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:
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.