Kopa

[SuperBabySimba]

[quote="WildSimba"]That doesn't mean at all that it isn't kept on the downlow by Disney.[/quote]

What does "keeping on the downlow' even mean?

[quote="WildSimba"]You do kind of discredit any possible thing that isn't in your favor... SBS. I'm seriously not trying to be rude, but if you don't want people to think as if your doing that, you should word your posts a little bit more kindly, instead of just bashing Kopa at every given corner you could find.[/quote]

How am I bashing Kopa at every given corner? Bashing?! I don't recall myself calling him names. And while I know I sometime have criticized him as a character, I most certainly haven't done it at every given corner. Pointing out possible reasond and pointing out facts of why he doesn't officially exist in the films, isn't bashing. It is just discussing/arguing. You're taking it as bashing because it contradicts your personal beliefs and I really can't help you with that problem.

[quote="WildSimba"]As Snowy said, it is a very popular character, and the creation does deserve a little more respect then you've been giving them.[/quote]

I think his popularity is partly an illusion. The untrue claims that he's official canon has caused tons of people to regard him more or less even if they don't necessarely care for him.

[quote="WildSimba"]Also, he said it's his original STORY. He didn't say anything of the sort of Kopa being his original CHARACTER. [/quote]

Fair enough. But my basic point stands valid: he wasn't created nor developed by any of the films' makers and he isn't a character in an old, epic tale = the film universe's creative teams aren't interested in him, judging by the entire, long history of their movie animation.

[quote="Azdgari"]However, since it was distributed by Disney and their logo placed on it, it is extended universe, no?[/quote]

I already said yes to this.

[quote="Azdgari"]I can't figure out what you're disagreeing with me on...[/quote]

I think we were on the issue if he is a fan made character or not. You think he's not, I think he is.

[quote="Azdgari"]Addressing whether or not he is Fluffy... again it's complicated and awkward![/quote]

How? What is complicated about a thing being what the thing's creators say it is? And Kopa already existed in the books when they called it Fluffy, but Kopa wasn't created by them, so I don't see where's the awkwardness? How is it awkward to call your own creation whatever you want it to be?

[quote="Azdgari"]It's true Kopa did not 'exist' when TLK was created, but that argument is void because neither did Kiara.[/quote]

Yes, back then only Fluffy existed. But the argument's base doesn't end there. After Kopa existed in the books, Fluffy's creators still kept the film's cub as just Fluffy while they couldn't call it Kiara because Kiara didn't exist even then. The fact they didn't edit the commentary track for the 2003 DVD, means Kiara isn't official canon, but the fact Kiara was created by Disney's film animators and exists in the official movie universe story, givses her valid and strong ground in the argument for the identity of Fluffy.

[WildSimba]

Keeping it on the downlow, means that their keeping it a secret from the general public. As I said before, there's no absolute proof that it wasn't made by someone who was being supported by disney. The books have the official seal of disney on it, making me think more on the side that disney actually had some sort of say so in what was in it. And just because it's not general knowledge, also doesn't mean that none of the animators talked to anyone who helped with the books, because it was never stated publically if they had or not eigther. I know things can be kept a secret pretty easily. I know the new MCR album, if you'd of looked a month before it was released, you could of hardly of found anything about it.

[Pixie]

Keeping it a secret from the general public? Man. That's craziness. It's not the government that made TLK, so I doubt that there's a conspiracy, lol. It's just people connecting various dots and filling in the rest themselves.

[SnowyCheetah]

Proof?

[SuperBabySimba]

[quote="WildSimba"]Keeping it on the downlow, means that their keeping it a secret from the general public. As I said before, there's no absolute proof that it wasn't made by someone who was being supported by disney. The books have the official seal of disney on it, making me think more on the side that disney actually had some sort of say so in what was in it. And just because it's not general knowledge, also doesn't mean that none of the animators talked to anyone who helped with the books, because it was never stated publically if they had or not eigther. I know things can be kept a secret pretty easily. I know the new MCR album, if you'd of looked a month before it was released, you could of hardly of found anything about it.[/quote]

Lol. All the books in the book universe are exactly on the same starter line and officiality level as TLK6NA and they contradict each others' content, including TLK6NA's content. So why should TLK6NA and Kopa be official canon as an object of conspiracy any more likely than any of the other books? If we are to go by your conspiracy theory, it could be any of the books, any one of those wherein Kopa doesn't exist.

So, how about there just isn't a conspiracy but Disney's book department just decided to form a collection of fan/outsider fiction stories for kids' amusement and profit purposes and for fans to have fun with - and the film making department decided to leave it at that, simply ignoring them.

[xLilacVixenx]

My theory is that Disney made a male cub just to conclude the Circle of Life for the first movie. Then another company associated with Disney thought about creating a comic series and feature Simba's son shown at the ending of the film. When The Lion King II was made, they assumed having a female as a lead and payed no attention whatsoever to the comics.

This could have meant that they had no knowledge of the books because the associates could have been dead at that time.

[WildSimba]

[quote="SuperBabySimba"][quote="WildSimba"]Keeping it on the downlow, means that their keeping it a secret from the general public. As I said before, there's no absolute proof that it wasn't made by someone who was being supported by disney. The books have the official seal of disney on it, making me think more on the side that disney actually had some sort of say so in what was in it. And just because it's not general knowledge, also doesn't mean that none of the animators talked to anyone who helped with the books, because it was never stated publically if they had or not eigther. I know things can be kept a secret pretty easily. I know the new MCR album, if you'd of looked a month before it was released, you could of hardly of found anything about it.[/quote]

Lol. All the books in the book universe are exactly on the same starter line and officiality level as TLK6NA and they contradict each others' content, including TLK6NA's content. So why should TLK6NA and Kopa be official canon as an object of conspiracy any more likely than any of the other books? If we are to go by your conspiracy theory, it could be any of the books, any one of those wherein Kopa doesn't exist.

So, how about there just isn't a conspiracy but Disney's book department just decided to form a collection of fan/outsider fiction stories for kids' amusement and profit purposes and for fans to have fun with - and the film making department decided to leave it at that, simply ignoring them.[/quote]

That's a conspiracy too, dude. Mine might seem a little more outragious but that doesn't mean it's impossible. See, your now making it seem as if everyone has to agree on your opinion, and that's where the arguements are coming in.

[SuperBabySimba]

[quote="xLilacVixenx"]My theory is that Disney made a male cub just to conclude the Circle of Life for the first movie.[/quote]

A new-born child in itself concludes the Circle by being the next generation starrting its journey around the circle. How is the gender relevant in the concluding matter? At least in the film's makers' opinion it apparently isn't, as they talked about the cub for a minute or so without confirming its gender in any way but just said it's the next generation.

[quote="WildSimba"][quote="[quote="SuperBabySimba"]So, how about there just isn't a conspiracy but Disney's book department just decided to form a collection of fan/outsider fiction stories for kids' amusement and profit purposes and for fans to have fun with - and the film making department decided to leave it at that, simply ignoring them.[/quote]

That's a conspiracy too, dude. Mine might seem a little more outragious but that doesn't mean it's impossible. See, your now making it seem as if everyone has to agree on your opinion, and that's where the arguements are coming in.[/quote]

I call that as just typical film making and merhandise creating for a fandom, not a conspiracy.

[xLilacVixenx]

[quote="SuperBabySimba"]
A new-born child in itself concludes the Circle by being the next generation starrting its journey around the circle. How is the gender relevant in the concluding matter? At least in the film's makers' opinion it apparently isn't, as they talked about the cub for a minute or so without confirming its gender in any way but just said it's the next generation.[/quote]

It doesn't necessarily matter what gender the cub was. The comic producers thought that he could be male, so that's how they put him. That's basically what I'm saying.

[WildSimba]

How do you know that what you said is Disney's typical merchandising form though? Do you work for disney, to where you can actually prove this as anything other then a conspiracy that your just trying to shove down out throats?