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.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
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.