How many cubs does Simba have?

[supersimba]

[quote="FlipMode"][quote="atouchofgrace"][quote="PrincessKiara"]I see what you mean, I really do. But did you ever think that the animators made such a big deal of studying lions because they needed to learn how to draw them? They did the same thing when making Bambi, they had to study real-life deer to understand how they moved. That doesn`t mean the animators made the animals 100% realistic in behaviour or even aging-process. Certain artistic liberties must have been taken. The Lion King is an animated feature for children, not a documentary on lion behaviour.[/quote]
^^ This.[/quote]

^^ This.[/quote]


^^ This.

[Jiirani]

[quote="FlipMode"][quote="atouchofgrace"][quote="PrincessKiara"]I see what you mean, I really do. But did you ever think that the animators made such a big deal of studying lions because they needed to learn how to draw them? They did the same thing when making Bambi, they had to study real-life deer to understand how they moved. That doesn`t mean the animators made the animals 100% realistic in behaviour or even aging-process. Certain artistic liberties must have been taken. The Lion King is an animated feature for children, not a documentary on lion behaviour.[/quote]
^^ This.[/quote]

^^ This.[/quote]

^^ NOT THIS.... Oh wait, I mean ^^ THIS lol

[Chumvikingpride]

Euh...what is all the "this"...

[Jiirani]

EDIT: I don't know what to say now, but i've deleted this post x3

Simba has one cub. Just so i'm on topic C:

[SuperBabySimba]

People, please. I know the FIRST film's makers studied them to make the movements realistic. But they went to AFRICA too. Movements they could've gotten well enough for one simple cartoon film from studying them on any nature document.

But in any case, as Simba's Pride film is the more essential part for this question, they could use the first film as source well enough, but still they went to study the animals. Thus, there likely was more to it than just the movements.

And what's with the word 'must'? I mean, obviously there are artistic liberties taken with the behaviour in both films, and obviously they were 'must'.

But why must there be artistic liberties taken in the aging matters when it's a feature film for children? It's not as if children wouldn't be entertained with realistic aging designs, like they wouldn't be with accurate lion behaviour. Plus, I see no harm done in educating children at the same time by designing them realistically seeing to real nature, (the education coming through parents or comparing the film's lions to lions from nature books and documents.) And Disney's classic cartoons aren't just for children - they're family movies. And don't they even have all those educating CD-rom merhandices even?

[PrincessKiara]

[quote="QueenOfPrideRock"]Well said Solle [/quote]

Thanks Frida.

[quote="Chumvikingpride"]Euh...what is all the "this"...[/quote]

It`s a way of saying you agree with what someone posted.

[PrincessKiara]

[quote="SuperBabySimba"]People, please. I know the FIRST film's makers studied them to make the movements realistic. But they went to AFRICA too. Movements they could've gotten well enough for one simple cartoon film from studying them on any nature document.

But in any case, as Simba's Pride film is the more essential part for this question, they could use the first film as source well enough, but still they went to study the animals. Thus, there likely was more to it than just the movements. [/quote]

If had been an animator working on SP, I would want to study real-life lions, not just use the first film/or a documentary as a reference.

[quote="SuperBabySimba"]And what's with the word 'must'? I mean, obviously there are artistic liberties taken with the behaviour in both films, and obviously they were 'must'.

But why must there be artistic liberties taken in the aging matters when it's a feature film for children? It's not as if children wouldn't be entertained with realistic aging designs, like they wouldn't be with accurate lion behaviour. Plus, I see no harm done in educating children at the same time by designing them realistically seeing to real nature, (the education coming through parents or comparing the film's lions to lions from nature books and documents.) And Disney's classic cartoons aren't just for children - they're family movies. And don't they even have all those educating CD-rom merhandices even?[/quote]

Scar is younger than Mufasa, yet his mane is darker. This is despite the natural fact that the older a lion is, the darker his mane becomes. That`s what I call an artistic liberty. That had to be taken for several reasons. Scar is the villain, for one. A black mane makes him look evil. Secondly, if all the male lions in the movie had brown manes, it perhaps be confusing for the kids and make it difficult to tell them apart.

You have to remember that in TLK, the lions behave more human-like than lion-like. It`s not supposed to be all that realistic or educational, it`s supposed to be entertaining. For children and adults alike. TLK is a family movie indeed, but primarily aimed at kids. Of course there`s nothing wrong with educating kids on realistc animal behaviour, but that`s not what TLK is aiming to do.

[Moka]

Just wanted to butt in with this: We treat TLK differently sometimes and pick at the details a little more than other movies because they attempted to make the characters less human-like than similar movies. We don't say Mickey Mouse is unrealistic because he drives a car, but boy oh boy they really messed up in TLK2:SP. Lions don't live in termite mounds! Stuff like that, you know what I mean? We're a little less lenient on the artistic freedoms that they employed in The Lion King. Cut them some slack! Haha.

[supersimba]

^ this

[FlipMode]

[quote="supersimba"]^ this[/quote]

^ this