who can get ppast their preconceptions). Hitchcock called the Pink Elephants segment of Dumbo the best nightmare sequence in cinematic history, and mentioned the Bambi forest fire scene's camera angles as colouring his later use of directing. Bambi the novel is good, but it's disjointed, and couldn't have been faithfully made into a film--Salten realized that and he actually said that Disney made his novel into a "piece of art" before he died a few years later. The use of stylization is particularly amazing in a modern context--something I wish Disney had persued more. Of course only Snow White (and the quickly turned out--miraculously-0-Dumbo) made ANY money back then. The films were done for their own sake--"Disney's Folly" as the press would say for each and every one--and each and every one became a classic.

*edit* Oh and the original novel of Bambi isn't "all bloody and stuff" by any means :P It does, obviously miss the comic interludes (which to be fair, at the time were required in most movies in general, not just Disney).

Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group