Doesn't that kinda make Scar correct in his dismissal of Mufasa and Simba and make him the good guy? And yes I'm aware some societies had adoptable heirs, like the Roman emperors.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
Good guy? No, though if we take the "passed over for an orphan" to be true (and not a stupid, subversive retcon likely meant to devillify yet another Dinsey bad guy), it means that his feelings of betrayal and anger are more justified.
Unfortunately, his (currently) cannonical actions of murdering his "adopted" brother, driving off his nephew to usurp the throne, and then allowing the kingdom to become a shithole prove that his parents seemed to have a prescient understanding of who would be a better leader and chose accordingly.
That's how the descriptions of the plot describe him as an orphan. Which honestly is weird since Scar drops a line in The Lion King that Mufasa got the lion share of physical power. And no hint of adoption was given.
But Gladiator II just made Lucius, Maximus' son so movies just do what they want
just ignore the retcon nonsense and don't even acknowledge those movies exist
Now that you mention it, it IS clear that Mufasa is the king because he's strong, as you said, so why is Simba assumed to be the future ruler since he was a cub? If royalty is by strength and not inheritance, the first movie alone is contradictory.
Not that it matters much.
To someone who is reasonable this would make sense. But the logic here seems like reality's villains are self-identifying with fake villains. Instead of Scar being a vengeful, ambitious, and resentful brother; he can be seen as the privileged, entitled, elitist replaced by a foreigner, who never learned to accept his place as someone who is innately inferior due to his privilege. So instead of accepting his inferiority and apologizing to his betters for being born in the wrong class, he gets resentful, justifying his eventual death as an outsider literally replaces him and his bloodline.
And knowing Hollywood, that could be the exact message they want to convey. There really is no goddamn end to this globalist malarkey, is there?
Totalitarian ideologies have no end, comrade.
It just continues the trend that Scar is evil because he is evil and thereby the actions that make him evil were justified to begin with.
Like, the canon of film universe shows he was branded by what is plainly implied to be the Devil with his scar that is a literal corrupting mark while also having his head filled with thoughts of being king instead by said devil. And when he tells his brother what happened, the nigga just says "guess your name is Scar now lol" and laughs it all off.
So its actually pretty consistent that Scar is made the villain through external forces that culminate in him being the vile thing he becomes in the original movie proper. In this case, I'll guess its his parents saw him as evil or arrogant and passed him over because of it without caring how it would effect him.
Its that perfect circular logic that bad story writers use. We know Scar will be evil, so him getting shit on is a good thing the audience will cheer for because he is evil, even if that shitting on is what makes him evil in the first place.
There was a Disney movie made in the early 2000s called "Meet the Robinsons" and it's plot is almost the exact opposite of your description. We see the villain become a bad guy because the actions of the protagonists ruin his life. So at the end they fix the issue and there is no villain.
It's also weird the the movies "Cruella" and "Malificent" attempt to soften the villainy of those villains, but Scar has to be a villain so Mufasa can shine. I suspect them being female has a lot to do with changing their image.
Its almost certainly a female thing there. Both because women make characters like Maleficent their entire personality, and because Scar being so evil is what makes him so hot to women too. So in both cases, its to appeal to them.
In this specific case though, there is this extremely specific character shilling going on. Like, I keep seeing descriptions for this movie as "see how Mufasa became the paragon of good we all know him as."
I don't know about most people, but that's never something I'd call him. Not only that, but it really makes him so more generic than he was even in the original movie which had the excuse of his fucking death to not have the time to give him depth.
It feels like they are really angling for some sort of "Wise African Giga King" symbol to replace the dead guy from Black Panther, and to do that they apparently really need their unquestionably evil counterpart. Its also why they seem to only care about this specific live action movie enough to give it a sequel with its own continuity instead of a one and done.
People in creative fields are obsessed with origin stories. It is their thing and they only focus on it.
they're obsessed origin stories of characters somebody else created so they can subvert it for their agendas
It's what actors and storytellers use to create the characters in their heads.
I love meet the Robinsons. It's full of fantasy and I connect with it as a really smart blond kid with glasses, and then since I adopted a kid at that age.
Star Trek has done this. Probably a few times.
Kai Winn in DS9 is a miserable busybody cat lady because she's never actually had any spiritual experiences with the wormhole aliens the Bajorans call The Prophets.
These are known deities that multiple characters meet and interact with, who for centuries would basically send Bajor voicemail in the form of the Orbs. Using one of these would have different effects depending on precisely which one it was, but it included time travel, vision quests, and a whole slew of other things due to the non corporeal and non linear existence of the Prophets who could both perceive and manipulate the galaxy in ways beyond understanding. They even flat out delete an entire Dominion fleet at one point. They really are God-like in what they can do, however extremely detached from reality because they neither exist in it or experience it the same way any of the cast do.
Which leads to Kai Winn being the person she is, and taking the actions she does. She hooks up with the evil versions of the Prophets, the Pah-Wraith, because the Prophets never spoke to her. But the Prophets never speak to her because they know she eventually hooks up with the Pah-Wraith... 🙄
She's entirely a villain of their own making and everything she does which almost leads to the destruction of the Prophets, Bajor, DS9, and the galaxy could have been avoided if the Prophets understood their own lack of awareness of time and linear existence.
It's a slightly different twist on someone using time travel and going back to meet someone they know to be bad only to be the catalyst that makes said person bad in the first place, but it's still the same general principle of using foreknowledge to create a predestination paradox.
Unfortunately, Kai Winn is a basically just an insert for "religion is bad, m'kay" logic that the liberals who watch the show believe. Star Trek normally fails when it comes to religion, and DS9 is the series that actively tries to force the writers to try and give religion some value in the universe, and they still can't help themselves but insert a "evil conservative" character into show that has no redeeming qualities and is the cause of all problems.
I've never seen a Star Trek, but reading his description really jumped out to me as some Leftist's idea of how people who "don't hear god talk to them" become evil over it because they are obsessive dumb religoids. So I guess its spoton as what they always do.
Religion ends up being a corrupting influence to the Left, the same way every totalitarian ideology does. Frankly, it's what happened to a lot of atheists.
I always considered the atheists who adopted Leftism to (as many have pointed out) swapped one religion for another. In the atheist cultural experience, you would say these people didn't engage in "Deconversion".
Deconversion is the actual process of truly leaving all religious behavior and magical thinking. It is a point where I would agree with the edge lords on Reddit that if someone claimed they were an atheist and found God, it's because they weren't really an atheist because they didn't engage in deconversion.
What that really looks like is that you genuinely don't replace God with anything, you drop the concept altogether. You don't search for a replacement, because you don't actually need one at all. You have to actually place the mantel of moral responsibility onto yourself and deal with it in an appropriate manner.
But, because Leftists always shirk responsibility, particularly moral responsibility to deontological assertions and historical meta-narratives, they never actually de-convert from religious thinking. In fact, they engage in worse magical thinking than some of the worst religious zealots. They are the ones dragging Carrie into the closet.
Ironically, only an atheist would be so narcissistic and delusional to think such a thing is possible.
Psychology is filled with concepts and names of fundamental human mental traits that are magic thinking in all its forms, and while it doesn't name drop religion specifically it sets all the foundations for how religion comes to be. The Fundamental Attribution Error and Loci of Control are two that comes to mind immediately, and I'm sure I could pull more if given a refresher (its been a long time, I'm losing my education from disuse).
It is inherently anti-science to think such a thing is possible, because it denies Psychology as a whole to basically say "nu uh I'm more special." Which is the same traits they decry in religious folks.
Its in this way they leave themselves so open to that Leftist indoctrination, because they keep cutting off the branches (religion and God) while ignoring the roots (human instincts) that are easily hijacked once those branches are out of the way. Even worse, because they think themselves above it and absolved of the "silly superstitions" they pay less attention to those roots and their effects.
Not sure why you're trying to go so hard at me, but w/e.
The fact that they are errors in thinking is why you don't actually have to have them. Religions and magical thinking aren't requirements for being human, they are merely and outgrowth of the how the human brain tends to work. I don't see correcting attribution errors as an inhuman act.
I feel like your argument wouldn't make sense when applied towards religion rather than away from it. Couldn't you say the exact same thing about human behaviors regarding sex or violence, and that claiming there might be a need to control them is also anti-human?
I don't think it's particularly anti-human to ask people to discipline themselves.
That wasn't meant to be a go at you, just atheism in general. You weren't speaking as yourself so my response wasn't at yourself but the concepts as a whole.
I didn't intend personal offense with it, and you know I would own that if I did.
The inhumanity is in thinking you are capable of it. Its ascribing that your conscious mind is superior to the subconscious and that you are capable of wrangling your mind (the thing you use to have such thoughts) to your will.
Its ironically magical thinking itself to think that because you think "I am free of these silly errors" means you actually are, when many of those silly errors are designed by your brain to make you never even aware you are making them in the first place. Your brain loves to straight delete data and your perception of reality if it sense you might be wrong about something, and it will emotionally invest you in something to keep that hidden.
That's why its such an insidious organ and you must be on constant vigilance against its machinations. My issue with what you said was that in thinking you can actually leave all that behind, instead of being a constant lifelong struggle of discipline, much like an alcoholic who is never truly "free" but rather just sober today.
Discipline is the correct choice, but its anti-human to say that your process can actually purge you of things that are inherently human, not simply religious failings.
I wouldn't entirely say that, especially when you have multiple foil examples of religious figures who aren't assholes and do challenge Winn quite often (Bareil, Opaka, Sisko to some extent).
She is however playing a somewhat common kind of villain though. The uptight, controlling, power hungry, self-serving, finger wagging sort of virtue-signaling villain who tries to pretend like they're a self-sacrificing hero for the people.
In a way she's practically reprising her role as the bitch-nurse from One Flew Over Cuckoos Nest.
I agree that it's not entirely that, because after Gene Roddenberry died, they tried to add depth to the character. I think Gene couldn't see the character outside of his bias.
While I'm sure in her (character's) mind that's true, the more likely truth is that she came up with that as an excuse for her being a miserable cunt, long after a lifetime of actively choosing to be a miserable cunt. She just doesn't want to admit that she's simply a terrible person.
Dukat's character followed a largely similar pattern. Trying to lay every possible thing out there to blame instead of himself for how he managed the station during the occupation. Coming up with rationalization after rationalization for why he does such slimy shit, like constantly trying to use his position of power to seduce and bone Bajoran women. Why he treats his own daughter like shit. Etc etc etc.
It's something that we can see in common with deranged political sorts (especially on the left today), who'll excuse every possible failing they have and mistake they make, claiming it's for the greater good. And lying through their teeth about just about everything for as long as they draw breath.
Oh a retcon "subverting" the good guy, colour me shocked.
Should "live action" lions behave more realistically too? If the male of a lion pride is defeated by a challenger the newcomer will kill all the cubs of the old one and start producing his own offspring.
Oh look, it's another ''AREN'T YOUR EXPECTATION SUBVETED? THE BAD GUY IS ACTUALLY THE LEGITIMATE KING! HAHA!''.
Scar as a ruler drove ''his'' kingdom into the catastrophe, via immigration no-less.
And kings who drive their kingom to failure don't deserve their crown.
So neither through dignity nor ''might makes right'' could Scar rule. He was weaker than Mufasa and Simba.
Based Simba killed/drove the damaging race out of his kingdom.
I've never thought about The Lion King through the lens of immigration. It's actually a pretty good movie to show the dangers of unchecked immigration.
His reign was terrible, so it was good and righteous that he was removed from the line of succession. Such things have always happened when the crown prince is deemed a failure as a future king. He's not a good guy, he's a power-hungry sore loser.
Our societies institutions of power are occupied by pathological narcissists who see themselves in villains like Scar. It's why they constantly justify the villains actions, always make each good character horrifically flawed in some way, and why they literally say that heroic characters are boring and unrelatable.
Are you an actual unironic monarchist?
No, being buttmad over being denied supreme authority does not make someone morally righteous.
Even in hereditary monarchy, which is a shit form of government, they didn't always choose the firstborn son, kings were occasionally adopted, married in or chosen from distant relatives.
This is just modern disney being retarded again.
You are an unpleasant cunt.
You gonna cry about it?
You didn't answer the question. Are you an actual unironic monarchist, or did you just not think about your question before you made this thread?
You are an unpleasant cunt. Go swallow cum, faggot
Pathetic. Womanly behavior.
You are an unpleasant cunt. You've never spoken to a woman, faggot
Ironic. I had to browse my reply history to remember who you were because of how triggered you're acting. You calling me a faggot is classic projection
You are an unpleasant cunt.