Trailer Link - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CbLXeGSDxg
I wonder what the communities reaction to this is in general. Given that TLK is easily one of my favorite childhood films, I have mixed feelings about this.

It seems Disney aren't going to stop until they have CGI versions of all their most classic films. While The Jungle Book reboot was alright, this is clearly going to become corporate fad, given that Dumbo is coming as well.

I'm not sure that this movie is going to be able to create the sheer impact the original did, given the entire cast change (except for James Earl Jones who is irreplaceable), as well as the fact that it's going to attempt to reach multiple audiences that consider this sacred ground and another that doesn't necessarily have the same appreciation that previous generations did.

I wonder how closely they will be able to capture the original character designs and how the staff of the first rendition would feel about this whole set up.
I'm surprised there wasn't come kind of Scar teaser at the end as well...

I really like the whole "remake with a different angle" ala Maleficent because of the storytelling elements they bring to the picture, but I'd totally watch a regular remake. Including this one.

Now that studios are starting to finally move past oversaturated realistic CGI imagery it's getting easier for me to enjoy them.

Of course, the best thing would be a new angle on the old classic. Doubt that Disney wants to go that far very often, though. As much as they enjoy mucking with an already indecipherable time line, lol.

It's really not a big deal, I don't think. TLK is one of my all-time favorite Disney movies. They're not just remaking a film for more money, but they're also refining digital animation techniques that vastly improve movie making and watching.

If you think about it, some of Disney's earliest computer animated films included Dinosaur and Chicken Little, and those movies weren't that long ago. Remaking movies like TLK is how they get better at it.

I'm honestly looking forward to seeing it.

I'm iffy, personally. I'm glad the era of sequels is (mostly) gone, but live action/super realistic CGI remakes feel like the next level of it all. It looks great, technically, but it's so much easier to show emotion on a cartoon character's face.

I also really hope they don't make major plot changes.

TwistedLogik said:
I'm not sure that this movie is going to be able to create the sheer impact the original did,

It certainly won't. For example, they dropped the "Be Prepared" song entirely.

I'm burnt out on remakes as a whole and I prefer traditional animation to 3d animation, so I doubt I'll be seeing this. I hope that those who do enjoy it though.

Casting looks good, CGI looks a bit lame. It is a neutral thing because you can choose not to see the film.

Sucking money out of The Lion King is nothing new for Disney. There are the direct to video sequels, animated shows, and it has grossed over $1 billion on Broadway. Animated TV shows for franchises like How to Train Your Dragon and Kung-Fu Panda are big lately so I would not be surprised if they did another one.

TwistedLogik said:
I'm not sure that this movie is going to be able to create the sheer impact the original did,

Of course not. TLK has already come up. You can't make the same impact wit the same movie, just rereleased. o_o that would be like expecting one's spouse to continually be shocked when you dramatically announce "i'm pregnant" even when you're on the way to the hospital. :P

This isn't about recreating the same wave, it's about nostalgia and new audiences.

given the entire cast change (except for James Earl Jones who is irreplaceable),

I mean, Johnathan Taylor Thomas--the voice of Young Simba-- is nearly 40, so I would expect his voice to be somewhat.... incorrect for a little kid. (He is, in fact, older than Matthew Broderick was when he did Adult Simba's voice.)

Volphied said:
It certainly won't. For example, they dropped the "Be Prepared" song entirely.

That was one of my favorite songs in the movie..... and i think this is probably a good idea. There are plenty of ways to show who and what Scar is without resorting to nazi-like imagery.

That said, I can't find anything concrete about this: no statements of "WE will not be including "Be Prepared"" just someone listing songs and not including that one-- it *could* be an oversight or error.

Personally, I"m excited for this. It looks really cute and I would basically watch a shot-for-shot remake of the original movie, so my expectations are not super high to begin with. :)

But TLK was the first movie I really fell in love with and demanded to see several times in theaters. I'd watched Aladdin and Beauty and the beast on endless loop (BatB came out when I was 8ish) but TLK was The One for me. I was 11, and while I didn't have a crush on simba or anything (not really. It didn't "awaken anything" in me or anything, but it probably did lead me into the world of furry. I mean.. .Chip and Dale and Darkwing duck, and the Ninja Turtles already made sure I was headed that way, but...)

SnowWolf said:
That was one of my favorite songs in the movie..... and i think this is probably a good idea. There are plenty of ways to show who and what Scar is without resorting to nazi-like imagery.

This is like 100% off topic and it's been many years since I saw the original, but how is there nazi-imagery in scar's appearance? That seemed just like general villain/dictator stuff, or maybe that's what counts for nazi nowadays when everyone gets called that left and right one way or another.

Chessax said:
This is like 100% off topic and it's been many years since I saw the original, but how is there nazi-imagery in scar's appearance? That seemed just like general villain/dictator stuff,

That "general villian/dictator stuff" with the hyenas marching in front of Scar was lifted directly from Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'. This has actually been common knowledge for decades now. It's not something someone noticed just nowadays.

Chessax said:
or maybe that's what counts for nazi nowadays when everyone gets called that left and right one way or another.

Not really.

First they did cinema re-releases of their biggest 2d classics. When they have gone out of stuff to re-release they started to make remakes. And I hate that Disney is going by this cheap method of nostalgia riding by making shot to shot remakes of original 2d animations. They didn't even bother using voice-doubles for songs like they did in 2d-era. Sure, autotuning the shit out of Emma Watson's voice so it sounds bearable is far better than just hiring an actual singer. /s

The only remake I'm actually interested in is Aladdin because it actually looks like it's going to be at least somewhat original.

Chessax said:
This is like 100% off topic and it's been many years since I saw the original, but how is there nazi-imagery in scar's appearance? That seemed just like general villain/dictator stuff, or maybe that's what counts for nazi nowadays when everyone gets called that left and right one way or another.

Well, Here's a link to Be Prepared on youtube. :) Enjoy!

Now to the actual question... Volphied covered it decently well, but here's a source link

Which, y'know... it wouldn't be hard to avoid that type of imagry if they wanted to edit it out, but it also the most... "out there" in terms of visuals in the film.. I mean, there are green clouds of gas, random towers of stone jutting up into the air being ridden like an elevator etc. It might have been difficult to reconcile that with the more realistic style of the movie.

It's also possible that the song was cut-- if it was-- simply because... well, the pacing of a movie can be a tricky thing.

In the original... Mufasa saves them from the elephant graveyard. Mufasa chews simba out, then tells him about the great kings of the past, up in the sky. Then we go over to Scar and the Goose-stepping hyenas, then we're with Scar and Simba as Scar's trying to arrange for a drive by stampeding.

And that's fine. It's fine.

But it feels like a sudden cut to the side to reveal the VILLAIN before the VILLAIN does VILLAINOUS things. And ideally, that could be revealed earlier, or in a different way. The emotions created by Simba and Mufasa having their father-son moment are pretty important and it may be better if they ride those moments into the next scene, rather than inserting a villainous monologue there.

Maybe anyway. Movie pacing is tricky.

I'm also just theorizing here, so grain of salt and all.

DarkAlex said:
First they did cinema re-releases of their biggest 2d classics.

I'm not sure what precisely you're talking about. But I can make a guess. but you don't seem to have the context for it, so let me help.

Disney's been producing films for a long time. Snow White came out in 1937. If you loved Bambi, there was no way to watch Bambi again after it was not in the theaters. No dvds, no VHS... Maybe it would rarely be shown on TV, but showing movies on television wasn't even a 'regular' thing until the mid 60's.

Also important to recall that going to the movies back in "that era" (20's, 30's, 40's) was also a very different thing. You'd go to theaters to see a lot more than just the summer blockbusters--a concept that didn't even exist. There were adventures and movies, short films, musicals and news. News Reels were a very big deal. Newsreels let people SEE world events in a time before TV's in every home. Going to the theater and seeing something was REALLY common. Common was seeing a news reel, then a cartoon (Bugs bunny, for example. Those are what the Merry Melodies were initially!) before a new or popular movies... then another movie that wasn't as new or popular. They would also have the precursor to TV -- 20 minute "episodes" where you would follow the adventures of your gallant hero -- every saturday morning.

Which is to say, if you loved Bambi, or Fantasia, or Cinderella or what have you, you didn't have a lot of choices.

Which is why Disney would rerelease movies into theaters about a decade after they were initially released and every decade after that (long after a theater would stop showing it!). You could watch Bambi again. you could share Bambi with your little sibling. You could share Bambi with your kid.

When VHS came around, they followed the same idea -- releasing movies on a staggered scheduled so kids can always have a new movie to look forward to.

There is an element of artificial scarcity to it -- but at the same time... well... when my cats start getting bored of some toys, I put them away for a few months so that they can get excited for them again. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I don't think they've put any new movies in the vault for 20 years or so. -- though there are a few that are still in the vault.

When they have gone out of stuff to re-release they started to make remakes.

...what? they started to make remakes because remakes are a thing. It's not a bad thing to remake a movie.

If they remake The Lion King, it doesn't ruin the original Lion King. You can still enjoy it. It's still there.

There are just, now, two cakes instead of one. Maybe you don't like the 2019 cake. That's okay. Someone else will eat it. You not liking that flavor of cake doesn't make it a bad cake.

And I hate that Disney is going by this cheap method of nostalgia riding

"cheap"

Good god man, do you have any idea how much this stuff costs to make???

The Jungle book remake cost 177 million to make.
Beauty and the Beast cost 250 million to make. That is, by the way, one of the most expensive movies that have ever been made. -- it cost more than Rogue One, it cost more than Avatar and The Avengers. It is the 13th most expensive film ever made. (or 21st if you scroll down to the 'adjusted for inflation' chart)

Those are not "cheap" c_c

by making shot to shot remakes of original 2d animations.

We do not know if that's what they're doing here, and from what I understand, we've no basis for that assumption. c_c I said I would watch a shot-for-shot remake, not that this is what that was. :P

They didn't even bother using voice-doubles for songs like they did in 2d-era. Sure, autotuning the shit out of Emma Watson's voice so it sounds bearable is far better than just hiring an actual singer. /s

You can't please everyone. People bitch about voice doubles too.

The only remake I'm actually interested in is Aladdin because it actually looks like it's going to be at least somewhat original.

I'm not sure where you're getting that, since Aladdin is a specific story, not a just character.

But hey, it doesn't really matter -- You have your cake and you enjoy it. There are lots of cakes around here. Let's not smash anyone else's cake just because you don't want to eat it.

MissChu said:

I also really hope they don't make major plot changes.

The movie is based on Hamlet, so I think they won't change too much of the plot

Volphied said:
It certainly won't. For example, they dropped the "Be Prepared" song entirely.

Villain songs are always the best :(

Chessax said:
This is like 100% off topic and it's been many years since I saw the original, but how is there nazi-imagery in scar's appearance? That seemed just like general villain/dictator stuff, or maybe that's what counts for nazi nowadays when everyone gets called that left and right one way or another.

The goose stepping hyenas, the way Scar talks to them during it and the promises he makes - kinda reminds of the Third reich. (Has a lot of the films we watched in history class in school).

_______________________________

Personaly, I prefer old school 2D cartoons over CGI - When they create something new (Zootopia) it's ok as there is nothing to compare. But comparing the old character with the new ones from the trailer... the old looks better in my opinion.

The good thing: Chances are rising for a Robin Hood remake ^^

I mean...I WILL see this movie. Huge Lion King fan as a kid...so I feel like I'm forced to go see this remake, although I'm curious as to how the animals will communicate? Seems like it might be an uncanny valley issue if you have hyper-realistic animals just straight up talking like they did in the original, then again I don't think the weird telepathic communication a la the Homeward Bound series would work here.

One thing I will enjoy about this movie is that I can't really see how they could inject any sort of weird SJW crap into the story, but then again I don't know if they can help themselves. Maybe this time Nala will defeat Scar and become the Lion Queen and Simba will be like the first husband or something, oh and Rafiki will be gay.

Dyrone said:
One thing I will enjoy about this movie is that I can't really see how they could inject any sort of weird SJW crap into the story, but then again I don't know if they can help themselves. Maybe this time Nala will defeat Scar and become the Lion Queen and Simba will be like the first husband or something, oh and Rafiki will be gay.

Dude.

I'm just gonna say this once.

If you say things like that, you sound like a sexist, homophobic jerk. o_o

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but you really don't look or sound good when you say things like that. :/

I can understand not wanting to see a beloved story change, but how you say things is as important as what you say, dude.

SnowWolf said:
how you say things is as important as what you say, dude.

How would I say it? I'd venture to say no matter how I worded it you'd be offended and go straight to "sexist" and "homophobic", But that's on you, because I never said I wasn't for strong female characters or homosexual characters in general...I just don't like them shoving those things into old movies for the sake of it. I'd like my Lion King to be as close to the original as possible.

I think people like you just like to throw those terms around wherever and whenever you have the chance without really putting much thought into it.

Dyrone said:
How would I say it? I'd venture to say no matter how I worded it you'd be offended and go straight to "sexist" and "homophobic", But that's on you, because I never said I wasn't for strong female characters or homosexual characters in general...I just don't like them shoving those things into old movies for the sake of it. I'd like my Lion King to be as close to the original as possible.

I think people like you just like to throw those terms around wherever and whenever you have the chance without really putting much thought into it.

Yeah, no, @SnowWolf was right.

CCoyote said:
Yeah, no, @SnowWolf was right.

I love how you say that without elaborating at all...I think if you tried your accusation would fall apart completely and you know it.

Dyrone said:
I love how you say that without elaborating at all...I think if you tried your accusation would fall apart completely and you know it.

No matter what I say, you're going to blow it off and claim moral and mental superiority. I don't come here to engage with people who have no intention of intelligent, good faith discussion, and you put yourself into that group the moment you said "weird SJW crap."

SnowWolf has already said everything I think needs to be said.

CCoyote said:
No matter what I say, you're going to blow it off and claim moral and mental superiority. I don't come here to engage with people who have no intention of intelligent, good faith discussion

And no matter what I say you'll just say it's all in "bad faith" and completely excuse yourself from having to make any sort of counter-argument. To me I think the one who cries "bad faith" and flips over the game board is really the one who is in "bad faith".

CCoyote said:
and you put yourself into that classification the moment you said "weird SJW crap."

I think making Rafiki gay out of nowhere and drastically changing the story to ensure a female is now the main hero would definitely qualify as "weird SJW crap". That was the small joke I was making to begin with, but ofc we can't have a sense of humor about these things.

CCoyote said:
SnowWolf has already said everything I think needs to be said.

That's typical, usually much MUCH more tho.

Dyrone said:
How would I say it? I'd venture to say no matter how I worded it you'd be offended and go straight to "sexist" and "homophobic", But that's on you, because I never said I wasn't for strong female characters or homosexual characters in general...I just don't like them shoving those things into old movies for the sake of it. I'd like my Lion King to be as close to the original as possible.

I agree. Making a new story that includes a particular agenda or character type is okay. Corrupting an old story to include a particular agenda or character type is not.

And yeah, any way you say it will result in you gaining a derogatory label or two.

As for the topic... Meh. I saw the original and loved it. I don't need to see a 3D version of it.

Dyrone said:
How would I say it?

"I hope they don't change things too much. I hate when remakes end up adding new characters who were not in the original, or changing the story up just to make things different. I'd prefer my remake to be relatively faithful to the original. I don't mind expanding on the original story, but I don't like it when new characters are added, or existing characters are changed too much. I want it to be the same movie, just updated and expanded a bit."

I'd venture to say no matter how I worded it you'd be offended and go straight to "sexist" and "homophobic",

I didn't say I was offended. I was informing you that your words came off with a certain attitude that, I said, I'm sure you (didn't) mean it that way.

In every way shape and form I gave you the benefit of the doubt, because I know full well that it is easy to say things that are unintentionally offensive, simply because you don't have the right perspective or knowledge with which to evaluate your words. (For example, in my local area 'coon' is a racist slur. When I was a kid, somewhere else entirely, it had no racial overtones. It would have been easy for me to misspeak as a result. This is not malicious and would not have been racist of me, but I would have appreciated if someone had gently informed me that I was using a racist word.)

I did not call you homophobic or sexist, I said your words sounded that way.

But that's on you, because I never said I wasn't for strong female characters or homosexual characters in general...I just don't like them shoving those things into old movies for the sake of it. I'd like my Lion King to be as close to the original as possible.

SJW is something of a slur these days used by people who DO have a problem with homosexual characters and female characters.

I can certainly understand wanting the movie to be close to the original. I too would not like it if there were lots of changes. But I wouldn't mind, for example, seeing more of what happens in the Pridelands while Simba was Hakuna Matata'ing around. I wouldn't mind seeing other characters being heroic along side Simba--Timon, Pumbaa, Nala and Sarabi would all be good characters to have more heroic moments. Those do not take away from Simba's story.

I think people like you just like to throw those terms around wherever and whenever you have the chance without really putting much thought into it.

"People like me"?

Can I point out that there wasn't any evidence of modern social justice within the trailer? I created this thread so people could discuss what was known and I assumed any speculation would at least be relevant to TLK. Here's something to help get back on track: Do you think the character designs are going to be somewhat resemble to original characters at all? Personally, I'm concerned that the use of CGI is going to make the main characters look like generic lions and won't actually contain their personal features.

Here's an important question, will Nala still make "the face"?

Doomguy666 said:
Here's an important question, will Nala still make "the face"?

I doubt they could even do it with the way this film is being made. I don't think realistic looking lions wouldn't be expressive enough.

TwistedLogik said:
I doubt they could even do it with the way this film is being made. I don't think realistic looking lions wouldn't be expressive enough.

I know, but I wanna see a real Lion make that face.

Sorry for continuing off topic, I don't think there's much more to discuss, though felt like a reply was in order.

SnowWolf said:
SJW is something of a slur these days used by people who DO have a problem with homosexual characters and female characters.

That might be true sometimes but it's not only used by such people, I use SJW both as a joke and seriously, I'm part of a minority but I'd never let a SJW speak on my behalf, because they often have agendas that are deceitful or downright malicious and typically only do what they do to further themselves with no real regard for other people. If someone says they don't want a gay character in a remake where there wasn't one I'm absolutely not gonna take that as meaning that they are homophobic. Gay insert definitely reeks of SJW, because it screams "look at us, we gave you a gay character, we support gays, now you have to like us, we are the good guys", i.e. they don't actually care about gays, they just want people to like them and buy their stuff.

And finally back on topic:

TwistedLogik said:
Do you think the character designs are going to be somewhat resemble to original characters at all? Personally, I'm concerned that the use of CGI is going to make the main characters look like generic lions and won't actually contain their personal features.

I think when you move from 2D to realistic 3D you sort of have to let go of how things looked in the 2D version because things (often) won't look the same. You have to allow yourself to take in their new appearances without immediately comparing and judging them with their 2D counterparts and instead focus on personality and story; things that you can still transfer directly between 2D and 3D without any problems.

If you have concerns about this then the worst thing you can probably do is to watch the original just before going to watch the new one. If the conversion of characters is going to work out or not I don't know, it's something that you'll just have to see, but it's probably not going to be quite as expressive and well "toony" as the 2D version. So they'll probably have to make up for it with good character and story, hopefully.

If this were made at any other time, I’d be fine with it. But I’m not.

The reason I hate these remakes is because they’re at the expense of everything else. If they were making something new at the same time, I wouldn’t mind. But this and sequels is all they’re doing.

From what I’ve seen of them, at any rate, they tend to range from dull (Alice In Wonderland, Beauty & the Beast) to abysmal (Maleficent, which is probably my least favorite movie of all time). So it’s a vote of no confidence from me.

TwistedLogik said:
Here's something to help get back on track: Do you think the character designs are going to be somewhat resemble to original characters at all? Personally, I'm concerned that the use of CGI is going to make the main characters look like generic lions and won't actually contain their personal features.

I think that they'll have something in mind so as to make sure that the lions are visually distinct from each other. and Simba did seem more yellowy than lions tend to come, so I figure it'll be true to some degree anyway :)

I worry more about telling one lion cub from another.... but I"m sure that if they couldn't do it, they wouldn't. One of the basic rules of character design is to make sure that your characters can always be told apart.

If someone says they don't want a gay character in a remake where there wasn't one I'm absolutely not gonna take that as meaning that they are homophobic. Gay insert definitely reeks of SJW, because it screams "look at us, we gave you a gay character, we support gays, now you have to like us, we are the good guys", i.e. they don't actually care about gays, they just want people to like them and buy their stuff.

Thing is, gay people also make movies and stuff. And representation 100% matters. it's a sticky situation with no right answer because no matter what move you do or don't make, SOMEONE is upset.

Should rafiki be gay? Nah. But if Timon and Pumbaa were implied to be a couple (moreso anyway lol), then I wouldn't mind. (assuming it's done tastefully.)[/section]

BaffleBlend said:
If this were made at any other time, I’d be fine with it. But I’m not.

The reason I hate these remakes is because they’re at the expense of everything else. If they were making something new at the same time, I wouldn’t mind. But this and sequels is all they’re doing.

From what I’ve seen of them, at any rate, they tend to range from dull (Alice In Wonderland, Beauty & the Beast) to abysmal (Maleficent, which is probably my least favorite movie of all time). So it’s a vote of no confidence from me.

Whatcha talking about?

They've had a fair number of sequels and remakes recently, but a lot of 'new' content, too. Coco was just last year, and Moana the year before. and several of their sequels are of new and interesting franchises, at least in my opinion.

They're not really sitting idle. Back when TLK came out, it was generally a year or so between animated feature releases. now we've got 2 this year, 2 next year, and 3 in 2020. awesome. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_theatrical_animated_features

(I'd bet some of the utitled films are unique franchises too -- but i'm not gonna do the research right now, sorry <3

(edit: Mangled some section/quote tags, whoops)

Chessax said:
Sorry for continuing off topic, I don't think there's much more to discuss, though felt like a reply was in order.

Well, that doesn't doesn't really make it nazi-imagery, saying that it's nazi-imagery suggests that it's directly referencing nazism or alluding to nazi intents. I highly doubt either of those were the case. It's just a military march a la goose step taking inspiration from something specific, making other inferences is dangerous

My last response to this off-topic discussion.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lion-king-be-prepared-nazi-film-2014-6

According to an Entertainment Weekly article back in 1994, the song "grew out of one sketch by story staffer Jorgen Klubien that pictured Scar as Hitler. The directors ran with the concept and worked up a 'Triumph of the Will'-style mock-Nuremberg rally."

The article also contains comparisons pics. This is not a "generic" military march. The directors were aiming for a Nazi march.

Volphied said:
My last response to this off-topic discussion.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lion-king-be-prepared-nazi-film-2014-6

The article also contains comparisons pics. This is not a "generic" military march. The directors were aiming for a Nazi march.

I actually think it's somewhat appropriate that they did this. If we take Scar's character and compare him to Hitler, they're actually fairly similar in principle. Both of them were charismatic dictators who made promises to the masses that they couldn't keep. I also applaud them for this, given that it's a Disney film for all ages. Kids would have saw this before even knowing the reference that was being made.

Does anyone have any examples of animal toony 2D to realistic 3D that were done well from an artistic standpoint? I.e. not having obvious problems with character design or separation of characters. I can't really think of anything. I'm specifically asking for non-human because we are experts at identifying human faces but pretty bad when it comes to other animals, so small differences become even smaller then. I know there's the Jungle Book but that has mostly a bunch of different animals so it's not exactly directly comparable.

Not directed at anyone, more of a general lamentation to the gods: Gosh I hate how quotes and sectiosn can get so tangled up together.

Rafiki was an ascetic IIRC, so it'd make most sense for him to be asexual (I would just feel sorry for him otherwise). Hopefully there wouldn't be a need to be implicit, and just leave it to the imagination.

As for trailer, meh. Definitely agree with OP but also Clawdragons.

Crystali_Cast said:
Rafiki was an ascetic IIRC, so it'd make most sense for him to be asexual (I would just feel sorry for him otherwise). Hopefully there wouldn't be a need to be implicit, and just leave it to the imagination.

Mmmm. The idea of "religion = no sex" is a pretty.... broad brush for something with a lot of detail.

Most native Africa and American Indian religious traditions also view Celibacy negatively--though there may be some exceptions, such as warriors practically celibacy at certain times.

In many cases, Celibacy is advocated by religions for purposes of defeating the power and distraction of lust--while others view it as..ahem.. part of the circle of life. Some religious groups actually view it as an empowering thing.

That that is why Rafiki is probably not Celibate. :)

In addition, he is a mandrill (which are not actually baboons! anymore! Yay science :D) with a very long tail. Mandrills typically live in 'hordes' that have an *average* of 600 individuals in it.... made up entirely of adult females and offspring. Males live alone and only enter the horde when its mating seasons. Now here's the interesting thing. There are two types of adult male: Dominant males and subordinate males. Dominance is gained after winning a fight, I believe, and results in actual physical changes for the monkey: His testicles get bigger, and he is *actually* capable of siring offspring as a result, though both types of males participate in mating. Alpha males have one other very obvious trait: The skin on their face and genitals becomes much brighter in color.

Rafiki has a VERY bright red and blue face.

Considering that if an alpha loses dominance, the colors fade over a few weeks... Rafiki is not only sexually active, but he is am alpha male, probably with lots of baby Mandrills scampering around, since he's red faced not only at Simba's birth, but several years later when Simba returns. (male lions become sexually around 3 years old, and typically spend a few years in a 'bachelor pride' before moving in with some ladies, somewhere between 4 and 8 years of age, typically when they're able to overpower the resident male lion and woo the ladies.) (of course, lion pride dynamics is not the point here, but simba's probably 5 or 6 years old when he returns to pride rock. and Rafiki's been an alpha the whole time.) :D

SnowWolf said:
That that is why Rafiki is probably not Celibate. :)

Does it matter? It's completely irrelevant to the story. Celibate, straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual etc. I don't care about Rafiki's sexuality...that's why I used him as an example originally. To delve into it is a needless tangent.

SnowWolf said:
Rafiki has a VERY bright red and blue face. Considering that if an alpha loses dominance, the colors fade over a few weeks...Rafiki is not only sexually active, but he is am alpha male, probably with lots of baby Mandrills scampering around, since he's red faced not only at Simba's birth, but several years later when Simba returns.

Or...OR...he is a cartoon character who exists in a world where literally EVERYTHING is brightly colored. His facial colors look like that because it looks good, not because they were worried about conveying that Rafiki fucks a lot. I can just imagine some manager at Disney looking over the colors of the movie "yeah OK, but can we punch up the blues and reds in Rafiki's face? We need to let these kids know this monkey FUCKS, alright? We can't have a simian spiritualist that doesn't get a lot of tail it just doesn't make sense."

But now that we KNOW that Rafiki gets TONS of monkey pussy I fully expect some 34 of him fucking his harem of bitches. I'm waiting artists...any time!

Honestly this reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74nDM8nltfM
Where you basically take one small detail and extrapolate from there instead of realizing the artists probably didn't even consider the ramifications of what they were drawing (or in this case coloring).

Why are people discussing the sexuality of fictional characters? This has literally nothing to do with the forum topic. I can always count on the e621 community to end up debating some irrelevant debate about sexuality. I know the trailer didn't provide much information, but it would be nice if this could stay on topic. Unless it's somehow run it's course this quickly.

Dyrone said:
Does it matter? It's completely irrelevant to the story. Celibate, straight, gay, bisexual, pansexual etc. I don't care about Rafiki's sexuality...that's why I used him as an example originally. To delve into it is a needless tangent.

Because I thought it was really cool that male mandrills undergo a physical transformation when they win some fights. Mostly that's it. We're furries. I like weird animal facts. (and random facts in general) Rafiki's face is more on topic than the fun facts I could share about a platypus or a duck vaginas.

Rafiki's sexuality would basically be completely out of place to talk about within the context of film, as we've already said. It should not be discussed. That is not part of his role in the lion king. No one is saying that his sexuality should be part of the scope of a movie, or any other section of the franchise.

We're just having a fun conversation. c_c

Or...OR...he is a cartoon character who exists in a world where literally EVERYTHING is brightly colored. His facial colors look like that because it looks good, not because they were worried about conveying that Rafiki fucks a lot. I can just imagine some manager at Disney looking over the colors of the movie "yeah OK, but can we punch up the blues and reds in Rafiki's face? We need to let these kids know this monkey FUCKS, alright? We can't have a simian spiritualist that doesn't get a lot of tail it just doesn't make sense."

But now that we KNOW that Rafiki gets TONS of monkey pussy I fully expect some 34 of him fucking his harem of bitches. I'm waiting artists...any time!

Dude. Calm the heck down.

Of course he's a fucking cartoon character, in a brightly colored vibrant world and people just decided that he looked good with a brightly colored face. we KNOW that. No one at disney thought about what his face colors meant, or if they did, they laughed it off as an inside joke.

He's also not anatomically accurate for a mandrill-- they have very short tails. I can also talk all about how lion prides don't exist in the way that they've depicted in the film and everything in the movie is basically wrongish in that respect....

But that's not the point. the point was to have a fun conversation about a character using the information available to us. c_c

I was actually hoping to find that mandrills mate for life or something like that and found something that I thought was cooler than that. and thought it would be entertaining to extrapolate out from there.

TwistedLogik said:
Why are people discussing the sexuality of fictional characters? This has literally nothing to do with the forum topic. I can always count on the e621 community to end up debating some irrelevant debate about sexuality. I know the trailer didn't provide much information, but it would be nice if this could stay on topic. Unless it's somehow run it's course this quickly.

Because conversation is not really a single-topiced thing. Most peopel have already said "looks cool" or "I'm skeptical" so the conversation would probably die. Discussing the movie itself seems liek a natural progression from there. *shrugs* character sexuality is already on people's minds due to how early parts of the thread went. I don't see it as terribly off topic, as long as peopel can remain civil about it.

SnowWolf said:
Rafiki's sexuality would basically be completely out of place to talk about within the context of film, as we've already said. It should not be discussed. That is not part of his role in the lion king. No one is saying that his sexuality should be part of the scope of a movie, or any other section of the franchise.

Funny you say this now, and yet at the same time when I said I didn't want him to be gay that made me homophobic for some reason? Makes a lot of sense.

SnowWolf said:
Dude. Calm the heck down.

I am calm...most of what I said was a joke....meant for a laugh. Idk but the thought of a Disney manager getting really passionate about Rafiki's sexual prowess is funny to me.

SnowWolf said:
Of course he's a fucking cartoon character, in a brightly colored vibrant world and people just decided that he looked good with a brightly colored face. we KNOW that. No one at disney thought about what his face colors meant, or if they did, they laughed it off as an inside joke.

The way you framed seemed to me like you where dead-serious. Nowhere did you hint that it was just a theory...sounded like you were about ready to edit Rafiki's wiki page on the Disney wiki with this new information. I was just pointing out that extrapolating all of that from his vibrant face color is a bit much.

Dyrone said:
Funny you say this now, and yet at the same time when I said I didn't want him to be gay that made me homophobic for some reason? Makes a lot of sense.

Mmm. More my point is that the story of the lion king is about Simba's story, and unless Rafiki takes a much larger role than he did in the animated film, it'd be cramming it in unexpectedly. Plus...

Gay representation's easy to tuck in unobtrusively: Jamie has 2 dads, two women hold hands and cheek kiss, or whathaveyou. but asexuality is a lot harder, because it's more about not wanting sex. --I mean, asexual people can desire relationships and enjoy physical closeness, so representing asexuality involves getting a lot more into the gritty details of what they do, or don't want to do with their sexual bits. And that goes WAY beyond the scope of what a kids movie should get into.

And I didn't say you were homophobic, just that you were saying things that *sounded* homophobic. Like I said, I doubted you meant it that way!

I am calm...most of what I said was a joke....meant for a laugh.

mmmh.

Okay. I think you and I have a lot of trouble reading each other's tone. I didn't read much joking in what you were saying and instead, I thought you were really angry. :/

Likewise, I think you perceive me as a lot more... well, I dunno. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I am generally pretty laid back and relaxed, even if I'm getting a bit passionate about something. Even when I'm getting long winded, it's mostly just that I got stuff to say. I love this little community and writing posts and debating stuff <3 It's fun to me. So generally, I'm here, I'm having a pretty good time, even when I"m having "heated debate" ... this is recreational, y'know?

and even past that, ... I'm generally a pretty nice person? (I'm not trying to sound boastful or anything, just.. that seems to be one of the words people default to when describing me, so... *shrugs*) so.. perhaps it would be best to try to assume I'm not being toothy and claw-y, but am just jabbering at the mouth.

Idk but the thought of a Disney manager getting really passionate about Rafiki's sexual prowess is funny to me.

I'll be honest, I did laugh :)

but it also seemed to me like you were getting really upset about it (and at me!)-- like I said, we seem to have a lot of trouble reading each other's tone. :C

So sorry that I misread you :)

The way you framed seemed to me like you where dead-serious. Nowhere did you hint that it was just a theory...sounded like you were about ready to edit Rafiki's wiki page on the Disney wiki with this new information. I was just pointing out that extrapolating all of that from his vibrant face color is a bit much.

Nah -- it's bullshit. but coming up with bullshit is fun :) My friends and I have a lot of conversations about movies and books that can be summarized as "what if" ... what if luke joined the dark side, what if Leia was the one who was trained in the force, what if Harry Potter was sorted into Slytherin.. what would history be like if.... it's fun stuff. It's... a way to... on one hand, stretch the mind out and be creative. It's not the same creative as drawing or writing, but still creative (as long as you're actually creative. Like, I could go on for ages about any of the questions I mentioned earlier. (I had a 20 minute conversation earlier with my husband about how the US government would regulate enchanted goods if a significant portion of the population could do magical stuff, and how it would effect marketplaces like etsy or ebay. Why? No reason. It's just fun)

Plus, it's kind of a way, to me, of appreciating a movie or tv show or book. All of my favorite franchises really inspire a lot of possibilities for conversation and communal fantasy.

Most people who engage in similar "mind games" also don't necessarily believe that it's the creator-given truth -- they're just having fun putting puzzle pieces together. That said, it might become "headcannon" for some people if there's nothing that really contradicts it: For example, Hermoine Granger (from Harry Potter) never has a skin color defined -- just brown bushy hair. So some people 'headcannon' her as black, rather than white. Why not, doesn't hurt anything--unless someone becomes aggressive with their ideas... but that goes back to the idea that we should let other people enjoy the things they enjoy, and not try to squish anyone's fun.

(I also read a really compelling bit of text about how Hermoine could be seen as autistic" (Here is a link to copy and paste, since the forum doesn't seem to understand @ symbols.
Sorry D: https://medium.com/@AlexGabriel/hermione-is-autistic-2682485aa4bf ) because of a number of her traits and while I doubt Rowling set out to write her as autistic (almost certainly not, considering how long ago it was written (1997) compared to when then-Asperger's Syndrome was added to the DSM-IV (1994)), she did write a set of traits that are consistent with the idea -- and perhaps based on people who would be diagnosed with ASD these days... who knows :) I don't think I headcannon it, but if you want to, go for it.)

I think I wandered a bit off topic. Determining rafiki's sex life off of his face colors is totally way overboard, but it's not meant to be a serious declaration. :)

(I hope this isn't too long. As with many posts, I've written this over a couple hours while playing games, and it can be easy to lose track of length when I do that. Also, I'm terrible at editing myself shorter. I end up trying to add in clarifications and clean up wording and end up adding length instead >_<)

edit: nope, still really long. the preview's narrowness also messes with my ability to judge length. Well.. Sorry D: