The Problem with Illumination Entertainment and How It Can Be Fixed

No, I don't hate Illumination Entertainment. I love all the Despicable Me films, The Secret Life of Pets and Sing. Sure the last two have their flaws, but I found myself enjoying them to no end. However, I've discovered through many internet researches that Illumination Entertainment has its Achilles' heel. So, without further ado, I'm listing the problems that torment the house that Gru and his Minions built and how they could've been solved:

1) The Story - apart from the Despicable Me movies, The Secret Life of Pets and Sing, Illumination's story problems plagued their live-action/animated hybrid Hop and their adaptation of Dr. Seuss' The Lorax. The story of Hop is a cookie-cutter 'rebelling against tradition' story with an abysmal twist on the Easter Bunny folklore the film is based on. This is just everything wrong with so many live-action/CGI hybrid movies. As for The Lorax, while not a bad film, it completely misses the point of what Dr. Seuss originally envisioned. Poorly developed story, one-dimensional characterization, forced gags, filler and outdated feature animation cliches completely rendered The Lorax a truly committee-driven animated mess. Even decent stuff like Sing and The Secret Life of Pets have some problems on their own, the former suffering from too much subplots and the latter misunderstanding the first Toy Story. So, if Illumination really wants to make a good animated movie for kids and families, they should rely on more experience and creative people with story writing skills. Take Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio, Joss Whedon, Bob Tzudiker, Noni White, Tab Murphy, Glenn Leopold, Sean Catherine Derek, Sherri Stoner, Deana Oliver, Philip LaZebnik, Nicholas Meyer, Sam Henderson, Pat Alee, Adam Beechen, J. Michael Strazynski and Michael Reaves for example. These are all people who have fantastic experience in animation writing. They can write a very good and engaging story for a modest-budgeted Illumination movie and the works of LAIKA proved it.

2) The Animation - even though Illumination produces low-budgeted animated movies and I have no problem with that, even a low-budgeted animated movie can be done the same way of Walt Disney, Don Bluth and Hayao Miyazaki: passion, heart and effort. These are the amazing three components for a beautifully animated movie regardless of its production cost. And Illumination only had all these three when they produced the original Despicable Me. It was the pet project of the amazing ex-Disney animator and artist Sergio Pablos and this film showed it. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it's simply Illumination's best work, because there was passion, heart and effort into it. After Pablos left Illumination, their animation style became dilluted. Their character designs took a nose dive in quality. Sure the original Despicable Me isn't beautifully animated, but their designs weren't that bad because they were courtesy of both Carter Goodrich and Sergio Pablos. It was in their following movies that the quality of their signature art style went completely lost. The humans and animals in these movies has so many exaggerated limbs and other features that they look like Frankenstein's disowned creatures. And the Minion designs are too generic and bland to be distinguishable from each other. On the top of that, the way the characters move is a far cry from everything other studios have often achieved and perfected and the fact that they reuse the same designs and models is the rock bottom. Why doesn't Illumination hire more creative and renowned artists like Dan Haskett, Jean Gillmore, Hans Bacher, Ruben Aquino, Mike Mignola, William Joyce and Brian Froud for their future material? These people could easy make a potential magnum opus for a company that's otherwise known for their Minions. Also, they could study Richard Williams' The Animators' Survival Kit to perfect their low-budgeted animation.

3) Minion Oversaturation - even though I like the Minions, I'll never forgive Illumination for being corrupted by the Frozen mania. They dropped the true heroes of the Despicable Me franchise and made the Minions the attention-whores of all Despicable Me release covers and merchandise despite being the deuteragonists. Not even Sing is safe from this sickening business practice as they ignored fan favorites like Johnny the Gorilla in favor of comedic tritagonist Gunther the Pig in merchandise of the film. So why don't they market all characters equally?

Overall, Illumination Entertainment is not Pixar and Studio Ghibli neither. But if they combined a solid story with appealing designs and perfected their low-budgeted animation by using the same models sparingly, they could have a more decent classic featuring characters we can connect to and scenes that would emotionally move audiences. Now that Illumination is now producing an animated Super Mario movie, they better not disappoint us or they'll make another disastrous misstep for animation. Illumination could be more than an executive-driven animation powerhouse by giving their creative talent more creative and artistic liberties and having the right people running the show. And that's final. Period.

Say hi to my Geraldine!

My first Geraldine comic

Hello. In my first blog post since I left Specialisterne, I'm posting my first comic starring my own character Geraldine the Maned Wolf. Hope you enjoy.

The end of an era and a new beginning...

Today, I'll post about how much I decided to write my blog.

The reason why I wanted to start my own blog is that I've always visited sites related to cartoons, video games, comics, movies and anything pop culture-related. I've enjoyed those sites so much that I wanted to start my own blog.

And I started to learn how to post in my blog at Specialisterne, a non-profit company that inserts autistic people like me with unusual skills in the market. With the help of my mentors and my family, I've learned of the limitations of blog posting and I could write stuff on my blog with my own words and source citations.

So this is it. It's my last post of my blog from the Specialisterne era. I'll still post many new things in this blog in new horizons, ushering a new era.

Pocahontas - The end of Disney Renaissance

When people talk about the fabulous era of Disney Animation called Disney Renaissance, they always have amazing memories of Disney's Fab Four: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. All those films became masterpieces, made their mark on pop culture and made Disney the king of animation. But that Second Golden Age was shortlived by one Disney movie: Pocahontas.

Yes, this is the film that got a strongly broken base with many of its problems picked apart by Disney and animation fans and enthusiasts. A movie that earned mixed reviews from critics, failed to repeat the commercial success of those previous Fab Four and its ghost would forever haunt Disney from the late 90s to the much of the 2000s. But is this film really that bad? Or are the critics, fans and Disney and animation purists right all along?

It all started with just one man: Jeffrey Katzenberg, the former boss of Walt Disney Studios and the hero of Disney Renaissance. After all, he was proud to admit that he was the source of that success. Katzenberg joined Disney in 1985, on behalf of his Paramount colleague Michael Eisner who was Disney's CEO in 1984 after everything fell apart at the end of the previous regime.

Katzenberg also accepted the fact that he didn't know anything about animation at first, as he infamously brutalized and raped The Black Cauldron in post-production, removing some scenes allegedly considered violent. The creative team wanted an edgier movie for a teen and adult audience that Disney wished to cater to at that time, but Katzenberg shot that down. Futhermore, he slashed the budget for Basil of Baker Street and changed its title to The Great Mouse Detetive due to the failure of previous year's Young Sherlock Holmes which was produced by his future Dreamworks founding partner Steven Spielberg. Too "British-sounding" could have been one of those reasons.

Years passed and Katzenberg was finally able to learn new things, though he was still ignorant towards the animation process (this time to a certain extent). During a test screening of The Little Mermaid, kids in the audience were bored during one of the cores of the film, the "Part of Your World" sequence. Katzenberg wanted to cut it out just because a bunch of ass kids in the test audience got bored. And don't get me started with why The Rescuers Down Under is one of the most underrated Disney classics.

Sure, The Little Mermaid became a fantastic film, Disney's greatest since the days of Walt and miles ahead of the transitional era movies. It had everything that was lost from the post-Walt classics. The story was interesting, the pacing was finesse, the music was spectacular and the characters are the $#%t. All of this which made this film iconic. It surprised Katzenberg who thought this film wouldn't be as successful as previous year's Oliver & Company because of the female protagonist.

Beauty and the Beast was originally developed as a more serious art film, an animated version of Jean Cocteau's 1946 film version of the classic story, directed by Richard Purdum. But Katzenberg was called to save this film and turned it into a musical comedy less unlike The Little Mermaid. Rather than creating something fresh and new, Katzenberg wanted this film to be the spiritual successor of Disney's then-recent smash-hit, complete with the same people who did the songs of The Little Mermaid! This is exactly what Walt himself would never have done. He made Pinocchio as a completely different and original film, not a carbon copy of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. His wise words taught me to never repeat yourself because "you can't top pigs with pigs", referring to how the sequels to his Silly Symphony short Three Little Pigs weren't as successful as their first appearance. Ditto for his animated features. Cinderella was his first princess fairy-tale classic in 13 years since the release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. However, that movie only shared few similarities with that earlier entry. It was not a rehash of it in zero means, nor was 1959's Sleeping Beauty. Clearly, because those movies were based in different public-domain fairy tales, each with their own distinct versions.

But I understand that Disney Animation just wanted to survive, considering the plagues the studio had endured from the 1970s to the early 1980s. Just to pay it off, Beauty and the Beast was saved by great storytelling, likeable characters and well-resonating songs. Despite his astonishing merits, it also foretold us why the Disney Renaissance would be relegated to a dated trend. His nomination for the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1992, while an historical achievement for an animated feature, was also when and where the cracks were starting to show. Had Beauty and the Beast won the Academy Award for Best Picture, maybe this hadn't created a sort of arrogance. It was a new attitude, one that implied that Disney was making "high art" but at the expense of Walt's films. Bambi? It's just a kids' movie, not a masterpiece. When those classics were first released on home video, most of the ads advertising them as babysitting toys. And people do nothing but whine on everything Disney does today and how it would sore the dick out of Uncle Walt.

As much as I've always enjoyed Beauty and the Beast, which I still enjoy to this day, his monster success went over the Disney executives' heads. A power of making successful animated features that, just like any power, ultimately corrupts. On the otherwise excellent "Beyond Beauty" bonus documentary on the 2010 Blu-ray release of the film, Beauty and the Beast was considered the first Disney animated film to get adults emotionally invested... HEY! What the (bleep) happened to Bambi? Does someone remember the hearbreaking scene from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs where the dwarves are mourning her comathosis? I want my Dumbo! And what about the Donald Duck/José Carioca's Saludos Amigos/The Three Caballeros duology?

On the original DVD release of The Lion King, one featurette ended with the statement that The Lion King was when Disney finally made "entertainment" instead of "children's entertainment" for all those decades... Today, many writers echo this statement. I come across thousands of articles about animation and their respective writers are all lured into this seductive, yet dastardly and lethal, trap. They say bullzap such as "animation wouldn't be actually adult or complex until the Disney Renaissance" or "animation was once kids' stuff before Disney Renaissance". As we all know, those statements are a ridiculously insulting outrage. Walt Disney really never intended his films for young audiences, but rather the popular masses. What about William Hanna, Joseph Barbera, Tex Avery, Chuck Jones, Bob Clampett, Walter Lantz, Max Fleischer and even Osamu Tezuka? They weren't targeting the young audience either. Not even the "children's movie" genre existed during the Hays Code era where every single Hollywood studio had to make movies first and foremost to wider audiences. Sure, those studios were producing the so-called "children's movies" in the Golden Age of Hollywood, but Walt Disney's studio certainly wasn't one of them. Perhaps the public finally saw Disney animation as for adults by 1994, but it's just because a certain era became a pain in the ass of animation, which persists to this day.

Anyway, Beauty and the Beast was Disney Animation's first prestige picture. They collected universal acclaim, fatty box-office grosses, an Academy Award nomination... and ran with everything. Katzenberg and Eisner then greenlit Aladdin, with the former making it his pet project. He wanted this film to top Beauty and the Beast to make sure the film would get an Academy Award for Best Picture that its predecessor didn't get or at least another nomination. Despite this, Aladdin was able to stand out thanks to its comedic zaniness and pop-culture references, something like that which wasn't in the previous Disney films while also experimenting some things. Because it was one of the most experimental and wacky Disney films of the era, Aladdin was less of a prestige picture and more loose and comfortable and less at war with itself.

Released in 1992, Aladdin still didn't get the golden statue, but because it was more experimental and wacky than Beauty and the Beast, it wasn't even made with that golden statue in mind. Jeffrey Katzenberg, by this point, was already shifting his attention to Pocahontas, which The Rescuers Down Under director Mike Gabriel was pitching in 1990. Katzenberg only approved that project because he saw in it a perfect way to copy-and-paste Beauty and the Beast: a big epic Broadway-style love story musical drama that touched the dark and wicked side of American history, and it would seamlessly mesh with the times, in a post-Dances With Wolves world.

Meanwhile, The Lion King, one of Disney's most famous animated movies, was being developed as a more experimental picture that Jeffrey Katzenberg and fellow suits didn't give a damn to, as they would rather stick to Pocahontas which they viewed as their top priority. Even most of the Disney animators and artists at the time would rather work on Pocahontas. But, surprisingly, The Lion King became a universal blockbuster, collecting widespread critical acclaim and earning a load of money. That film won numerous awards despite still not getting an Academy Award for Best Picture nomination and, to this day, remains one of Disney's gems in the crown, a masterpiece with the same caliber that Walt's films, a merchandise triumph and a landmark in Disney and animation history.

On the other hand, Pocahontas feels more like a Frankenmovie made by committee than a truly creative darling. A step back from the emotional love stories of The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, the sheer comedic entertainment of Aladdin and the epic beauty of The Lion King, it clearly follows Disney's 90's Standards and Practices that the executives forced the animation team to follow:

• A list of Broadway-style "burst out into song" tunes: a love ballad, a silly fun show-stopping sequence, the villain's evil song, the "I Want" song and the musical intro.
• Forced and undeveloped romance
• A generic good-vs-evil formula
• One or two cute and funny sidekicks to lighten the $#%t for little kids and to sell merchandise gallore.

See? This so-called Disney formula is the Save the Cat! of animation. It's the reason why you should not aim Disney Animation for kids first and foremost! Walt Disney's movies became timeless masterpieces because he didn't aim them for kids, he created movies that would be respected by audiences. Walt even taught me that appealing only to kids would be self-destruction. Like I said, those misconceptions about earlier Disney animation show their true, vile and diabolical face and colors which would haunt the poor defenseless animation studio that Uncle Walt built with so much love, heart, effort and sacrifice through the last days of the Renaissance. The desperate attempt to attract the lowest common denominator would be this movie's kiss of death.

This was already felt in previous Renaissance films. For example, The Lion King had fart jokes, intrusive slapstick and humor during the intense climax and managed to hinder his dramatic intentions. Walt never did this in his films. He and his Nine Old Men balanced comedy and darker subject matter with brillance. Pocahontas not only suffers from these minor issues, it cranks them up to 11.

But the worst part of this film is that the story doesn't explore its subject matter properly. It was already boosted with an interesting conflict between two kinds of people having their prejudices towards each other, illustrating it well enough from the beginning with the natives' suspicions about the pale visitors and the British settlers' concerns in regards to the "savages". This theme of prejudice could have been explored more deeper if it wasn't for the big bad Ratcliffe who's just there after gold. Rather than addressing the themes of racism and prejudice with beauty and mastery, the suits instead pandered to the lowest common denominator by shoving a cartoony villain who blows everything up. He's the one to blame for why this movie fell flat. He needlessly makes the conflict worse. The love story of Pocahontas and John Smith is just a B-plot. This makes me question: why have a villain when you could just let the prejudice from both natives and settlers be the main conflict?

It's why this movie disappointed the critical consensus. It talks down to both adults and children. Another thing that Walt refused to do with his output. He viewed the audience, regardless of age, as smart and someone who could appreciate the storytelling of his film in some level. Pocahontas wanted to be Dora the Explorer: The Movie even before Dora made her debut on Nick Jr. You can also show younger children the dangers of prejudice and racism with no need of a villain who only gives a damn to riches or material possessions. Compare this film to one of the studios most recent classics, Zootopia. Despite not based in a real-life story, Zootopia, as a modern Aesopian fairy tale, deals with modern-day prejudice, biases, generalizations, mass media manipulation and political corruption. It wasn't hammered to the lowest common denominator. It seamlessly fit its action-adventure story, it had an edge or reason for being part of the story from start as it had business in the film's world building. The big bad from that film uses that fear for the sake of her pride and for the sake of beating the poor piss out of the predators to whom she has a distaste. She alone doesn't deserve the blame. The heroes have their prejudices as well. The chemestry between the characters amazingly showcases the biases and generalizations at work, not exposition or over-the-place histriony. All because the Disney Animation of today is artist-driven and is no longer run by executives who don't give a f#%& to the art of animation. Those mindless executives would rather stick to Sony Pictures Animation, specially after teasers and trailers from The Emoji Movie have been released to public outcry.

The animators, artists and creative team did everything they could, despite all of that. And it was paid off. So, Pocahontas balances the jaw-dropping and mind-boggling with finesse. The film's art direction is TERRIFIC, particularly its color palette and minimalism, at the time when TV cartoons such as Batman: The Animated Series, Dexter's Laboratory and the classic version of The Powerpuff Girls became instant hits and were awarded for their minimalistic visuals. The character animation is top-notch despite most of the human designs being very flat. The animals are designed as though they came from an old TV cartoon, none of those designs are really fit at all. As I'm saying, the filmmakers delivered it amazingly! The film's direction and its signature visuals really managed to save it.

This level of dedication from the animation department made sure the film wasn't really that bad, but still it wasn't good either, making Pocahontas a truly mixed bag. The executive-ordered dickery appals me as an animation purist and as a person who doesn't want entertainment to treat me like a dumbass. But the animation, visual design, music, direction and execution masterfully made up for the meddling. No different from The Fast and Furious saga, whose installments are not worthy of cinema but remain critically improving with each installment and feature a talented cast playing relatable characters and beautifully filmed action scenes. Also, the story is also a feast despite Pocahontas and John Smith being rather bland characters.

And the music is average at best, because it's beautiful and cringe-inducing at the same time. "Colors of the Wind", a beautiful and magnificent song as it is, could have been written better. "Savages"? Uuuuuggghhh... This is the most offensive stereotype ever, but the tune is catchy and cool. "Just Around the Riverbend" is better than those two, just a typical "I Want" musical sequence or not. (see number one on that list of 90s rules). But the best songs of this movie are the intro sequences: the noblish "Virginia Company" and the majestic "Steady as the Beating Drum". As for the beautiful and heartwarming love ballad "If I Never Knew You", poor song... It was left out from the movie, all because those dickish suits! I'm glad that justice is served in the DVD release and let that be a lesson for those clueless executives.

The last song is the film's villain song "Mine. Mine! MINE!" It sucked because it was sung by the one-dimensional villain, making it border on parody, but I still love it. Bombastic, energetic, catchy and so over the top that it's no wonder some people enjoy this song. That's because, like I said, the animators, musicians, actors and directors put a load of heart and effort on that sequence. If this film wasn't based on Pocahontas or any other real-life event, maybe this could have made it a decent animated musical.

After all that, the greatest problem with this film is that it had no idea of what were its ambitions. Not only Jeffrey Katzenberg and his fellow executives wanted that golden statue called Oscar and that prestigious status, they also wanted to make something more appropriate for little kids and something that would sell a load of merchandise. Good art and capitalism don't mix well, and this dysfunctional combination is what killed this already misguided Disney classic. Pocahontas is not a good film nor a bad one, it's just a poor defenseless innocent victim of the hurtful war between the suits and the artists, and it clearly showcases how clueless and absolutely ignorant the former were at the time. It's no wonder it underperformed critically and commercially, compared to the likes of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. After its release, the film was further scrutinized by Native American and Christian organizations, the latter had Disney as their favorite target at the time.

The last straw was Pixar's Toy Story which was released in the same year than Pocahontas and changed animation history forever. It was fresh, smart, more adult (by just naturally doing what it vowed to do), excelent for all ages, groundbreaking and something new. Toy Story was different from the Disney Renaissance films and was more akin to Walt's earlier classics in his ambitions and the load of effort put into them. Sadly, Disney would rather stick to the formula until it ran its course, only to embrace the new things in the very wrong way. It's no secret that Disney purchased Pixar as the anthedote required to cure Disney Animation's disease over a decade after Pocahontas was released: the suits' diabolical powers.

Pocahontas is exactly the generalizations about Disney Animation itself fused into one Frankenmovie made by committee. It's the very reason why people hate Disney needlessly and why Disney Animation is still viewed as kiddie stuff. Katzenberg left Disney when the film was in physical production, storming off to form Dreamworks Pictures with Steven Spielberg and David Geffen. Dreamworks was made into a major animation powerhouse by the likes of Shrek, whose widespread critical acclaim and commercial success would become more of a pain in the ass of Disney Animation. Katzenberg's infamous heated relationship with Eisner was over and Disney Animation started to slowly die despite his few successes, as the executives went to follow Napoleon Bonaparte's footsteps as the millenium rolled in. Following the merger, Disney Animation was saved from the horrors of Michael Eisner and the other suits by the likes of Wreck-It Ralph, Frozen, Big Hero 6 and Zootopia. The force awakens. (Delightful Star Wars in-joke, isn't it?)

As time has passed, this film's shortcomings are slightly more forgivable today. Now it's just an average movie that was cruelly mistreated and abused by the stupid ass suits. Reaction to this film has become more acceptive and some fans fully embrace it for its daring and edgy merits while others simply love it for the sake of nostalgia. Sometimes, an inferior product can be fascinating to enjoy because of its shortcomings. Why is Spider-Man's Clone Saga the worst of Marvel Comics? Why are Teen Titans Go! and the 2016 version of The Powerpuff Girls considered the worst that Cartoon Network has to offer? Why are Breadwinners and Fanboy & Chum-Chum labeled as the worst Nicktoons ever? Why are Quack Pack, The Buzz on Maggie, Pickle & Peanut and Fish Hooks deemed as the worst Disney TV cartoons? Why is Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of the Justice treated as the cancer of the DC brand? And why is Disney Channel a spit to Walt's name and legacy? I love this movie mostly for its animation, production design, musical score, voice acting, directing and the huge load of effort poured into those areas. The songs, regardless of their lyrics, sound fun and unforgettable. This movie has its greatest moments that tell me how much better it could have been.

Because of this, Pocahontas is considered the black sheep of the otherwise glorious Disney Renaissance. Apart from some of his excellent aspects, it was hindered by too many cooks who spoiled a perfect dinner. This film gets a flack for his pretentious attitude and unclear vision, but does it deserve all of this unneccessary spite? Fuck NO! It's just a great and beautiful way to teach how to NOT make an animated movie. If only Sony Pictures Animation had learned from those pitfalls...

The Lion King - The unauthorized and not-so-official tale of Mufasa

WARNING!!! Parental Advisory: this post contains explicit power of extremely polluting childhood. If the greatest part of your childhood was made of sweet and happy memories of this universally amazing Disney classic about coming-of-age, lions and Hakuna Matata, reader discrection is first and foremost advised.

The Lion King is Disney's 32nd classic, considered from 1994 to 2003 the highest-grossing animated movie in history before being surpassed by Finding Nemo. A landmark of a certain decade and the awesome icon of the Disney Renaissance. It was praised for making hundreds of children cry unconsolably while watching and continously sing a song about giving a middle finger to their problems.

The story needs no introduction. Everybody has memorized it by heart and fondly remembers its strong characters: Simba, a young prince who must choose between living a pleasure life or a more responsible one; Scar, Simba's evil and wicked uncle who wants to subjugate the pride; Rafiki, a wisecracking shaman whose pasttime is giving people a right way; and Mufasa, the dick-head king who kickstarted his own son's predicaments.

WHAT THE F(bleep)????!!!! BULL F(bleep)ITY SAP!!! MUFASA WAS A GOOD KING!!! HE RULED THE PRIDE WITH RESPONSIBILITY, BEING GUIDED BY THE GREATEST KINGS OF THE PAST!!!! HE TEACHED SIMBA TO BE A NICE, GOOD FELLA JUST LIKE HIM!!!! GOT IT???!!!

Yes, I've got it. Clear as crystal, if we accept the movie's dickish point-of-view about what makes a good king. Personally, I only can see in Mufasa's regime a bunch of ass dickeries in the final countdown to his comeuppance. But first, let's see the movie!

The film starts with my favorite song "Circle of Life (Nants Ingonyama)", where every single animal in the kingdom, with no exceptions, from the smallest to the biggest, through water, earth and air, goes to the Pride Rock to witness the birth of the king's baby called Simba. Even though the baby was a lion cub and nearly all of the subjects available in the ceremony were lion food, that made no difference as they accompanied all the baptism rite and curved themselves to the king, demonstrating their respect. All dem animals.

Except one.

Scar, Mufasa's baby brother. He wasn't on the ceremony and would rather have fun in his isolated cove, stalking rodents for breakfast.

Wait a mo. Is that so? The king's brother won't live in the Pride Rock with the king? He lives in a cove on who knows where and snags rodents for breakfast as if he was a house species who is 30 times smaller???!!! What the f(bleep)ing life does Scar have?

No matter what, cuz the king was there to have it out with him. Why the hell isn't the prince's uncle the first in line? "But I used to be the first in the line until the hairball was born." Scar was jealous of Mufasa. An explicitly disturbing envy of the power his brother once had. And he lost his $#&t when he was told that he was no longer the throne's heir.

Now we move to Zazu. He's a notorious douchebag who has no problems on treating Scar like a baby and reminding him of how Mufasa trumped him by birth order. Zazu knows that Scar can't do $#%t against him as he has Mufasa as his own buttguard and even suggests that Mufasa turn Scar into a carpet to punch whenever he enters home and later to punch it again. Mufasa chuckles at the idea.

An insignificant prick abusing the poor British kitty cuz he knows he has the king's protection.

The arguments takes a heat when Scar makes fun of Mufasa who gets pissed off, but Scar calms his brother down as he took the lions' intelligence while Mufasa took their strength.

Did you notice how Scar is much more thinner than Mufasa? Good sign of different lifestyles that both siblings have while being from the same lineage.

Some time has passed and Simba is now a grown cub. He wakes his dad up so he can learn everything about the Pridelands. Mufasa shows Simba everything that means to be king. Being a king means protecting the circle of life and understanding the importance and balance of all the world's animal species, from the little ant to the great anthelope. "But dad, don't we eat the anthelopes?" Simba asks, noticing on first sight the system's flaws, but Mufasa rebuffs: "Yes, Simba. But let me explain: when we die, our body becomes grass and anthelopes eat grass. So, we're all connected."

The good example of how harmonic and fair for all species is the precious circle of life.

But anthelopes don't kill lions to turn them into grass. They need luck to make it naturally happen. Those guys go kill anthelopes and tell the victim's families to relax, that everything will be alright and that when we die of old age in one decade they'll become a bunch of grass that everyone can eat.

Explaining to Simba why is so cool to kill and eat his subjects, he teaches his son to hunt, using his ass monkey Zazu for torture porn. Mufasa leaves Zazu in an embarassing pose, Simba kicks his ass and Mufasa laughs, a gentle way of showing an hierarchy between a king and his loyal advisor.

Also, Mufasa explains that everything the sun touches is their kingdom and, for an Apex predator he is, there's nothing that isn't his domain. But the place untouched by the sun that Simba sees is the Elephant Graveyard, home of the hyenas.

This is the place Mufasa taught Simba to never explore.

Obviously, the concepts of "everything connected", "from the ant to the anthelope" and "protecting all species and thus the circle of life" didn't sit well to the hyenas, because they're secluded into the Elephant Graveyard so that the good lions could feast over the resources for themselves, selfishly.

The Elephant Graveyard is a dark and lifeless hell with zero food, where the hyenas live an unpleasant life. But it's not the reason why the hyenas hate the lions. Their real predicament is that they have no right for food which the other animals have.

The fearsome trio: Shenzi, Banzai and Ed

Scar wisely encourages Simba to trespass the hyenas' domain so he can prove his bravery to his dad, which the young prince gladly has no problem in doing, taking his best friend Nala on the ride. Simba couldn't have a more bastard uncle.

Nala is the only female cub from the pride. As a result, naturally, they're engaged, which won't sit well with the both. However, they're BFFs and don't want to merely talk about it.

Simba, Nala and their respective mothers Sarabi and Sarafina

The pridelands are ruled by the pride made from several lionesses and only two male lions: Mufasa, the king; and his brother Scar, who lives far away from the lionesses. It's no wonder that fans and the consensus view them as siblings, not neccessarily in blood.

This is because real-life lions mate with as much lionesses as they can. It's not that this film should be accurate, but it wasn't meant to. Mufasa allegedly married every single lioness in the pride, in addition to his wife.

But it's time to go back to the story. Simba and Nala have arrived in the Elephant Graveyard and confront the hyenas.

This place won't be as fun as Simba would suggest.

The hyenas berate Simba over how much they hate lions, specially Mufasa. They nearly maul Simba and Nala, but Mufasa has come just in time to save the day.

Mufasa furiously scolds the trio of misfits, scares them away and takes Simba home, angry with his son over making a dick out of himself and endangering Nala in the process. In order to teach Simba a lesson, he tells him that the stars are the great kings of the past overseeing the Pridelands and that he'll one day become one of those stars and that Simba will be a king. He finishes by telling Simba that he will always rely on them, including Mufasa himself.

Yes, cuz every single celestial body is actually every single ancestor of Mufasa. The throne is a divine power and the fact his father passed and was turned into a star and that the anthelope deceases and becomes nothing but junk food is a living evidence.

Meanwhile, the hyenas are whining about Mufasa and his abusiveness, only to be greeted by Scar who the hyenas are friends with as he himself is a misfit as well. He even supplys food to the hungry hyenas.

Scar has always pandered to the hyenas by giving them food and respect, so they would view him as their equal. Then, as he starts chit-chatting about a coup d'etát and the hyenas helping him slaughter Mufasa and Simba, they won't hesitate as they all spite Mufasa.

So, the plan is traced. The hyenas do a war dance and, in mere seconds, they get what it takes to kill a great king.

OCCUPY THE GORGE!!!

Despite the joke on the famous Occupy Wall Street movement, this wildebeest stampede scene gives me headscratchers. Every single animal is intelligent and smart and then from nowhere pops an endless load of asshats sprinting so instinctively that they're oblivious to the king in their way. As headscratching as it has always been, it's still not bizarre to the point of hindering the movie nor one of the most impacting scenes of animation and movie history.

Mufasa evades the stampede and sees Scar. He pleads his brother to save him, which showcases genuine innocene in part from the monarch. Having been already despised, hated, trashed, scrutinized, vilified and threatened enough by his brother, always saving the day by physically enforcing himself with roars and reminding that he's the strongest, now hanging in the cliff, weakened, does he really expect that Scar is willing to save his ass just to return to his cove, feasting over rodents?

I HATE YOU, MUFASA!!!

The king is dead!!! Are you happy now????

*insert Goofy holler*

Now Simba believes that everything is his own fault when Scar lies to him that his roar caused the wildebeest stampede and banishes him as a punishment, just like what Oedipus did in the Greek tragedy.

Simba has no guts to return to the Pridelands after unwillingly mutilating his dad. So, he run away only to stumble with Timon, the meerkat, and Pumbaa, the warthog, a couple of idealistic wanderers who take Simba as their protegée.

But let's see Mufasa's memorial service carefully. It's just the lionesses who were allowed to attend the funeral? What happened to the lion food masses who curved themselves to the young prince? They didn't need to say goodbye now that the king won't kill them anymore. No one other than Mufasa's personal buddies or mates has attended the memorial service. This showcases the love and condolences given by his subjects.

Aw, c'mon. My memorial event will get more masses than this. And I ain't no king of a nation.

In his eulogy, Scar takes over the throne and announces his own social policy which involves both lions and hyenas sharing everything the sun touches and the same food and drinks, regardless of the species.

And the pride doesn't take the news lightly.

Meanwhile, Timon and Pumbaa teach Simba the Hakuna Matata philosophy, which means living a carefree life full of pleasures and with no worries. A life that consists on pretending that the past never came to be and never concerning the future, and do nothing but eat insects, nap in the swing and live a loose life. This could be translated to "living with a load of cocksucking hippie wanderers who never had a job in the life".

"Slimy, yet satisfying."

Overall, I found really positive that the film featured two guys raising Simba with no need for consequences. Even though Timon and Pumbaa were never this gay, many people still whine about the concept of a kid growing up in a family with no father and no mother. Notoriously, Simba got two dads (three, counting Mufasa).

Unfortunately, while Simba was still presumed dead, the kingdom fell into disrepair because both the lionesses and the hyenas overhunted. So, by forcing the outskirts animals to hunt together with those from the Pride Rock, he destroyed the social pyramid and now there's no food nor water. This is the movie's core message: the socially excluded people shouldn't be included or they would steal the well-positioned ones' basic rights. And by allowing everyone to eat and drink in the Pridelands, Scar caused the drought.

But the biggest problem is that Scar refuses to admit that all of that is his fault, trying to either deny the lack of food and water in the Pridelands or explain that it's not his concern from start and that he can't fight nature back.

The kingdom is entirely f(bleep)ed up, desperate for someone to put the bastards in their rightful place to right the f(bleep)ing wrongs.

But where's the rightful king?

In a burp contest!!!

Simba, Timon and Pumbaa are watching the stars. Timon calls them fireflies who are stuck in the sky. Pumbaa, on the other hand, sees them as gas balls that blew up miles away from above. In the end, Simba sees those stars as the kings of the past who are watching over them.

Actually, Pumbaa's theory is the most plausible one, but Timon's the one who's right. Regardless of whoever is right, Simba ends up being the wrong as he thinks that cosmic things happen in his bloody lineage and Timon and Pumbaa make fun of their protegée over this. Embarassed, Simba refuses to believe this.

But his Hakuna Matata lifestyle will take a new direction when Pumbaa is nearly devoured by a rogue lioness who is revealed to be Simba's sister childhood friend Nala after Simba fights her to save the duo.

After all, Scar was supposed to exile Nala when she refused to be his mate. That scene got scrapped for a good reason as it seemed too vile by having this tyrant committing sexual harassment. As a result, the movie never explained why she left the Pridelands. Fortunately, the answer was revealed in the stage musical adaptation's sequence "The Madness of King Scar", which is Scar's own sad song.

Simba's happy to see his girlfriend again, introduces her to his wisecracking mentors and they both make it out through the entire day, preventing Simba from expressing his guilt over Mufasa's death and Nala from warning him about how Scar's social policy destroyed the entire kingdom, killing everyone with starvation.

I'll take this as show-not-tell.

But as it progressed...

They finally f(bleep) each other.

Curiously, Disney has already admitted that this is officially a sex scene, meaning that Simba and Nala are the first Disney characters to have sex in a Disney classic and, on the top of this, a G-rated one!!!

That fucking face!

Another similarity with Oedipus!

But after the sex, Nala decided to tell his brother lover to return to Pride Rock to restore the circle of life, so the lions could rise once again. Simba explains that only Scar should have done the job.

Nala is angry at Simba for having become a self-centered asshole and they argue, with Nala claiming that he should have become more like Mufasa.

Simba then storms off, cursing about how wrong he thinks that Nala is and that he should become more relaxed and let Scar shit on everything, until he stumbles with Rafiki, a babboon who used to be Mufasa's best friend and wise mentor. He reveals that Mufasa survived.

He takes Simba to the magic waterhole to prove it. Mufasa now lives in Simba. Everything that made Mufasa a great king is in his son's blood, so he can return to heal the Pridelands.

Also, Simba stares at Mufasa's ghost in the sky, telling him the same goddamn shit. Mufasa scolds his son for forgetting who he is and who his father was, as he was chosen to follow his dad's footsteps and continue his legacy. Top of the world!!!

As a result, Simba decides to go back to take over the throne.

That bastard didn't even bid farewell to Timon, Pumbaa and Nala who became marooned in the jungle wondering Simba's whereabouts. Rafiki reveals to them that "the king has returned." Nala explains Simba's personal predicaments to Timon and Pumbaa who learn out what's the fuzz on their baby.

They eventually join him as "if it's Simba's concern, it's our concern."

Simba has returned to the Pridelands and witnesses the empire's shitty and tasteless state. The time for reconquering has come.

Once he returns, Simba's mistaken for Mufasa's ghost, but they later find out that it's Simba and Scar fears the consequences. As a dickish bastard, Scar warns that he can't step down because the hyenas believe him to be the rightful king, though Nala claims the contrary, trumping the hyenas' belief.

In retaliation, Scar scams the lionesses by claiming Simba to be Mufasa's murderer, an homicidal crime that Simba admits. The lionesses are hopeless to see the prince getting tried, convicted and executioned for the death of his own father.

But Scar is the bad guy. What makes an evil villain hateable is that he ends up making an ass out of himself when he's on the verge of getting whatever he wants. So, desperate to kill his nephew with none of Simba's buddies moving an ass to save him, the evil uncle sadistically admits to Simba that he himself slaughtered Mufasa.

And Simba pounces him in the neck, making him confess it to everyone.

Then, everybody helps Simba kick Scar and the hyenas' asses, now that he's labelled innocent.

The brawl between lion and hyenas starts.

Later, Simba outnumbers Scar who, as an cowardly lion, takes Mufasa's death on the hyenas as they kickstarted the wildebeest stampede which in turn killed Simba's father. Simba doesn't give a f%&# to his uncle and tosses him from the cliff to where the hyenas engulf him for selfishly misblaming them.

After Scar's bloody just desserts, Simba proclaims himself as king, making his cheerleaders out of the lionesses who helped him in the final battle and therefore those he holds dear, making him officially a king.

This will be a good regime to the lionesses and the entire kingdom, therefore.

With the hyneas back at the Elephant Graveyard, grass is suddenly reborn in the Pridelands, water goes back and the animals who are usually lion food return to bow to Simba and Nala's baby.

And Timon and Pumbaa become the new court members cuz nepotism is hip in the Pride Rock.

Sure, The Lion King is one of the best Disney animated classics of all time, one of the gems in Disney's animation crown and a landmark in animation and movie history, but it's one of those overrated Disney movies, not that Mufasa is the real villain at all, but because the film's point of view about what it takes to be a good king is a pile of warthog $#&%. Being a good king is ruling for the sake of the lions and believe that, as long as the lions don't suck, the balance will stay naturally.

Literally, what made Mufasa a good king and Simba a good prince is the load of lionesses always on their side, despite the hyenas being the majority who were their detractors. What didn't help were the anthelopes and the animals who happened to be the lions' adored victims. Didn't they mind about Mufasa as a king?

According to Mufasa, to be a king is to have the circle of life strictly followed. It's the food chain with the lion on the absolute top of it. So, in Mufasa's words, to be king is to keep lions on the supreme top of the chain.

Example of a pride's success

Mufasa was a divinely rightful king. The cosmos is composed of his ancestor spirits and the skies let the sun shine on a prince in birth. The divine right dictated the natural order of things where the lions are the top and the hyenas are the pile of giraffe $#&%. A good king must assure that nothing changes.

It was so natural for him that Scar's hatred and grudge towards him over being excluded has completely surprised him. His fucking face to see that he's going to be sentenced to death by Scar's grudge and jealousy is all but priceless.

It wasn't until the stampede that it just hit poor Muffy over how most loathed by Scar he was.

It wasn't too weird and bizarre, considering Disney's politically-correct and family-friendly fetish that have always haunted Uncle Walt's good name.

Apart of this, I still find this movie one of Disney's finest. Simba's coming-of-age and his duty of taking his responsibility is excelent. The comedic moments are hilarious and the dramatic ones are stronger.

The scene of Mufasa in the skies talking with Simba is no more than priceless.

As for the rest, it was curious how it was relevant for the DTV sequel The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride which featured a bunch of lionesses who used to be on Scar's side. Watch the original again and again and it'll be obvious that absolutely NO lioness used to be on Scar's side.

Please, where were those cool big kitties who were supposed to fight alongside Scar and his hyena army in the climax?

Easily the best plothole in a Disney sequel.

I'll finish this post with my opinion: the film could have a even more happy ending with Simba and Nala living with Timon and Pumbaa in the jungle as an hippie community and Scar turning the pride into a democracy. Preferably ellecting not a lion but just a random animal as the chosen one to rule the Pridelands wisely with more perspective of the things.

Translated from dentrodachamine.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-lion-king-mas-que-tipo-de-rei-era-mufasa-afinal/