Was 'the lion king' originally a kimba adaptation?
Posted: May 4th, 2016, 3:23 pm
I've heard people say this, and while there are things that point towards it being true there are logical inaccuracies that point towards the answer being 'no'. Also nobody has shown real genuine proof of this claim.
1: the original title of the film was 'king of the jungle' which is similar to to kimbas japanese name, jungle emporer leo. According to disney they changed the name after realizing that lions didn't really live in the jungle.
2: some of the original concept art shows a white lion. White lions really do exist in the wild but it is an odd coincidence.
3: simba and kimba. Not a letter swap as kimba is aboriginal for brushfire and simba is swahili for lion. But it is an odd coincidence.
4: matthew broderick originally thought tlk was a kimba adaptation. This might have been a strange misunderstanding.
5: i read somewhere that osamu tezuka wanted disney to do a 'kimba' adaptation what with him being a huge walt fanboy, having seen bambi over 100 times.
But none of this is definitive proof. If it was originally a kimba adaptation i can understand why there would be no credit given to the tezuka family from disney as disney has said that all similarities are coincidental and that the film was directly based on bambi the bible and shakespere. As far as I know, the tezuka family has not claimed that tlk was originaly supposed to be an adaptation. I remember reading that they didn't sue disney because they didn't have the money to.
None of this is definitive proof that tlk was originally a kimba adaptation that fell through because if it was wouldn't the tezuka family try to make such a claim? How does it benifit them to be so silent on the subject?
1: the original title of the film was 'king of the jungle' which is similar to to kimbas japanese name, jungle emporer leo. According to disney they changed the name after realizing that lions didn't really live in the jungle.
2: some of the original concept art shows a white lion. White lions really do exist in the wild but it is an odd coincidence.
3: simba and kimba. Not a letter swap as kimba is aboriginal for brushfire and simba is swahili for lion. But it is an odd coincidence.
4: matthew broderick originally thought tlk was a kimba adaptation. This might have been a strange misunderstanding.
5: i read somewhere that osamu tezuka wanted disney to do a 'kimba' adaptation what with him being a huge walt fanboy, having seen bambi over 100 times.
But none of this is definitive proof. If it was originally a kimba adaptation i can understand why there would be no credit given to the tezuka family from disney as disney has said that all similarities are coincidental and that the film was directly based on bambi the bible and shakespere. As far as I know, the tezuka family has not claimed that tlk was originaly supposed to be an adaptation. I remember reading that they didn't sue disney because they didn't have the money to.
None of this is definitive proof that tlk was originally a kimba adaptation that fell through because if it was wouldn't the tezuka family try to make such a claim? How does it benifit them to be so silent on the subject?