Sponsored Links

 

Movie Series - Lion King

One of Disney's most successful animated features. The first was released in 1994 and was followed by The Lion King II: Simba's Pride and The Lion King 1 and a Half.

Wikipedia Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King
eBay Link: View Lion King on eBay

Boned When... (Login to Submit a Reason)

#ReasonWhy?VotesVote
1 Lion King 1 1/2 Take the movie, and have Timon and Pumbaa ruin it!
45
Please Login to Vote
2 Lion King 2 Disney does not know how to make sequels.
25
Please Login to Vote
3 Ripoff of Kimba the White Lion Disney plagarized Tezuka
21
Please Login to Vote
4 Never Boned Still rocks.
9
Please Login to Vote
5 Day 1 Sucked from the start.
5
Please Login to Vote
6 Broadway musical... Let's redo the movie with puppets
4
Please Login to Vote

Lion King Comments (You must Login to Comment)

#Comments
1 The saying goes "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They should have left well enough alone. "Lion King 1 and a half"? It was unnecessary and even though i was still kinda young when i saw it, i remember hating it. I LOVED (and still do) the 1st Lion King, and as far as i'm concerned, anything that followed was never made, why ruin a classic movie with less than subpar sequels. Just because a movie is great/classic, doesn't mean it needs a sequel. Even the title "1 and a half" bugged me, but i guess they named it right cuz it definitely wasn't even worthy of being named "Lion King 2". -- Submitted By: (Icemouth) on November 28, 2012, 11:17 am - (2 votes) - Login to Vote
2 I guess whether or not Disney copied Tezuka all depends on whom you ask. Well, copy or not, The Lion King was a very well done movie (I just like Kimba better). The Lion King 2 is a mixed bag. However, The Lion King 1 1/2 was HORRIBLE. Why would Disney allow their movie to be MST3K'd, by Timon and Pumbaa, no less? Not only that, but it takes the classic movie and injects Timon and Pumbaa into every scene. I mean, EVERY. SINGLE. SCENE. They were there at the presentation of baby Simba ("Let's ruin this scene by making Pumbaa fart and cause some of the animals to faint!"), they were there when Simba sang "I Just Can't Wait to be King" (TIMON made the tower of animals fall? I'm shaking my head right now.), they were there when Scar sang "Be Prepared" (They stay there, even though it's swarming with hyenas. No comment.), and they were there during the wildebeest stampede (they better run REALLY FAST to get back to the desert in time to meet Simba after he runs away). Granted, we learn about the warthog and meerkat's histories, but did they really have redo the movie with Timon and Pumbaa in nearly every scene? It was just another attempt to get money off the Lion King franchise, while ruining the memories of the classic. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on September 27, 2009, 10:11 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
3 Disney ripped of (or tried to) people more often than not concerning copyright. The whole lawsuit around Winnie the Pooh is ample prove for that. But to say that they ripped of from Kimba is really nonsense. The stories are nothing alike. The characters are nothing alike. And the drawings are only in the way similiar, in that all drawings of little lions are somewhat similiar.That Simba sounds similiar to Kimba...well, this could only considered a ripp off, if the name "Simba" were part of the title. But since the movie got named "The Lion King" and not "Simba, the Lion Prince" or something similiar: Nope, no ripp off. -- Submitted By: (Swanpride) on September 27, 2009, 4:20 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
4 The Broadway production did not cause a fish boning. That is like saying a Broadway production of Snow White or Cinderella caused the Disney movies to bone. Besides, this series boned when they made a sequel to it. This happens with every Disney cartoon except The Rescuers. You just have to pretend the sequels don't exist. -- Submitted By: (MCS) on September 26, 2009, 5:03 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
5 There is a world of difference between being inspired by other people's works and ripping off other people's works. Also, I already know Kimba and the Lion King are indeed two different stories. Kimba wanted to unite people and animals, while Simba had to reclaim his crown stolen from him by his evil uncle (The Lion King's story is based on Hamlet). The storyline isn't what's the same...it's the characters. You argue that the reason there's a white lion in the production shot is because there's light shining on him from behind, making him white. If the light is what's making him white, why are his face and left hind leg, which are in the shade, also white instead of tan, like the other lion in the shot? And how do you know these testimonials are lies from "disgruntled janitors" or other unhappy employees? But why do I bother? Even if Disney wrote a totally legit written confession complete with a notary that they knowingly ripped off Kimba, you'd still refuse to believe it. -- Submitted By: () on April 28, 2009, 2:49 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
6 I always thought the Fist of the North Star people proudly admitted they ripped off Mad Max? Also- a big thumbs down to Disney for the copyright stuff, they loved the Public Domain when it worked for them, just not when they have to share! -- Submitted By: (Chubby Rain) on April 28, 2009, 4:59 am - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
7 Ok, research I've done: I own 3 DVD's of Kimba the White Lion, and I can and have watched the rest on YouTube. I also own and have seen The Lion King. It's not the same story, period. So far as the rest of what you presented, 1) people can find similarities anywhere. Add that into the fact that in many shows, there are some stock scenes that are commonly used/drawn (IE little protagonist stares up into big antagonist's eyes in defiance, man walking away from building nonchalantly as it explodes, camera focusing in on gun barrel as a shot is fired), and you have less of a slam dunk case than you would think for saying that Lion King is ripped off from Kimba. 2) The testimony of the people on that web page you gave me, I'm sorry to say, means squat. All of the statements are from the Kimba development team, and of course they aren't biased toward their creation in any way, are they? So far as the records of Disney officials "admitting" to ripping off Kimba, recordings or signed affidavits from former Disney execs or impartial 3rd party witnesses or it didn't happen. Testimony from pissed off recently fired ex-janitor X who just happened to be walking by the boardroom when the crime was confessed doesn't cut it. 3) The "white" lion in the preproduction shot, isn't. Take a look at the pic again: the plants in the shot are also white. You shine a bright enough light on an object of any color, and it looks white, this is a fact. The fact that this has happened to other plants in the light that the lion cub in question is in shows that this has also happened to the lion cub. Using your logic, and the kind of evidence you have given me, I could say that Hara and Buroson stole Fist of the North Star directly from Mad Max. I could say that J.J. Abrams stole Cloverfield from the Emmerich version of Godzilla. I could say that Gargoyles was ripping off of X-Men and Superman in places, and that Spawn, the Animation was ripping off of Gargoyles. I'm not going to say that Disney has never done questionable or dirty things in animation or business (among other things, read up on Dan O'Neil and the Air Pirates to see how Disney virtually single-handedly fucked over the entire copyright system, and implemented those 200+ year copyrights in use today). However, there is a difference between ripping someone off, and simply making different use of similar archetypal characters than the previous guy. -- Submitted By: () on April 27, 2009, 10:13 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
8 Castaghast, do some research before you say we don't know what we're talking about. Disney DID rip off Kimba...knowingly, and ON PURPOSE. If you go onto wikipedia, you'll see the original design for Simba called for him to be WHITE! Just like Kimba. And, if you visit this site: http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm you'll see for yourself that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, Disney DID rip Tezuka. I didn't say the movie sucked, but that the fact that I've been praising a ripoff sucks. And the fact that the movie is a ripoff sucks. I went through the stage you're going through now: refusing to believe it, doubting it, and so forth. Then I learned the truth...and, that Kimba is FAR superior to the Lion King, a good movie marred with the stains of plagiarism. -- Submitted By: () on April 25, 2009, 12:02 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
9 Never Nuked/Boned, at least for part 1! I do agree on part 2 being an eyesore, however. Anyways, this is a Golden Age of Disney movie, and I loved it! -- Submitted By: (SVN) on April 24, 2009, 9:18 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
10 I have to disagree with the comment about Disney ripping off the Lion King from Kimba. I'm going to grant that Disney has made some deplorable animation over the years. However, people who say that the Lion King sucks because Disney stole it from Tezuka don't really know what they're talking about. On the one hand, I will grant that the two shows have extremely similar characters, so similar as to invite the possibility of plagiarism on that count. However, if you watch the two shows, you'll see that they are nothing alike so far as story goes: The Lion King really did deal mostly with Simba's journey to find himself, brought about by his exile resulting from Scar's lie. Kimba was about Kimba and his struggle to reconcile humans and animals, as well as his attempts to "civilize" some of the animals by getting them to eat bugs. People who talk about the Kimba/Simba controversy make like if you're watching the Lion King, you're just watching an inferior version of Kimba the White Lion and you're getting ripped off. In fact this isn't true, I've seen both, and I can tell you, outside of the nostalgia value you really aren't missing anything if you haven't seen Kimba but you have seen The Lion King. They are two different stories, and the main characters have two completely different motivations that overlap in parts, but are different enough to drive the two different stories. Lion King may have boned, and Disney may have boned, but it wasn't because of Kimba. -- Submitted By: (castaghast) on April 23, 2009, 7:22 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
11 Long in the past, I loved the Lion King. It was original, at least according to Disney, with themes from Hamlet. Then I learned the awful truth. It was NOT original. It was a blatant ripoff of Kimba the White Lion. If you watch it, you'll see Disney ripped them off... Kimba has Daniel, a mandrill mistaken for a baboon. Disney has Rafiki, a mandrill mistaken for a baboon! Kimba has Pauley Cracker, a parrot in charge of watching over Kimba. Disney has Zazu, a hornbill in charge of watching over Simba. Kimba has Claw, the scarred lion missing an eye. Disney has Scar, the scarred lion (but NOT missing an eye). Yep. Original, all right. NOT! Just Kimba the White Lion with themes and elements from Hamlet mixed in. -- Submitted By: (Robert) on April 23, 2009, 1:02 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote
12 The sequels were deplorable. With the exception of "The Rescuers Down Under", Disney has never been good at sequels and their movies are never sequel worthy. -- Submitted By: (MCS) on April 8, 2009, 12:31 pm - (0 votes) - Login to Vote

Login to See the QUICK COMMENT Box

BONETHEFISH

Log in to BTF


Register - Forgot password?


Follow on Twitter!

App on Facebook

www.bonethefish.com

Related eBay Auctions

Powered By: TempusMedia - (Page load took:0.978 seconds)