Why are we supposed to think of the characters as humans?

[HeartsForTheClueless]

Disney has said at least once that even though they look like animals we should think of them as being human. What did they mean by that?

They're obviously animals. They act like them, look like them, eat like them, and acknowledge they're their species. They're quite different from say, Mickey Mouse and his friends, who are supposed to be seen as humans rather then animals.

I'm pretty sure Disney just wanted to just say something because they knew the fans would think "too hard" into the movies, and would them ignore even more if they said "It's just a movie; Don't think too much into it."

So are we supposed to be thinking of the characters as being the human equivalent of their roles? ..So doesn't that simply make the movies revised versions of Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet?

[Mike]

Not quite sure what the question here is If your question is if we're supposed to be thinking of the characters as being the human equivalent of their roles, then you've answered it earlier XD According to your info from disney (And Actually if you could find that quote I'd be interested to read it =) ) Yes, we're supposed to consider them as more human than animal. That much is pretty obvious already seeing as they can talk and such things

As to whether this makes it a new interpretation of the classic shakespere stories, I'm not sure whether it matters if we consider the characters to be "people" or "animals." The movie tells the same story either way

[thanigraphics]

Good question! I might have the answer, but it's still my personal logic concerning this matter:
The target group for the Lion King movies is families/children. If they made the lions non-talking and gave them their whole wildlife behaviour, it would be very difficult for most children to understand, because there aren't many children nowadays who understand the communication of real lions. (for that, they've invented animal planet and discovery planet, which are quite interesting, though)
As long as I can remember, stories have been told about animals that are able to talk (they're called fables) to make human situations insightable for children. It seems that animals have a thing about them that make children more interested than they are in actual humans.

The movies are full of situations that children recognize from their own lifes: playing, going on adventure, the bond with parents, thinking about what you'll be when you grow up, jealousy, anger, loss.... just things that happen during life.

The Lion King movies are not just a life-lesson, but also entertaining because the whole thing fits: the lions are moving like lions, have actual lion behaviour (like pouncing, hunting, roaring and stuff) and give a little insight in the animal species you'll find in Africa. The African music makes the picture complete.

I can go on longer, but I have to keep it short: I think we are supposed to think about the characters as animals with a human personality.
And my own opinion is, that animals actually CAN feel pain, jealousy, joy and loss. I have cats at my place, and I recognize some of their emotions, and what I know about wild lions, they have family bonds, they can get angry, sad or scared, and they even can have joy like us humans.

[HeartsForTheClueless]

[quote="Mike"]Yes, we're supposed to consider them as more human than animal. That much is pretty obvious already seeing as they can talk and such things
[/quote]

I seriously doubt they are just talking though. It's translated animal speech. They're slightly anthropomorphic in their way of thinking and their movements but other then that they seem completely animal rather then human.

[SilverSimba01]

well, is a good question that you post, In my opinion, I think that we could consider TLK character as humans, even if most of the time they act like animals, they also act like humans, they bahave and talk like them

[KiarasMate]

[quote="thanigraphics"]Good question! I might have the answer, but it's still my personal logic concerning this matter:
The target group for the Lion King movies is families/children. If they made the lions non-talking and gave them their whole wildlife behaviour, it would be very difficult for most children to understand, because there aren't many children nowadays who understand the communication of real lions. (for that, they've invented animal planet and discovery planet, which are quite interesting, though)
As long as I can remember, stories have been told about animals that are able to talk (they're called fables) to make human situations insightable for children. It seems that animals have a thing about them that make children more interested than they are in actual humans.

The movies are full of situations that children recognize from their own lifes: playing, going on adventure, the bond with parents, thinking about what you'll be when you grow up, jealousy, anger, loss.... just things that happen during life.

The Lion King movies are not just a life-lesson, but also entertaining because the whole thing fits: the lions are moving like lions, have actual lion behaviour (like pouncing, hunting, roaring and stuff) and give a little insight in the animal species you'll find in Africa. The African music makes the picture complete.

I can go on longer, but I have to keep it short: I think we are supposed to think about the characters as animals with a human personality.
And my own opinion is, that animals actually CAN feel pain, jealousy, joy and loss. I have cats at my place, and I recognize some of their emotions, and what I know about wild lions, they have family bonds, they can get angry, sad or scared, and they even can have joy like us humans.[/quote]


I think TG nailed this one. I agree completely.

[Simba]

Disney meant that we should think in terms of humans with their personalities, relationships, thoughts, and feelings. afterall, real animals probably don't have such deep hate to be considered villianous, like Scar. they also don't have the same sort of family relationships, and they certainly don't decide their leaders based on birth right or become betrothed. another aspect of this as that we tend to see 1 cub litters much in TLK, which is tied in with humans only having one child at a time as lions more often have 3-5 cubs a litter. the exception to that being Kovu and Vitani, and only possibly Mufasa and Scar. some people out there don't even believe animals really have feelings of love or anything else like humans, so for them to think of the characters as animals would result in criticism. notice, also, that while they do look like animals mostly, they are still anthropomorphic. they have eyebrows, human eyes, and have human facial expressions. while you can often tell animals' feelings by their expressions, they can't pull off things like a raised or furrowed brown and an eye roll. and if you watch TLK2, you'll notice the people over it flubbed up in one area the crew of the original avoided as much as possible: use of paws as hands. Kiara was going to pull Zira up, which didn't get to happen, and afterwards Simba pulled Kiara up with his paw defying the laws of nature.

Disney wasn't asking us to think of them in human form, but with human characteristics like personalities, deep thoughts, having only one mate, being in love, having traditions, etc.

[rich198]

by thinking of them as people it allows us to bond with them and feel empathy and sympathy for them which makes the film more powerful and personal to the person watching where as if we were to think of em as animals it makes it much harder to form a bond. take me for example i feel close to simba as like him i suffered great tragedy at a young age of which i still cant face up to or talk about in any detail so i feel empathy for simba and feel a personal bond with him and see part of him in me. if i saw him as a animal i couldent do that so thiere would be no bond and so the part where muffassa dies would be much less powerful to me

[Azerane]

My opinion on the matter is basically what rich198 said. The characters have human emotions, expressions, appearances (eyebrows) in order to enable us to connect with them better and therefore have stronger responses to the movie. They did a wonderfully good job too

[iluvnala]

[quote="Azerane"]My opinion on the matter is basically what rich198 said. The characters have human emotions, expressions, appearances (eyebrows) in order to enable us to connect with them better and therefore have stronger responses to the movie. They did a wonderfully good job too [/quote]
Yea i agree cause since we were kids when we saw it we wouldnt of understood what they were saying by growls and all so they spoke n stuff