Difference between revisions of "Talk:Fluffy"

Latest revision as of 12:57, 14 January 2012

Do we have a link to the SP trailer that showed the original celebration? If so, it would be great to cite that as a source. ~ Moka 10:26, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Maybe http://homepage.mac.com/maanerud/movies/simbapridetrailer.mov ? --Nitrol 10:52, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Cool, they used the original version of He Lives in You :) I'll cite this video in the article. Nice find! ~ Moka 11:26, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Not to be rude, but perhaps before undoing the entire edit I made, you should post what you think is wrong on the edit page. Obviously, the paragraph before on the page was very opinionated, which is why I revised it. Remember, that all the articles need to stay neutral of any opinion. Still took out a few things, please use the talk page before editing further, that's what the page is for. --Wildsimba 15:32, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

I agree -- The articles must stay neutral of opinion. I don't think the article should take a stance on who Fluffy is supposed to be or other external elements such as that. It should focus on Fluffy's scope: the brief 3 seconds we see him/her and the references to him/her such as the statement by the film makers and the SP trailer. You guys need to work together to bring the article to an agreeable neutral state, where bare bone facts are laid out. There can be fan speculation sections, but they need to be done even more professionally. They need to be common theories, concise statements, and courteous to other points of view. ~ Moka 21:40, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

Actually

SBS, there is an official concept sketch from the production of SP that proves they were considering Chaka as a character. ~ Moka 13:14, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

He thought Chaka wasn't? --Wildsimba 15:35, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

Actually I haven't found anything to support Chaka. The concept sketch I was thinking about was for Shani. Sorry about that. ~ Moka 17:27, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

Huh? Chaka does have a concept sketch, it's on the actual DVD for the movie. --Wildsimba 17:48, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

This is the file I was thinking of:

If you find another concept sketch with Chaka labeled in it, then share it. But I've never seen something like this for Chaka. ~ Moka 20:22, 12 April 2011 (PDT)

Huh? I've never even seen that picture before. They did show concept art for Chaka on the DVD though, if I can find it. --Wildsimba 10:02, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Uhhm, okay.

This article is kinda like a TL;DR now. Especially the "Boy, or Girl?" section. Can we perhaps take out a few details, that are over analyzing things? I tried reading it, but hardly understood it, because half the section is talking about dark ear rings, and it's like... What? --Wildsimba 10:26, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

I doubt it's confusing for a completely new reader. And I'd think if the fan arguments are to be kept in it'd be best to take in all the facts from the film instead of arguing with just a few of them as if they were all there is to it. If it's gotten confusing, I suggest we just ditch the fan arguments completely and be satisfied with what the commentary track and documentaries say and how the sequel film confirms the fruit juice mattter to relate to the gender. As in that we wouldn't throw in any fan point of views whatsoever into it when it comes to the appearance. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Okay well first of all, the fruit juice thing doesn't prove anything. Most likely, the film makers didn't care enough to have the events in the exact same order during the ceremony. Or, maybe the order doesn't matter at all, and as long as the cub is anointed and presented everyone's happy. Rafiki could've anointed Fluffy after the presentation. To me, the fruit juice argument is just another theory that is dependent on too many opinions. Just because it's your theory doesn't make it fact. That aside, if this article is just going to be filled with random theories like "Timon bit Zira's ear" I think it might be best to just take them all out and stick to the absolute facts and what we know for certain. There can maybe be a fan theories section put in later but right now we apparently can't handle it. ~ Moka 12:38, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

I only added in the "timon bit Zira's ear" because it is actually a fan theory I've heard quite a bit, so it's not really a random theory. But yeah, I agree all the fan theorys just be left out for now, INCLUDING the fruit juice theory, as well as your theorys that Kiara is Fluffy. These are NOT fact, and if we're going to keep it factual, those don't need to be there. Also, for now on, I think we should post on the talk page before editing a controversial article like Kopa or Fluffy, we all need to be at a equal playing field for this wiki to work out. So if everyone agrees, that'd be the point in which you edit the article. It's much more appreciated if you discuss something first, though of course minor edits don't matter, just if your going to change some larger then a typo, it's best to ask an opinion just before you edit in, because you never know, they could prove you wrong. --Wildsimba 13:10, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Look, I didn't mean that my theory makes the fruit juice relation a fact for the canon cub's original means. Heck, I'm absolutely sure the canon creators just didn't give a rat's bum about how they designed the cub in any way. But I was suggesting the fruit juice detail to be pointed out because it's significance is official. As in, it became officially significant by the official sequel's makers using Fluffy in their official footage (the official trailer) and then making the fruit juice detail to be about the gender in the movie itself. As in, the fruit juice's significance isn't canon for Fluffy's gender but it most certainly is official for Fluffy's gender. This is also why Fluffy being Kiara in the official movie universe is a fact. It would be debatable if the sequel's official trailer didn't have Fluffy in it but it does, or if the trailer had Fluffy, Kiara and some otehr cub but it has only Fluffy and Kiara. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)

I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said. Also, the point you're trying to make about the fruit juice is still a theory. The trailers to movies aren't quite official sources. They occur before the final product is released. It doesn't make anything a fact on its own, and if we took the same approach with other things we would get confused very quickly. The fact that Fluffy was in the SP trailer should attribute to the argument that Fluffy and Kiara are the same cub. There are valid arguments to show that Fluffy and Kiara are not the same cub as well and we can't just hide those arguments because we don't believe them and we can't base an entire point of view on one argument. This is why it's good to stick to the absolute facts in the article itself, and maybe have a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are the same and a list of common points that say Fluffy and Kiara are not the same. Something like that could go under the fan theories section that I was talking about. We just can't take a stance on something this controversial. We need to be neutral on the wiki. This is not the forum where you can blurt out your opinions. ~ Moka 13:53, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Trailers to movies aren't quite official sources? But of course they are as they're made by the same production team / for the same profuction. Does someone honestly think they'd just release an official trailer for the world to see and then go making Fluffy into someone they don't show nor mention anywehere? Sometimes common sense is a good friend to confusing facts: they released the official trailer making it seem like Fluffy is Kiara and then their film indeed introduces only Kiara with no references to any other cub. Resulting in the fact that in the movie universe Kiara has been blended into Fluffy whereas no other cub has ever been blended into Fluffy. Fluffy = Kiara = fact. --Superbabysimba 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Trailers are made to show off the movie they're advertising. They are usually put together by a marketing team before the production team is even done editing the film. Yes, it is obvious that Kiara was intended to be Fluffy, you don't need to prove that to me, we're not debating that. We're debating the worthiness of a cheaply made direct-to-video movie trailer. The point is, we can't take a stance on such a thing because we don't have proof -- we only have evidence. ~ Moka 14:48, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Look, aren't we after the facts here? And shouldn't we thus regard the facts from each most official source available and base the information on them combined in order to provide as factually informative article as possible?

For Kiara the sequel film is the tier 1 canon: The film's fact is that her design and ceremony are different from Fluffy's, but just as much a fact in it is that it doesn't show or mention anyone else but Kiara. So we need to look into the next most official source to find the most factual answer to the risen question. In lack of a commentary track from the creators the official trailer becomes the tier 2 canon: and its facts are that there's Fluffy and no infant Kiara from the film, and that there's cub Kiara but no other cub. Great, now we've reagrded all the official facts from both most crucial canon tiers available. And it seriously can not be denied that the most official identity to Fluffy is Kiara. Maybe that's what the paragraph should say? Instead of "...are supposed to be the same" it could say "the most official identity is Kiara"? --Superbabysimba 14 April 2011 (PDT)

Wikipedia isn't for what is MOST official, it's for what IS official. And saying Kiara is Fluffy is not official. As Moka said, just because Fluffy was used in a cheap trailer for a direct-to-vhs movie, doesn't prove anything. Most trailers actually AREN'T made by the creators, but a marketing team. I know this as a fact, because I'm taking a marketing class right now. --Wildsimba 18:58, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Although those are practically saying the same thing, yes it should be reworded that way. Yes we're seeking the facts, but you're mistaking evidence for proof even when there is evidence for the opposing side. What's happening now in the controversial articles is called counter-productive edit warring, and if it keeps going on, I'm going to lock the articles from non-administrators. And for the last time, WS. It's called The Lion King Wiki, not Wikipedia. It's a separate site that runs the same software as Wikipedia >.> ~ Moka 19:08, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

LOL whatevs. BTW, the first thing I told you you should do is lock the articles from non-admins, but yet you didn't listen to me, and look at the where the articles are headed. :P --Wildsimba 19:16, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Sorry for once again overestimating people's capacity to collaborate. ~ Moka 19:26, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

Wasn't a lack for me trying. I kept posting on the talk page, but everyone kept continuing to edit the page, when I kept asking them to discuss it in the talk page. I was willing to collaborate, but noone else seemed to want to. >.> --Wildsimba 19:30, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

"Wikipedia isn't for what is MOST official, it's for what IS official." This isn't Wikipedia. And anyway - what is MOST official is part of what IS official and thus should be mentioned. And what is MOST official is the MOST essential matter when talking about facts, so we should not dismiss/hide the most official just because some people don't like what it means. The most official identity is Kiara because no other identity has been given to it in the movie universe which is the most official part of this fandom. Sorry, but so long as only a genderless Fluffy and a girl Kiara are mentioned in the official movie universe and only Fluffy and Kiara have been blended in official footage for the movie universe, it doesn't take guessing to figure out who Fluffy is in the movies. Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity as a fact. If you don't want that to be mentioned, then also Kopa and any book references should be removed too and only the canon movie footage and commentary track talked about. But then this article would become a total stub because there are more facts to Fluffy these days than just the canon. --Superbabysimba 14 April 2011 (PDT)

Seeing as how were having "small" confictions about this page I decided to jump in and voice what I think we should do; 1. Immediately lock the page to further edits until we have everything sorted out 2. Only put in facts and not include any theorys in any of our articles (this one should be a givin anyway) 3. anything that isnt said or stated by the offical company can not be taken as cannon unless someone offical does approve it and lastly 4. I think everything below appearance is too much just guessing and not enough fact and should be removed from the artical. Thoughts --Axx1000 23:28, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

I agree. I've locked it until we can sort this out. By the way everyone this is Axx1000, he is an administrator here. saayyyy hhiiii ~ Moka 23:41, 13 April 2011 (PDT)

I wouldn't remove everything below appearance. Unless you want this article to end up as a total stub. As there are more facts to Fluffy than just the canon. The Girl or boy? section might as well be removed as it seems trivial as it is mostly theorizing and whatever facts lurk in there do come up in the Who is Fluffy, really? section - and in that section as it currently reads, I don't see any guessing. I see nothing that isn't enough fact. Because every single bit in that section is factually true and can be verified by looking into online discussions, the Laserdisc release, the book series' covers, the end credits of the first movie (which don't have the books' authors included as in the books were not written by the film's makers), the sequel's end credits, the movies themselves... And it is also a solid fact there is said rumour about the sequel's production development and that it hasn't been proven official yet. And it is also a solid fact that Kiara is Fluffy's most official identity and that still some people think Fluffy is someone else. So, Axx1000, what exactly is guessing to you and not enough a fact about the Who Fluffy is, really? section? The only thing at the moment I see as sensible to remove from that section is the rumour bit as long as it indeed is just a rumour and isn't proven with official source evidence. --Superbabysimba 14 April 2011 (PDT)

Obviously, not everyone agrees with you on what is official, and what is not. Otherwise, the article would be open. I say you just leave it to the admins to fix it up before you go ahead proposing changes, because the article still hasn't at all been edited by them. Let them do their jobs. Find another article to edit for now. oh, and hi Axx1000, even though I already knew you were the other admin here. :P --Wildsimba 09:48, 14 April 2011 (PDT)

Well, I thought that what The Walt Disney Company calls official (such as the official trailer of the sequel film) is what matters most in these articles and not what the fans think is official. As in I though these articles are supposed to base on official matters and facts and not fan point of views. Also, excuse me for misunderstanding that only admins are allowed to discuss this article's future. Obviously I am not trying nor able to edit this article - I was just throwing in suggestions and thoughts for the admins to consider. I'll shut up now then, if this is not what was supposed to be done. --Superbabysimba 14 April 2011 (PDT)

I wasn't saying that to ask you to shut up, I was just simply suggesting you not suggest anything currently, because for one, we don't want all our issues to continue to be conflicting. There's a lot of things in the Fluffy article that were never officially stated by the creators of the films, but are just assumptions that were your own. I'm just merely suggesting you let the admins do their job. They already stated in here exactly what they were wanting to do, and as far as I'm concerned, you should let them just do it without a fight. Whenever the article is open again (if it ever is), then you can start kicking up suggesting, but as for now, just let them get the issue sorted out. --Wildsimba 16:47, 14 April 2011 (PDT)

I was/am not trying to distract the admins from doing their job. As suggesting through misunderstanding is not fighting, it's just suggesting. They spoke of "we" but that could've meant MLK in general and not just the admins. And I thought they locked the article so that just anyone could not edit it until "we" (which I mistook for MLK in general) have sorted it out. Because as it is now, anyone - even non-registered members - are allowed to edit if an article isn't protected like this one is now, and there were trolling and privacy violating edits by registered members too. So excuse me for doing what I thought was my right (as in to throw suggestions.) And yes, I'm annoyed at the moment because if I did wrong by replying to this discussion started by the admins, I think it would've been the admins' place to poke me about it and not WildSimba's. Also, excuse me for saying but if the admins indeed have suddenly reserved all the rights to edit or even discuss the article's future, it kinda takes away from the point of a Wiki.

If the admins indeed have reserved it, Moka please tell me so and I'll shut up. As for now: The last time I checked the film contnet was the ultimate canon in the fandom and not just the Company's out-loud words. And the last time I checked official source did not need the Company's out-loud words but was considered something with Disney's label on it, and the sequel's trailer has it and it was even released on a VHS with Disney's label on it. So, forgive me saying but I feel like you guys are trying to make the official matters far more complicated than they really are or need to be, and all because some people can't take the official facts related to/about Fluffy's character. I feel this way because I don't know of this kind of "oh no that's not fact/official enough" even though that something is from a movie/its end credits/official trailer/official book/its covers, happening with any other article. --Superbabysimba 15 April 2011 (PDT)

"I swear, if as much effort was put into the other articles as was just put into this Fluffy article the past few weeks, we'd have a lot done. Lol. That's why we should consult the talk page before making huge edits like WS said." Moka said that earlier in this convo, if you can remember corectly. He was obviously hinting we need to stop clinging to this article, and go to another, so we can get a lot more done. The admins locked the aritlce out from editing, so what would make you think they were at all reffering to "We" as everyone? If they wanted all our opinions still, they wouldn't of locked the aritlce. --Wildsimba 23:58, 15 April 2011 (PDT)

Yes, I do remember that but it seems a general statement that we should discuss articles before making huge changes and that he wishes other articles too were given as much efforts as this has got - not saying that we should completely stop with this article. And again, I thought they locked this because these articles are open for editing to any anonymous person and people wouldn't do the discussing but just edited however they felt like. As in locked so that no one could actually edit this so that all the editors - including us - would sort out what to do with this article by discussing this on this talk page. See, there are more than one way to interpret the admin actions and words, so if they wished us to completely abandon this article and work on this only among the staff members, they should've literally said so. Also, shouldn't the "discuss huge changes before making them" apply to the staff too? And it's not really discussing if everyone who isn't part of the staff is forbid to throw suggestions and opinions on the matter even though there are tons of others involved in the project. As far as I know this staff isn't that unfair, which is also why I interpret "we" as all of us, that we users are allowed to discuss this article's future with the staff. Because they own the Wiki in general but not any specific article contributed to it, unless I'm horribly misunderstood the point of a Wiki. --Superbabysimba 16 April 2011 (PDT)

6NA vs SP makers

SP makers wasn't even heard about TLK:6NA (Interview with Phil Weinstein)

Aniu: Well, in regards to The Lion King 2, how involved were you as far as 
production of the movie and, I guess, story-wise?
Phil: For  Lion King 2 , I was a storyboard artist, and I was—believe it or not, the 
movie went through a series of directors that were hired and fired in Lion King 2 . 
The very first directing/producing team that was on-board, I was actually part of the
very original development group that was on that. So I was developing characters, 
and we were working on story scenarios. And one day they fired that director and 
writer team. And I stayed with Disney, but I moved on to some other director/video
projects. And then a couple of years later, I came back to the project as a storyboard
artist. And I ended up storyboarding a lot of songs, so I think—if I remember—I 
storyboarded or helped storyboard a lot of the songs. I can’t remember all of them, 
but that’s—Most of those direct-to-videos back then had one or two songs, and 
pretty much all of them from the Aladdin sequels on forward had them, even Lion 
King 2 .
(...)
Skul: Okay.
Aniu: Are you familiar with Kopa, the original son of Simba and Nala? And if so, was
there a reason you all opted not to put him in  The Lion King 2?
Phil: No…what was his name?
Aniu: Apparently his name was Kopa, and it was—I forget exactly where the fan
knowledge comes from, because I’m not—
Skul: [interrupting] I can answer that. Kopa was the son of Simba and Nala in a
series of books that were published immediately after The Lion King . And there were
six books total, all of them 100-page kids books, but they all had Kopa in them.
Phil: Wow. No, I wasn’t aware of that.
Skul: Yeah. A bunch of people have been wondering why it was Kiara instead of
Kopa in Lion King 2 . And, I guess not even you know the answer.
Phil: No, you’re going to have to track down—gosh, I can’t even remember. Who was
it…was it Darrell Rooney that directed  Lion King 2 ? Is that right? I think he was the
one who ended up taking it to the finish line.
Aniu: Okay.
[Note from Skul: Yes, Darrell Rooney was the director]
Phil: So you’ll have to find him or one of the writers and ask them. They might know.
Aniu: Okay. We’ll definitely have to track him down and ask that question
eventually.

Talk about TLK:6NA with A Tale about Two Brothers author -Nitrol 04:57, 14 January 2012 (PST)