Do you consider 2 to be a canon succesor to The Lion King?

[HeartsForTheClueless]

Simba's Pride, like all sequels other then Fantasia 2000, aren't apart of the Disney animated canon. So is it canon?

Some fans don't consider it canon due to the inconsistencies.

For example the color problems and design changes between the two films. I've always attributed both of them to the characters aging. I've always found it obvious that they've aged, and coloring can change with time (even eye color).

The design mistakes between the film are most likely due to the fact it's a direct-to-VHS sequel. Disney movies don't tend to get top animation unless they're in theaters. It makes sense too. Why spend so much money and time on a direct-to-VHS movie?

[KiarasMate]

I feel as though that TLK2SP was canon and despite how many people disliked it, I still consider it one of Disney's best sequels ever! Of course it didn't live up to the original in most people's eyes but hardly any sequels do.

[FloraTheDarkFaerie]

I agree with KM, it is a great sequel to a great movie!

[Simba]

of course it's canon, Disney made it.

and the inconsitencies and style change are attributed to the completely different artists, directors, etc. I wouldn't say that Disney making it a direct-to-video sequel would have anything to do with that or the serious amount of plotholes. TLK1.5, for example, recaptured the original style and colors and it was released direct-to-DVD. now certain aspects of the movie probably did result from a rushed, minor release (such as cub Kiara's facial structure inconsistencies between scenes).

[HeartsForTheClueless]

Well technically even though Disney made it the only canon sequel according to Disney is Fantasia 2000.

[Azdgari]

Sure, I consider it canon. Grudgingly, given how Simba acts, but I accept it.

[Wearedoomed]

[quote="Simba"]:roll: of course it's canon, Disney made it.

and the inconsitencies and style change are attributed to the completely different artists, directors, etc. I wouldn't say that Disney making it a direct-to-video sequel would have anything to do with that or the serious amount of plotholes. TLK1.5, for example, recaptured the original style and colors and it was released direct-to-DVD. now certain aspects of the movie probably did result from a rushed, minor release (such as cub Kiara's facial structure inconsistencies between scenes).[/quote]

^ This.

[PrincessKiara]

What exactly does canon mean? That it’s official Disney material?

[Azdgari]

That it's the 'official' story of Lion King. I don't really see why it wouldn't be... if it's a sequel made by Disney, I would assume you would count it as canon... =P

[Takoto]

I consider it canon. It's a good sequel in my opinion... The people who say it "isn't canon because it's bad" are immature.

[quote="PrincessKiara"]What exactly does canon mean? That it’s official Disney material?[/quote]

"Canon" means it actually happened in the world/universe that a series is set in (and is confirmed by the creator(s) of the series). So, saying that "The second Lion King movie is not canon" would be saying "the events in the second Lion King movie didn't really happen".

The opposite term to Canon is "Fanon", which is information created by Fans. Like, if someone writes a fan-fiction, it's fanon. Basically, "it might be true in a fans mind, however it is not true in the actual story-line of the series".

I know you didn't ask about Fanon but I thought I might as well explain that as well. :B