I've always enjoyed the Lion King fandom, and until now I've considered it to be one of the few positive fandoms out there. Sure, you'd find the odd rabid fan of Kopa (Simba's non-canon lost son), but you'll get rabid fans in any fandom, (and there are plenty of Kopa fans who are completely normal, in case anyone here thinks I'm slamming on Kopa fans as a whole). But overall the fandom has been open to everyone, everyone is allowed to enjoy any characters and almost any head canons they want, OCs are welcomed, and people enjoy seeing each other's fan art and fan fictions. The fandom even took The Lion Guard in stride for the most part, which is something not typically seen in fandoms. But not long ago, something came up which has caused massive division and fighting in the fandom: the 2019 Lion King remake.

Disney has been making live-action remakes of its animated classics (some better than others), and The Lion King is next on the list. You'd think fans would be excited for more Lion King, but no, it seems people are just impossible to please these days. At this point, all we have are a few promo images and a teaser trailer, and the fandom has been completely divided. I've scoured the internet for articles and comments, and I've come across a few reoccurring arguments as to why fans dislike the idea of a Lion King remake, and offer my thoughts on why I support it regardless.

I don't enjoy how negative and toxic this fandom has gotten, especially compared with how welcoming it's been in the past. I'm here to offer some positivity.

Please understand that these are my opinions and you don't have to agree with them. At the end of the day, you're free to dislike the remake. You're free to not watch it. But the rest of us are free to watch it and enjoy it as much as we like, and that doesn't make any of us any less true fans of The Lion King.

"It's not live-action."

Technically speaking, the filmmakers used a combination of puppets, CGI, filming on location, and yes, a little bit of LIVE-ACTION animals. Of course it can't all be live-action, because these are wild animals we're talking about. Not only would it be extremely difficult and dangerous to get wild animals like lions, hyenas, and warthogs to act on set, but forcing them to behave so unnaturally could potentially become abusive. It's better for everyone to stick to CGI and puppets.

"They changed the original."

This is a dishonest claim. Nothing has happened to the original. If you watch the remake and hate it, you can go home and stick in your original Lion King DVD or VHS and it won't be any different.

The plot was not changed at all. I for one wouldn't have minded if more backstory was added, and we did get a bit more. While we did get a bit of backstory hinted at between Scar and Mufasa, you have to read the novelization to really get the full story. We also got more detail on what was wrong with the hyenas' behavior that got them thrown out in the first place and why Simba didn't let them come back after Scar's defeat. But they did not change the canon.

And at the end of the day, if you don't like anything that's added, then you don't have to watch it.

"It's exactly the same as the original."

Just can't make up our minds, huh?

The trailers weigh heavily on nostalgia and the teaser was almost a shot-for-shot of the original trailer, but the movie was not. It contained almost all the iconic scenes, and of those original scenes that wouldn't work with real animals (such as Timon's hula scene), they replaced them with brilliant ideas. However, a lot of the dialogue was tweaked (some of which I liked, some of which I didn't), small details were added into almost all the scenes from the original, and entirely new scenes were added, such as Nala leaving Pride Rock and Scar's advances on Sarabi. 

The Lion King is one of Disney's most popular and most iconic movies, so you can bet they're going to keep the most iconic scenes. Overall, I think Disney found a balance between keeping it in step with the original and providing some new interest. Everyone has different opinions about what tips the scale, of course, but please at least be gracious to those who enjoy both.

"It looks different."

Well... yes. It's a different medium. It's taking a hand-drawn 2-D animated cartoon and turning it into a 3-D "live-action" film. It's not meant to look like a cartoon. This is like making an oil painting of a watercolor painting, or vice-versa. It's supposed to look different. If it didn't look different, what would be the point of making it or watching it?

There are a few visual differences that people are upset about, and every single one of them is linked to the fact that it's a different medium.

1) The colors aren't as vibrant. The colors are not as vibrant as the original because the original was a cartoon. It was intentionally unrealistic. It was stunningly beautiful in its own right, but that's not what the remake is supposed to be. The remake is meant to be nearly photo-realistic. Obviously there will be a few tweaks because it's a fictional land somewhere within Africa (there is no Pride Rock in real life), but the remake is meant to look as if it could exist in real life. Real life does not have colors like the original. Real life is not a cartoon. I can assure you that, as an artist who does this sort of thing for a living, if the remake had colors like the original, it would be ugly. Both are equally beautiful, but for different reasons.

2) The animals aren't as expressive. So many people are claiming the animals are “expressionless,” that they radiate “neutrality,” etc. There has even been an artist who edited images from the trailers to make them look more like the cartoon, and it’s terrifying. It’s like uncanny valley to the extreme. No. Just no.

Anyone who thinks animals have neutral expressions is clearly horribly ignorant about them. It doesn’t surprise me, though; most people’s experience with animals is limited to the neighborhood dogs and cats, the fish at the dentist, and classic Disney cartoons. So when they watch a movie where the animals move around like real animals, they can’t handle it. The world just wasn’t ready for this movie.

Animals are anything but expressionless/neutral. They express their feelings differently than our species does. The original had adorable human facial expressions put on animal faces, and the live action version has (go figure) live action animal forms of expression. When Disney announced a live action Lion King, were people seriously expecting a Pixar film? Animals rely on ears, tails, and body language to communicate their feelings. It’s not wrong, it’s different.

Some people express their feelings differently than others. Autistic people, for example, rely more on literal words rather than facial movements and voice tones. Some autistic people even go the opposite direction and use completely nonverbal communication to express themselves. Is it “wrong,” “expressionless,” or “neutral”? No. It’s just different. Considering the horrific ableism that autistic people face simply for expressing themselves differently, it’s no wonder that small-minded people can’t handle a film where the characters express themselves differently. Ignorance of animal behavior and neurotypical ableism is no excuse to slam a film that artists spent years crafting.

"They changed Scar."

I was disappointed that Jeremy Irons would not be voicing Scar, but I also love the voice they chose for the remake. Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is less flamboyant and gives off fewer queer vibes than Jeremy Irons' Scar. He's cold, broken, angry, bitter, and out for blood. While I love the original Scar, I also like the remake Scar, and here's why:

1) It's more realistic. The remake is going for a world that could exist in real life. In real life, lionesses find dark lions more attractive, so the original Scar would probably have been the king, not his golden brother. Dark manes also tend to go along with size and strength, so it's unlikely that such a dark lion as Scar would be skinny and weak for no reason.

2) The racial element. Yes, I went there. No, I don't think the original character designers were trying to be racist. It think it was just unfortunate that their end result is so easy to mistake as being racist. I mean, you have to admit that it's a little odd that all the villains in the original have dark complexions despite the fact that the animals they're based off of have light complexions. Scar is literally a brown lion with a black mane and all the other lions are very pale blondes or redheads. You've got to admit that's a little weird.

3) The "dark is evil" mantra is old and needs to end. Pretty much all I have to say about that one.

"Pumbaa is ugly."

I don't really know how to respond to this claim except to point out the ignorance of it. Pumbaa is a warthog. That's what warthogs look like. What did you expect him to look like? A piglet on a farm? I knew people were ignorant about animals, but I honestly didn't think it was this bad.

Besides, the entire point of Pumbaa is that he's gross and stinky and fat, but he's got a heart of gold. I personally think that makes him adorable!

Now, warthogs aside, I think this rejection of Pumbaa for being "ugly" points out a rather disturbing trend in filmmaking and what audiences expect. Audiences expect beauty in protagonist characters. Big name actors are all beautiful people. Audiences don't expect ugliness unless there's a reason for it, such as when the story is about a character with a deformity, such as Hunchback of Notre Dame or Phantom of the Opera. If we had a hunchback character with a deformed face as a main protagonist of a movie with no explanation or plot need for his deformities, I'm curious if people would react to it the same way they're reacting to poor Pumbaa. I'm glad shows like Doctor Who are starting to step out and include your non-typical characters, such as little people (is that the correct term now?) without using the characters' differences as a plot device. They're just there because there are little people people in the world, just like Pumbaa is there because there are warthogs in the world. Little people aren't ugly, and neither is Pumbaa. They're just people who are smaller and Pumbaa is a warthog and looks like a totally normal warthog. If you just personally think warthogs are ugly, that's your business, but that doesn't make Pumbaa's design bad.

"I'm tired of CGI."

I miss hand-drawn animation, too, but the fact is that hand-drawn movies in theaters is a thing of the past. 2-D animation as a whole is fading out of theaters, and it's virtually impossible for a 2-D animated film to make it into theaters. The last one that I heard of (if I missed one, I'm sorry) that was meant to look remotely 2-D that made it to theaters was My Little Pony: the Movie, and that was because it had the Pony fanbase to push it there and Hasbro knew they could afford the cost of getting it into theaters. The only other movie (that I know of) that had significant/noticeable 2-D elements was Spiderman: Into the Spider-Verse, and let's be real, that was an art film. And it had the Marvel machine behind it. In all honesty, it probably wouldn't have gotten into theaters if it weren't for the fact that it's a Marvel movie about Spiderman. If it didn't have ties to an established fandom, I'm willing to bet that it would have been dismissed as "too weird" or too much of an Indie film to be a theatrical film. I think that's sad, but that's the film industry for you. That's how selective the theatrical market is. For whatever reason, 2-D and art films don't seem to make it there. The future is CGI, whether or not we like it.

The sad truth is that 2-D animation is going extinct when it comes to theatrical films, and boycotting the 2019 Lion King won't change that. You'd be missing out on a celebration of a movie we loved and many people grew up with. Besides, the original was hand-drawn 2-D animation. We've already got that, and it's not as if the original is going anywhere.

Now, some people find CGI to be creepy or uncanny-valley, and that's completely fine. I personally don't find it creepy if it's done well, and I hope the 2019 Lion King will be done well, what I've seen in the trailers looks great, but if you just don't like that medium of animation, that's entirely your right. You don't have to watch it. But that doesn't mean it's bad, should never have been made, or that those of us who enjoy it are any less Lion King fans than you are.

"It won't top the original."

The original will always hold a place in our hearts that, sure, will probably be higher than the remake, but isn't that what originals are for? To hold a special place in our hearts? Even if the remake lacks some of the magic of the original, that doesn't make it a bad movie. You don't have to choose between them. You can enjoy both. Neither one has to "top" the other.


__________________________________________________________

All that being said, you're entirely within your right to dislike the remake. If you don't want to watch it, that's fine. Just don't go saying it's horrible without ever having given it a chance, and don't go saying that those who enjoy it are "fake fans," "hate the original," or whatever have you. I'll form my own opinions of it based on what I think, not what the fandom says. I hope you will, too. This movie is meant to bring happiness and triumph, so please don't ruin the fun for the rest of us. The Lion King fandom has been one of the most fun fandoms I've ever been a part of. Please don't let it become toxic.

Long live The Lion King!

    A few months ago, I had a conversation with someone about Bill Potts from series 10 of Doctor Who, and (putting aside political orientations regarding LGBT subjects), I mentioned her as an example of an LGBT character being presented as a normal human being. Personally, I genuinely liked Bill. I thought she was friendly, empathetic, had a short but decent character arch, and I loved the professor-student dynamic between her and the Doctor. But apparently this guy didn't share my sentiment. The guy exploded, saying Bill only existed to be a token gay character, that she "brought up her sexuality every five minutes," that she was an unrealistic representation of a gay person, that she had no character development, etc., and then started making claims that I, an an American, was somehow "projecting American culture" onto British culture by saying that Bill was a decent human being. I was never able to figure out exactly what he meant by that last statement, but since he was dragging Brexit, Trump, and immigration into our discussion of Bill, I got the impression he was just a bit of a nut.

   Anyway, what really stuck out to me was that this guy claimed to support LGBT people, and yet he made statements that Bill shouldn't have been allowed to even mention she was gay, even after I pointed out that almost all other repeated characters brought up their sexuality so many times we've lost count.
   He said other characters merely "hinted" at their heterosexuality, which I have to disagree with, because there's been a LOT more than just "hinting" on Doctor Who. That's a snog box, I tell you what.

   I brought up that Bill mentioned her sexuality actually quite rarely, and that it was almost always when someone made the false assumption that she was straight. That's what every gay person I've ever met has been like. When you make the assumption that they're straight, they'll correct you if they feel safe doing so. I don't know if that's somehow "projecting my culture." I mean, do British people supposedly not correct you if you make a false assumption about them? That's not been my experience, for sure! So what's unrealistic about Bill politely correcting people who assume she's straight? I should also mention that I really appreciated how polite and respectful Bill was when she corrected other characters. That's something that (let's be real) a lot of LGBT folks could learn from. You can tell she's tired of saying the same thing over and over, but she's never rude about it. She just explains, knowing that while it's not the first time for her to say it, it's the first time for them to hear it.
   The guy I was talking to also made an interesting statement that a character's homosexuality should be a plot point, and I wondered why he didn't think the same applied to a character's heterosexuality.

   I know there are lots of different views on LGBT politics among my watchers, and I'm not claiming to support or not support or whatever have you, I just thought it was bizarre that this guy who claimed to support LGBT people would be saying things like this about Bill Potts, who to me seemed like a normal character who happened to be gay. I couldn't figure out why he was making these unsubstantiated claims and getting so riled up over a fictional character. Then today I stumbled across this video on YouTube which proposes that because homosexuality isn't the norm, it stands out to people when someone mentions that they're gay. So when a character like Bill mentions that they're gay a few times, it gets blown up in a person's mind to the point where it feels like the character is always bringing up that they're gay.



I think that might be what's going on here with Bill. People are unwittingly inflating how often she brought up her sexuality. I have a very literal and analytical mind, and I usually catch myself doing things like that (not always, but usually), and thus Bill didn't stick out to me the same way she stuck out to a lot of people. Apparently I sometimes don't even catch myself catching myself! Kind of an odd thing to write a journal about, but I find it fascinating that an awareness of how your mind works can affect how you view something as silly and mundane as a fictional character.

I feel like I should say something about the pro-abortion law recently passed in New York, as well as the Virginia governor's statements, but I honestly have no words.

For those who don't know, New York recently passed a law which, in essence, legalizes partial-birth abortions, decriminalizes the killing of unborn children for any reason, and also allows non-doctors to perform abortions at all stages of pregnancy. The excuse is "if the mother's health is in danger or the fetus is not 'viable,'" but the wording of the law is extremely vague, leaving the determination entirely up to the abortionist, who now doesn't even need to be a doctor. All a woman has to do to have her 9-month baby torn apart limb-from-limb is to say that her pregnancy upsets her. She could even be in labor, decide she doesn't want to go through with it, and have her child's head stabbed open with scissors and his/her brain suctioned out.

Not only does this obviously allow for the dismemberment of viable, pain-capable humans, but it also puts ignorant and/or underprivileged women in danger by allowing non-doctors to perform abortions at all stages of pregnancy. By decriminalizing the killing of unborn humans for any reason, killing a pregnant woman is no longer consoder a double-homocide, and a woman whose baby was killed while in utero cannot achieve justice against the person who killed it, because in the state’s eyes, no one was killed. How does this empower women?

New York is showing a  disturbing trend of states to arbitrarily sign Roe v. Wade into law without the vote of the people. And not only did politicians pass the law without our consent, but they celebrated it. Fortunately, late-term abortions currently make up for less than 1% of abortions, but removing restrictions on them will undoubtedly change that statistic.

Read my stamp and its sources for more information on abortion procedures, especially partial-birth and late-term abortions:


On top of that, Virginia governor Ralph Northam recently made several comments, which, by all appearances, seem to be in support of infanticide. His words were that if a mother aborted her baby during birth or if she merely desired to abort, and the baby survived either scenario, then the baby would be resuscitated and "a discussion would ensue" about the baby's life. Again, he doesn't say it outright, but it's very clearly there. He's talking about discussing the fate of a born baby.

I really have no words for this. I feel like I should, but I don't. I'm burned out from saying the same things over and over again. As I've said before, I have yet to see a pro-abortion/pro-choice argument that doesn't boil down to selfishness and sex obsession. I think in this case at least, the horror speaks for itself.


Since I couldn't think of anything to say, I wanted to leave a positive note out there. This video is probably the best representation of what it means to be pro-life that I’ve ever seen:

Please note that it's difficult to figure out what's real and what's not when it comes to leaks. Hasbro are the only folks who know for sure what's going to happen. There is a lot of art going around being called concept art that may have been made by fans, but we can take a look at the commonalities to figure out what might be real. And as always when it comes to leaks: there really is no such thing as a reliable source unless you get it straight from Hasbro, so take everything I say here with a grain of salt. I could be completely wrong about all of this! And of course, I'll be expressing my personal opinions here and you don't have to agree with them.

If you're in the My Little Pony fandom, you have probably heard that Friendship is Magic (Generation 4) will be coming to an end soon. It looks like there will be 9 seasons in total, so we may only have one more year of FIM. A lot of people are very upset by this, and as much as I will miss FIM, I'm also super pumped for the next reboot of MLP, Generation 5!

UPDATE: Season 9 is confirmed to be the final season of MLP: Friendship is Magic. Here is the trailer: m.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8DvEJl4…

I've heard that G5 will be a little darker and more complex than FIM, and while I'm up for some more interesting plot lines, I really, really hope the show still remains safe for itty bitty kids to watch. Part of what I love so much about Friendship is Magic is that both older and younger generations can watch it. You can have an adult man, a seven-year-old, and a baby in diapers watching and enjoying the same show. I hope that doesn't go away. I also hope the wholesome messages don't go away in favor of adventure and drama themes. You can have plenty of adventure and still provide wholesome life lessons.

At the time of my writing this, we don't know what the series will be called other than "My Little Pony," so I'll be referring to it as G5. So far, the following calendar has proven to be accurate:

It looks like we'll be keeping the Mane Six.

From what we can tell so far, it appears that Hasbro has decided to keep the Mane 6 for G5, albeit with a few changes. Rarity, Rainbow Dash, and Applejack look like they're going to remain a unicorn, pegasus, and earth pony, but Fluttershy looks like she'll be a unicorn, Pinkie Pie a pegasus, and Twilight Sparkle an earth pony. Personally, I adore the idea of Fluttershy as a unicorn and Pinkie Pie as a pegasus, and I'm curious how Twilight as an earth pony will work out.

Personally, I like the decision to keep the Mane 6. I think Hasbro is running a risk with picky fandoms wanting things just so, and making new characters with the same names and appearances as old characters is dangerous (we saw how fans reacted to Spirit: Riding Free). However, part of what made Friendship is Magic so popular was the way the characters' personalities played off of each other. I've also noticed that many popular stories often have a set of main characters with personalities relatively similar to the Mane 6, if not as extreme. Thus, I believe it's important for My Little Pony to keep those six personalities.

If I were Hasbro, I would keep the Mane 6's personalities and general interests, even their general appearances, but change their names. Even if it's just a slight change, like how Twilight Sparkle used to be Twilight Twinkle in old MLP, I think it would be a way to help smooth over the transition to new characters based on old ones. That way it's clear that these are new characters. After seeing the way fans are reacting to the news that the Mane 6 are staying, and after seeing how fans reacted to "changing Spirit" in Spirit: Riding Free, Hasbro needs to make it clear that these are not the same ponies. This is a reboot.

However, my overall opinion of keeping the Mane 6 is very positive. Feel free to politely disagree, but I love the idea of not losing these lovable personalities!

It looks like Twilight Sparkle and Applejack will have the most changes.

Fans of FIM have latched onto the ponies' interest: sports, fashion, books, animals, outdoors, parties, etc. The ones the fandom haven't seemed to latch onto as much are Applejack's interest in farming and Rarity's interest in fashion. Little girls like Rarity's fashion sense, so I think that will probably be staying, but little girls and Bronies alike didn't gravitate as much toward Applejack. I personally love Applejack as a farm pony with all her outdoorsy sense. I think we don't get enough of that in kids' shows unless it's strictly a nature show like Wild Kratts. But I also respect the fact that Hasbro needs to market its characters, and when one main character is so much less popular than the others, that character will get a makeover when the chance comes.

So far, we don't know much about what the new Applejack will be like. I've heard reports that she'll be a redeemed villain, that she'll be a city pony, etc. Her design also appears to be up in the air. I see some concept art where she still looks like a country gal, some where she's completely brown, some where she's a paint pony (my personal favorite), and some where she looks virtually the same. I'll miss our FIM Applejack, but I also look forward to what she will become.

What has most fans shook up about is Twilight Sparkle becoming an earth pony. It looks like G5 will focus more on earth ponies rather than unicorns/alicorns, so it makes sense that the main character would be an earth pony. I don't have an opinion to share on Twilight being an earth pony because I just don't know what that means other than the fact that she will probably no longer use traditional unicorn magic. Perhaps she will have a different form of magic, or her talent/interest will become something entirely different? Maybe she'll be a geek pony! All in all, I'm very curious what their plan is for Twilight and I trust the writers to come up with something that works.

It looks like Equestria will be getting a major re-write.

What has me most interested about G5 is their plan for Equestria. Instead of having all 3 (or 4 if you include alicorns) species of ponies in one land, there are reports that Equestria will become a tri-dimensional world with three separate planes of reality: the earth pony realm (which appears to be closest to our world), the pegasus realm (which looks like it will be a cloud-like world of some kind), and the unicorn realm (which I can't tell much about, but will probably have magic if I have to guess). I'm hearing that G5 will center around the earth ponies and their explorations into the different realms. Perhaps Twilight's bookishness leads her to discover the realms, and perhaps she isn't without magic or wings in those realms? Who knows? There are also reports that the show will focus on earth pony magic of some kind. This could all just be rumors at this point, but I find it very intriguing, and if this is true, I can't wait!

Hasbro will be using different animation techniques.

We don't know for sure what software(s) they'll be using, but I don't believe they'll be relying on Adobe Flash like they have with FIM. I've heard reports that the animators may be switching to ToonBoom, the software that was used in My Little Pony: The Movie. The animation was quite lovely in that movie, so if that's true, I think that's a good move. The animation of FIM is cute, but it is around ten years old, and I understand and approve if the animators want to move on and use some more modern techniques.

I've heard that the intro movie may be in 3-D, but that the show itself will be 2-D. Personally, I hope it stays 2-D. I honestly don't think I would have gotten into MLP if it was 3-D.

All of the concept art (real or not) shows the characters with more detail than FIM, and I love that! I also enjoy how the pegasus' wings appear to be a bit more realistic in shape even though they're still small, and I like how the unicorns in some of the artwork have lion's tails and cloven hooves like traditional unicorns. All these differences help stress the fact that these are different species of ponies from different realms.

There is s string of possible concept art (but it could also be fan art) that shows the ponies wearing jewelry and having an overload of markings. Rainbow Dash typically has massive neon wings and Pinkie Pie has spots in this series of artworks. I know this is just my personal opinion, but it looks like a bit much. I mean no offense, but I kind of think those designs are a little bit ugly... I hope the animators don't follow those particular designs.

But what makes me the most happy (and I'm honestly not sure why this makes me so happy) is that every single piece of concept art I've seen so far gives the ponies hooves! I don't know why ponies having hooves makes me so excited, but it does. The ponies look more like actual ponies! I LOVE that change, and I hope it doesn't go away.


^Whoever Erika Worthylake is, I adore your artwork!

At this point, that's all I know about G5. As sad as I am to see Friendship is Magic go, I'm also looking forward to the new reboot. I ask the fanbase to stay positive in the face of this change. There are actual people who make this show, and they deserve as much respect as anyone else. I haven't known any fandom to deal with change well, and the MLP fandom in particular can be a little inflammatory. Please let's try to be grown-ups, even if you don't like how this turns out. Even if you don't end up liking it as much as FIM, focus on what you do like about it. I personally am looking forward to this, and I hope you are, too!

^It's so beautiful! I would love it if the show looked like this.

 

All my Lion Guard continent guards on available to purchase on Redbubble! Now you can sport your favorite guard on T-shirts, stickers, mugs, etc.

I wasn't able to use any logos for copyright reasons, and since I made a good number of these guards before I had a Redbubble account, I had to completely remove backgrounds from a few if the logo was merged into the background layer. Such is the price of working with old artwork... On the upside, those guards might look better on stickers!

South America: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Europe: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Ocean: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
North America: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Dinosaur: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Asia: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Australia: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…
Arctic: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…

Unicornarama's Redbubble: www.redbubble.com/people/unico…