Why did Scar look thinner and older than Mufasa?

[TheBlackCatCrossing]

Maybe Scar is a picky eater?

I always assumed it was partially due to genetics. Someone mentioned Thor and Loki. Maybe that's not a good example because the latter was adopted so.......

.

[AnnaM]

The Great Mystery of Scar's Physical Appearance ;P

I think why Scar had a significantly different physical appearance from Mufasa is a question for each person to decide on his/her own. Disney is inconsistent and its stories are not only full of contradictions and oddities, but also fictional. Regardless of officialness (yes, I made up my own noun for "official"), the stories are imagined to begin with and people can "believe" whatever they want to about them. Disney is obviously not all that cautious. Take the lack of acknowledgement of Kopa's existence in The Lion King II for example. Both the Lion King: Six New Adventures and The Lion King II: Simba's Pride were published/distributed/and/or/produced by or under the official permission of Disney, and yet they seem to contradict each other.

Remember, Scar said "he was at the shallow end of the gene pool" when it came to "brute strength." His lack of musculature was due to his genome.

My opinion is that Disney incorporated the stereotypically "evil" characteristics into his appearance, even though they are unrealistic, so that Scar could easily be recognized as a villain by viewers. I will elaborate on these unrealistic characteristics down below. If Disney's goal was to make the audience of The Lion King empathize with the protagonist and not the antagonist (and thus be affected by the movie's themes), making the antagonist's physical appearance "good-looking" would counter that goal. The Lion King is one of the movies in which the character's personalities are manifested in their outward appearances, and Scar was bad-to-the-bone-homicidal.

Now for the fun part that even I have pondered (the elaboration on the unrealistic characteristics): Does Scar have scoliosis--curvature of his spine? Or does he have arthritis in his snout? Because look how crooked his backbone and muzzle are inthis pic.

Maybe Scar should see a rheumatologist. That backbone appears to be crooked!

Oh, yes, the evidence leads to arthritis. Scar: "Forgive me for not leaping for joy...bad back you know..." *flops down on rock*

And the funniest part is in this screengrab. His left lip is closer (to the point of observation) than is his right lip, so why is it that his right lip looks so much longer? Normally, for any two objects of the same size, the object farther away from a point of observation looks smaller than the one closer to the point of observation. And yet, here, the farther object (his right lip) looks much longer. So I guess his right lip is just very disproportionately long.

Scar: "Help! My right lip dangles! It's too long!"

Poor Scar. It seems he was plagued with genetic misfortune. Disney, Disney, why are you cruel?

LOL, people are gonna think I need mental help, but that's okay. I hope this post amused you

[Carl]

[quote="AnnaM"]Take the lack of acknowledgement of Kopa's existence in The Lion King II for example. Both the Lion King: Six New Adventures and The Lion King II: Simba's Pride were published/distributed/and/or/produced by or under the official permission of Disney, and yet they seem to contradict each other. [/quote]
Well, actually the makers of the Lion King films didn't even know about the Six New Adventures book. When they made TLK2, people asked them about Kopa and those books, but they had never heard of them. Disney may have given permission for the book to be published, but many corporations do that, and they don't have to read those books or consider them as canon. If the filmmakers don't know about the book, it's not a lack of acknowledgement to not incorporate the characters.

[quote]His left lip is closer (to the point of observation) than is his right lip, so why is it that his right lip looks so much longer?[/quote]
I always assumed it was because his left lip was curled and pulled back farther than the right one. I mean, that kind of thing happens all the time in nature.

[AnnaM]

Haha, whatever you say, Julie.

I do agree to disagree. My main point is it really is up to everyone's individual imaginations. No human-written story could ever be perfectly consistent. Admittedly, I unaware of the producers' unawareness. You got me! Still, I maintain that no fictional story ought to be picked down to such gristle-detail, unless that picking is truly enjoyable. I myself find creepy the explanations people produce for inconsistencies, especially if it relates to "the real world nature," as I hate thinking about the unpleasant realities of death and suffering in nature when thinking about it will not eliminate it. And since the lions practically are just humans living in lion bodies (they speak and have human minds, and are capable of choosing between right and wrong), I figure Disney didn't intend The Lion King to be a reflection of nature's creepiness.

[DGFone]

Here is what I think about Scar being so skinny:

As Scar pointed out, the title of King seems to go for the big brawny lions who can fight their way to the top. Scar, who lacks the physical muscle to do so, is always overshadowed by Mufasa. True, we can clearly argue that Mufasa is a much better king, but if Scar didn't spend so much time trying to become king versus actually being one, he could have the potential to be a king as well.

So back to the brawn problem: The standard procedure in taking the throne away from a lion without inheriting it is to challenge the king. I am completely certain, as well as using Scar's comments about never challenging Mufasa due to being weak, that the "challenge" involves a fight, maybe even to the death, but at least until one of the lions in the fight give up. For Scar, all standard procedures on how to become king are unavailable. He used to be "first in line", but then Simba was born, so he can no longer inherit the title. With Mufasa bigger than him, a challenge is out of the question.

So why was Scar made to be much weaker? So that he would be forced to choose an alternative way of getting the throne. Let's get one thing straight: Scar really wants that throne. Not going for it is not an option. But if all normal ways of getting it are not available to him, what's a lion like Scar to do? Use that brain that he's so proud of, and figure something else up. In Scar's case, it was aligning with the hyenas and using them to kill Mufasa (and Simba, at least in theory) in a non traditional manner through the stampede. No one would suspect that he's the one to blame, and suddenly Scar doesn't have to worry about the lack of muscle. Whatever genetics from the gene pool that Scar doesn't have, he has the hyenas do the dirty work for him. Mufasa and Simba died in a tragic stampede? Grieving lion Scar to the throne!

[PrincessKiara]

I`m assuming Scar didn`t have to hunt his own prey.. living in the pride would mean (I would think anyway) that Mufasa offered to share whatever the lionesses caught. Of course, perhaps Scar was too proud/resentful of his brother to always accept his offerings and maybe he wasn`t a succsessful hunter - hence him becoming scrawny.

Also, physical appearences are often exaggerated in Disney films to bring out certain characteristics or just add humour or symbolism. Like the animator of Mufasa explains in an interview on the DVD that he wanted to make Mufasa look like the strongest and most powerful lion in the pride, and so he gave Mufasa huge shoulders, etc..

So I think the reason Scar is thin and weak looking is the same reason his mane is black, he has a scar and his claws are always extended, it`s symbolism meant to underline that he`s an underdog, the villain, he`s weak and wants to fight for power but cannot do so with physical, brute strength, and so he must rely on his intellect.

[AnnaM]

I feel obligated to add an extra two cents after leaving an unintended impression. Though I wish it were the case, I am not the sole authority on matters of Scar Others have rights! This is a restatement of their ideas and how I see the relationships between them.

Paraphrase of Question: Why did Scar, being younger than Mufasa and closely related (a brother) to Mufasa (a seemingly well-nourished, strong lion), and having the same *available* dietary nutrition, appear physically weaker, thinner, and older than Mufasa?

Summary of Opinions: All are agreed as we join the stampede/You should never take more than you give--in the circle of life! Oh wait, no, that's not what I was going to say. What I meant was: Everyone's opinion on this debatable matter is equally valid, since there is no *known* explicit explanation from an official source (except the ones mentioned). Also, all agree that the assumption (Scar being weaker and appearing older) is true.

-Since The Lion King incorporates many patterns of the real world into its fictional story [features animals of existent species whose behaviors and physiologies are able to be studied, features some events/ideas that could happen in reality (birth, death, male lions having manes, lions climbing rocks, e.t.c.), features a real continent on a real planet (Earth)], it is meant to reflect reality to a certain extent. The behaviors of the animal characters are supposed to match their respective species to a certain degree. Example: The Lions eat meat (Simba eats zebra/the lions eat antelope). They live in a pride composed mostly of female lionesses, but ruled by a single male (usually there's not more than one male in a lion pride, and this is reflected by the movies' power struggles). The male lions gain dominance through physical fights. This is a valid point.

-Since The Lion King also includes many highly unlikely events/ideas, we can definitely assume that its reflection of reality is between zero and one, but not equal to either. Where its "loyalty" to reality lies--between zero and one--and thus how its unexplained events and ideas can be explained--is a matter of opinion. *Even whether these unexplained events can or should be explained is a matter of opinion, though one of the major goals of this forum is to explain the unexplained. However, despite the goal of this forum, in my opinion, an explanation that is not undeniable, even if it fits the evidence perfectly well, ought not to take precedence over no explanation, as long as there are alternative explanations.* Some lean more towards realism in their opinion; others lean more towards non-realism. Some examples of highly unlikely events/ideas that The Lion King includes are: talking animals, a warthog and meerkat living together and "raising" an orphaned lion, a lion carrying out premeditated murder, a meerkat not only standing, but walking, on his hind legs, e.t.c.

On The Plot Devices/Artistic License (Distortion of Reality) Side:

Some say the cause of the question's assumption is a plot device. Because of Scar's weakness, he is forced to find a "clever/unconvential" alternative to a physical challenge of Mufasa's authority in order to replace Mufasa. (Si Targaryen, DGFone). This alternative also benefits Scar by not provoking suspicion in the lion pride. What I call "artistic license" is what PrincessKiara, I, Zulama, and Todd23 underlined; it is Disney's employment of symbolism/associations/and such in TLK's characterizations.

On The "Following Nature's Patterns" Side:

Annie's idea was that such a difference (as the one between Scar and Mufasa) between closely related individuals of a species is definitely possible, since she has observed it herself. Julie added that this is not only possible, but probable in nature (this is true). Some attribute the cause to Scar's diet, whether that attribution is where it is obtained (SimbaWinter) or whether Scar will willingly obtain it (TheBlackCatCrossing). I myself like the idea that Scar was too proud to take Mufasa's offers as food, but this is just speculation. Scar's quote about "the shallow end of the gene pool" validates the genetics argument for sure, not to say enviornmental factors (like being a runt) couldn't have added to Scar's misfortune.

Mixture of Both Sides:

Scar, because he was born physically inferior to Mufasa, due to genetics or environmental factors, becomes jealous because of Mufasa's physical superiority, fueling his evil motivations (Todd23). (Lions can't be jealous, but every organism responds to its enviornment and exhibits heredity.)

I personally affiliate with the "minimal involvement of natural patterns idea," as to me, a mixture of moral capacity in animals with the cruelties of nature is just one bad combo. I like the thought of Scar's killing and gladiator matches being an exception to the rule for the lion society, not the norm. I also like the idea of animals of different species (like Timon, Pumbaa, Simba, Rafiki, and Zazu) being friends, which isn't often seen in nature.

<-- Unlike Scar, I concede, you guys are entitled too

[Carl]

[quote]Lions can't be jealous[/quote]
This isn't true. Lions, just like house cats, can and do get jealous. Jealousy isn't exclusive to humans, animals get jealous a lot. I agree that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but some things are facts. Like the fact that lions can be jealous and the fact that the makers of SP didn't know about Kopa when they made the movie (which I would link the source if I had it).

As for why Scar looks like he does, the simple answer is that the creators of the film wanted him to be obviously the bad guy.

Exploring it realistically, that's where opinion comes in. Chances are, he's either a runt, which he himself did imply with the gene pool comment, or he's too stubborn or whatever to eat the food. Though really it's anyone's guess. I don't think that he was too stubborn/proud to eat because if that were the case he'd have starved and died and he wouldn't have lasted long once the drought set in. He'd have been the first to die if that were the case.

[AnnaM]

You're right! I didn't mean to say they couldn't be jealous; I know animals can be jealous. (Believe me, I've found myself arguing with people who won't acknowledge that, since I consider myself animal welfare advocate!) They do have emotions. What I meant was, jealousy couldn't lead them to do the things Scar did, like organize "the coup of the century/the murkiest scam," among many other things.

[Animal of the Wild]

I don't know! I mean, considering the first thing you see of him is his giant paw coming down, you'd think he'd be as heavily built as his brother. Unfortunately, as far as brute strength goes, he really does seem to be at the far end of the gene pool.

I just don't get how he managed to knock Sarabi down, considering she's freakin' buff compared to him.