What plot holes?!
Posted: October 22nd, 2010, 3:54 amI'm sure the plot holes have been discussed many times but I couldn't find one specific, clear topic for them. So I guess they're all over this place in random topics and thus I so am not going to search for them. So, thought I'd do this.
Because I really wonder how do people see "so many plot holes"? And because I can see ONLY TWO and even they are relative.
1.) The cub's design and the ceremony.
But officially that is not a plot hole. As Disney has made it official it is "Fluffy"/Kiara in the movie universe. As in introduced no one else in the movies - basically we just have to accept that in the movie universe the cub in the end of the first film is Kiara and they just changed its design and forgot how the ceremony went. I mean, we don't have to accept it but whether we do or don't, the fact remains that there never was anyone but Kiara in the movie universe; because "Fluffy" isn't a real name and "Fluffy" has never been given a gender in its own film and SP is in the only official movie sequel and it introduces only Kiara without any references to any siblings.
Also, see my topic "How to identify a baby cub's gender?"; "Fluffy"'s looks don't seal its gender in any way, so it throughly really doesn't have a gender in the movies until Kiara gives it that.
So, plot hole it may be in some fans' eyes but officially it is not.
2.) POSSIBLE plot hole: Kovu's age looks as he looks too close to Kiara's age combined to how he was supposed to be hand-chosen by Scar who dies many months before the cub in the end as in Kiara was born. I guess, as Kovu has that tuft on his head, it is slightly possible he was born just before Simba returned to Pride Lands. Zira even says he was born just before Simba exiled them, which must have happened very soon after Scar's death. But still, I think Kovu should've been a bit bigger.
But what else???
CLAIMED PLOT HOLES WHICH I INTENT TO DISPROVE:
Simba over-protecting Kiara is clearly explained in the film in the very same scene wherein his over-protectivness is brought up!!! He over-protects Kiara because Kiara is just like he was when he was a cub and Simba was traumatized by his childhood experiences as a wild-running child. Starting from the Elephant Graveyard and ultimately by the stampede and his Dad's death. Add to that how he totally didn't trust the banished Outlanders for they were Scar's heir and Scar was the resident evil. That's why Zazu refers to the outsiders as "backstabbing, murderous outsiders". Guilty by association is a very common thing in life and life's not fair like Scar wisely stated in the beginning. So. There most certainly is no plot hole there!
Zira and co. were banished simply because Zira was Scar's supporter and the rest were Scar's daughters and sons or just generally related to the evil uncle who had totally poisoned Simba's mind and at the time when the exile must have happened, Simba's wounds must have been open wide. And he wouldn't have the wisdom he'd needed anyway as he had left the immature lifestyle only couple of days ago. There really isn't needed anything more to explain the exile of the Outlanders.
The story of TLK would naturally lead to a whole lot of psychological depth and meaning in events between TLK and SP - and the TLK story alone offers all that is needed for it. There is no plot hole in the exile. There is no freakin' Kopa and child murder involved in the movie universe. If there was they would've refered to such. But they didn't.
This leads me to the scene where Zira offers Kovu for Simba to kill:
Even I have over-analyzed this one though always ignoring any book universe related theories which totally don't belong to the movie universe's official story because the books weren't written by the film makers and likely not even known by them. I used to think this scene had something to do with Scar having killed Simba's Dad in order to become king and Zira offering Scar's "son" for Simba to kill in order to revenge that.
But then I stopped and listened to the dialogue as a whole. The dialogue goes: "You know the penalty if you return to Pride Lands!" "But THE CHILD does NOT! Although... If you need your pound of flesh. Here." *pushes Kovu towards Simba*
Hence, they are talking about generally the returning to Pride Lands and how Simba had laid down a law that if they do, they shall be killed and that Zira knows it. She makes a note that the child does not know that and remember how this child had been the one who had returned to Pride Lands. Zira was there just to fecth him home. So, she was saying that the child had crossed the line because he didn't know the penalty for that - but if Simba needed to go through with the penalty as in his "pound of flesh" - she would not stop him and even pushed her son closer to the king. That's all. No previously murdered kids, no siblings for Kiara, nothing to do with Mufasa's death... Just the penalty for returning which Kovu had ignorantly done. NO plot hole there.
The Outlanders even existing even though we don't see them at all in TLK but only hyenas. And/or where did they come from / the Outlanders being Scar fans though he was a sucky king and not even the hyenas were happy.
1.) We don't necessarly get to see the entire pride in the end of TLK.
2.) Because Scar needed a follower and even in general life goes on scenario - realistically there had to be some mating going on, then new cubs born and grown up during Scar's reign. Lions that look like him. Not to mention that his reign must have lasted for four to five years in the least. Regarding Simba's physical development seeing to real life facts of male lions' growth.
So it is actually TLK film's mistake that it doesn't show lions that look like Scar.
3.) Zira was a psycho, fanatic, obsessed fan girl of Scar's and apparently the only one. No one else of the outlanders really cared about Scar or getting the Pride Lands back. As in everyone but her had been unhappy with Scar's reign, just like the hyenas. Remember how when it came to the moment of truth, everyone else but Zira gave up and joined Simba's side and even showed fed-up expressions. Before that point they probably followed Zira because Simba wouldn't have them. Lions need some sort of a leader. They rarely live outside prides.
Zira could've been one of the original lionesses we didn't get to see during Simba's childhood. It is highly unlikely in the face of logic, that Scar was supposed to be the only one in the pride who looked essentially different. He was just the only one shown because the story was about him and his brother and nephew - not about the lionessess/pride.
So basically what SP does is add some realistically existing characters which weren't but could've easily been and in my opinion should've mutually been at least briefly shown in the first film just for the sake of realisticness.
No plot hole there either - at least not for SP's part.
Where the heck is Sarabi?? Well, according to Disney's official web site she is in the film. But admitted, I doubt anyone guessed that for themselves because she isn't pointed out, so I'm gonna offer this; Sarabi must have been quite old at the end of TLK and would've been even older when Kiara was born and growing up. She could've died of old age (though apparently didn't) or nor socilized much due to the old age. So, still no plot hole - all it takes is a little use of common sense. But as Disney's official web site states she is in the film, she is likely some one of the lionesses in one of the group scenes. (:
.......
Have I forgotten something?
I think a summary of this post could be that most of the so-called "plot holes" are perfectly filled with a little thought to realistic life and the characters' psychology for which the TLK film alone offers all the base needed. That's the beauty of The Lion King in my opinion; that it's SO deep and SO dark in SO many ways that it affects the characters psychologically very strongly and complexily, and gives room for many new wonderful characters... In short; a sequel doesn't need anyrhing else for a background.
Because I really wonder how do people see "so many plot holes"? And because I can see ONLY TWO and even they are relative.
1.) The cub's design and the ceremony.
But officially that is not a plot hole. As Disney has made it official it is "Fluffy"/Kiara in the movie universe. As in introduced no one else in the movies - basically we just have to accept that in the movie universe the cub in the end of the first film is Kiara and they just changed its design and forgot how the ceremony went. I mean, we don't have to accept it but whether we do or don't, the fact remains that there never was anyone but Kiara in the movie universe; because "Fluffy" isn't a real name and "Fluffy" has never been given a gender in its own film and SP is in the only official movie sequel and it introduces only Kiara without any references to any siblings.
Also, see my topic "How to identify a baby cub's gender?"; "Fluffy"'s looks don't seal its gender in any way, so it throughly really doesn't have a gender in the movies until Kiara gives it that.
So, plot hole it may be in some fans' eyes but officially it is not.
2.) POSSIBLE plot hole: Kovu's age looks as he looks too close to Kiara's age combined to how he was supposed to be hand-chosen by Scar who dies many months before the cub in the end as in Kiara was born. I guess, as Kovu has that tuft on his head, it is slightly possible he was born just before Simba returned to Pride Lands. Zira even says he was born just before Simba exiled them, which must have happened very soon after Scar's death. But still, I think Kovu should've been a bit bigger.
But what else???
CLAIMED PLOT HOLES WHICH I INTENT TO DISPROVE:
Simba over-protecting Kiara is clearly explained in the film in the very same scene wherein his over-protectivness is brought up!!! He over-protects Kiara because Kiara is just like he was when he was a cub and Simba was traumatized by his childhood experiences as a wild-running child. Starting from the Elephant Graveyard and ultimately by the stampede and his Dad's death. Add to that how he totally didn't trust the banished Outlanders for they were Scar's heir and Scar was the resident evil. That's why Zazu refers to the outsiders as "backstabbing, murderous outsiders". Guilty by association is a very common thing in life and life's not fair like Scar wisely stated in the beginning. So. There most certainly is no plot hole there!
Zira and co. were banished simply because Zira was Scar's supporter and the rest were Scar's daughters and sons or just generally related to the evil uncle who had totally poisoned Simba's mind and at the time when the exile must have happened, Simba's wounds must have been open wide. And he wouldn't have the wisdom he'd needed anyway as he had left the immature lifestyle only couple of days ago. There really isn't needed anything more to explain the exile of the Outlanders.
The story of TLK would naturally lead to a whole lot of psychological depth and meaning in events between TLK and SP - and the TLK story alone offers all that is needed for it. There is no plot hole in the exile. There is no freakin' Kopa and child murder involved in the movie universe. If there was they would've refered to such. But they didn't.
This leads me to the scene where Zira offers Kovu for Simba to kill:
Even I have over-analyzed this one though always ignoring any book universe related theories which totally don't belong to the movie universe's official story because the books weren't written by the film makers and likely not even known by them. I used to think this scene had something to do with Scar having killed Simba's Dad in order to become king and Zira offering Scar's "son" for Simba to kill in order to revenge that.
But then I stopped and listened to the dialogue as a whole. The dialogue goes: "You know the penalty if you return to Pride Lands!" "But THE CHILD does NOT! Although... If you need your pound of flesh. Here." *pushes Kovu towards Simba*
Hence, they are talking about generally the returning to Pride Lands and how Simba had laid down a law that if they do, they shall be killed and that Zira knows it. She makes a note that the child does not know that and remember how this child had been the one who had returned to Pride Lands. Zira was there just to fecth him home. So, she was saying that the child had crossed the line because he didn't know the penalty for that - but if Simba needed to go through with the penalty as in his "pound of flesh" - she would not stop him and even pushed her son closer to the king. That's all. No previously murdered kids, no siblings for Kiara, nothing to do with Mufasa's death... Just the penalty for returning which Kovu had ignorantly done. NO plot hole there.
The Outlanders even existing even though we don't see them at all in TLK but only hyenas. And/or where did they come from / the Outlanders being Scar fans though he was a sucky king and not even the hyenas were happy.
1.) We don't necessarly get to see the entire pride in the end of TLK.
2.) Because Scar needed a follower and even in general life goes on scenario - realistically there had to be some mating going on, then new cubs born and grown up during Scar's reign. Lions that look like him. Not to mention that his reign must have lasted for four to five years in the least. Regarding Simba's physical development seeing to real life facts of male lions' growth.
So it is actually TLK film's mistake that it doesn't show lions that look like Scar.
3.) Zira was a psycho, fanatic, obsessed fan girl of Scar's and apparently the only one. No one else of the outlanders really cared about Scar or getting the Pride Lands back. As in everyone but her had been unhappy with Scar's reign, just like the hyenas. Remember how when it came to the moment of truth, everyone else but Zira gave up and joined Simba's side and even showed fed-up expressions. Before that point they probably followed Zira because Simba wouldn't have them. Lions need some sort of a leader. They rarely live outside prides.
Zira could've been one of the original lionesses we didn't get to see during Simba's childhood. It is highly unlikely in the face of logic, that Scar was supposed to be the only one in the pride who looked essentially different. He was just the only one shown because the story was about him and his brother and nephew - not about the lionessess/pride.
So basically what SP does is add some realistically existing characters which weren't but could've easily been and in my opinion should've mutually been at least briefly shown in the first film just for the sake of realisticness.
No plot hole there either - at least not for SP's part.
Where the heck is Sarabi?? Well, according to Disney's official web site she is in the film. But admitted, I doubt anyone guessed that for themselves because she isn't pointed out, so I'm gonna offer this; Sarabi must have been quite old at the end of TLK and would've been even older when Kiara was born and growing up. She could've died of old age (though apparently didn't) or nor socilized much due to the old age. So, still no plot hole - all it takes is a little use of common sense. But as Disney's official web site states she is in the film, she is likely some one of the lionesses in one of the group scenes. (:
.......
Have I forgotten something?
I think a summary of this post could be that most of the so-called "plot holes" are perfectly filled with a little thought to realistic life and the characters' psychology for which the TLK film alone offers all the base needed. That's the beauty of The Lion King in my opinion; that it's SO deep and SO dark in SO many ways that it affects the characters psychologically very strongly and complexily, and gives room for many new wonderful characters... In short; a sequel doesn't need anyrhing else for a background.
