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:
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.
It's what actors and storytellers use to create the characters in their heads.