Scar and Mufasa aren't blood siblings? What.

[Elton John]

http://hellogiggles.com/lion-king-scar-mufasa-brothers/?utm_campaign=socialflowfacebook&utm_source=Social&utm_medium=Facebook

According to director Rob Minkoff and producer Don Hahn Scar and Mufasa aren't traditional brothers.

WHAT

This changes the way I view the movie now....

[Azdgari]

I feel like these sort of things this far removed from a movie's release don't really mean that much to me. This reminds me of when JK Rowling decided Dumbledore gay out of the blue after everything was said and done--if it's something that was never really strongly referenced or implied in the script or film itself, it's just another headcanon as far as I'm concerned.

[nathalie]

hmm yeah ... why on earth must all this "info" come 23 years later ... there's no point

[Captain Cupcake]

Kind of a clickbait-y article. Hahn's just bringing up past discussions about how they could make the Mufasa and Scar relationship be more plausible during the making of the film, rather than cementing the fact they're most definitely not brothers. That doesn't necessarily mean he and others don't actually view their connection that way, but it's not necessarily an absolute confirmation.

[DGFone]

Well this is some very belated information - that will be forgotten about completely by tomorrow.

As far as the movie itself is concerned, the script made sure to very early on establish that yes, Mufasa and Scar are brothers. Sure, it's never stated if they are related biologically or not, but they consider themselves as part of the same family. Finer details at this point don't matter. If anything, they end up getting in the way of the story.

[it means no worries]

It's heavily implied that they are blood siblings seeing as they both refer to each other as brother numerous times-As others have said-clickbait.

[SimbasGuard]

Another thing is if nature is used as inspiration for the story. In reality even if one lion is more dominant than the other, they share the responsibility of being King. That means they they share the responsibility of guarding and defending their territory. As well as sharing the uhh...privileges extend to them by the lionesses. Therefore Scar would have had less reason to bump off Mufasa because getting rid of the powerhouse on your team means a lot more responsibility would then fall on you. It would be a bad move on Scar's part as he would have more to loose than he would to gain.

Also in one of the original concepts of the movie it is mentioned that Scar was originally supposed to be a Rogue

http://lionking.wikia.com/wiki/Scar (check the In Development Section)

Also in one of the Making Of The Lion King Specials (I don't know what one)

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+making+of+the+lion+king

It is mentioned by either/and/or Rob Minkoff, Roger Allers, Don Hahn. That they decided to have Scar be Mufasa's Brother/Simba's Uncle because that made the threat more menacing if it came from within the pride. For me it also explains why Mufasa did not realize just how dangerous Scar was or why none of The Pride. Especially Sarabi didn't suspect Scar of treachery when Mufasa (and supposedly Simba) was killed.

For them to say, suggest, or imply that Mufasa and Scar were not related by blood undermines the emotional impact that they were going for and that of the story itself.

There is also The Lion Guard which Don Hahn himself (for lack of a better word) gave his blessing when it was previewed at D23 in 2015. Taking that series as canon (as I believe they are trying so hard to establish as) The Roar of the Elders is inherited by the 2nd born cub of The King And Queen of Pride Rock. Therefor Mufasa and Scar have to be brothers by blood.

As for the article itself, it sounds very fishy for all of the reasons I have mentioned.

This is just speculation on my part, but I'd be inclined to think that during the interview ideas that were tossed about in the creative process were shared. Somewhere along the line the reporter misunderstood what ideas were rejected and thought that the film creators had different intentions than what was apparent in the film.

More speculation on my part, but I think the reason Disney didn't do anything about this article is because that it is such a small piece. All Disney wanted from it was to plug the fact that The Lion King is coming to Blu-Ray on August 29th. They may not have cared too much about the articles content as long as there were no glaring falsehoods.

[Panda-chan]

It's firmly established within the first 10 minutes of the film that Scar and Mufasa are in fact brothers. From a storytelling perspective, this "revelation" makes zero sense. Why would the writers have even chosen to make Scar an unrelated lion of unknown origins, rather than Mufasa's brother/Simba's uncle? Not only is the emotional impact of Scar's betrayal lost, but also a lot of what makes The Lion King so memorable. I think what really made Scar stand out as such a despicable character is the fact that he plotted to murder his own brother and nephew in his greed for power. I can think of only a handful of Disney movies that have taken such a risk storywise, and it would be a huge shame for it to all be lost just because the writers want people talking about the movie again before it's rereleased in theaters

tl;dr I agree with everyone that this is a click-baity, poorly thought out retcon. As Azdgari said, this is just headcanon as far as I'm concerned.

[Captain Cupcake]

[quote="Panda-chan"]tl;dr I agree with everyone that this is a click-baity, poorly thought out retcon.[/quote]

What I meant was that it seems this article (among a fair few others hopping on to the bandwagon) is twisting it to seem as if it's some newly revealed fact about the movie for the sake of clickbait when, in actuality, it may not really be a retcon but just the creators describing their thought process behind the development of these two characters. When you read it, they're referring to talks and viewpoints made during the production of the film, and how realistically, they probably wouldn't be related by blood and it'd be more of a coalition. It doesn't necessarily mean they're stating that they are actually unrelated.

[TheLionPrince]

I'm not sure if there's not much I can add here, but yes, read this article with a grain of salt. The writer just misinterpreted their discussion of Scar and Mufasa not being from the same gene pool (or full brothers) during production as a canon truth.