KiteDarkness

Them being the same animal is negligible, though. Scar is intended to be the Uncle Claudius-esque figure in the quasi-Hamlet scenario, so of course he has to be a lion. In a story revolving around lions, obviously you're going to have antagonists who are of the same species. Also, Scar's wound is probably a carry over from when he was a baboon in earlier drafts. Prior to being changed into a lion and an evil family member, Scar was the leader of a baboons who was waging war with the pride. It is highly like that mark was always a thing even before he became a lion akin to Claw. I'm sorry, but you're misconstruing the point of me posting that quote. The point wasn't to outright shut down the possibility of them taking some inspiration from Kimba(as indicated by my message "Also, on the off chance that Kimba actually did play a key role in the early production of the film, Roger Allers did have this to say"), but to show how at least one of the creators threw a bone and acknowledged the franchise, offered his respect to Tezuka productions, and noting any potential influence it may have had.

Kimba's father was murdered by humans, not Claw/Bubu. And while there was one dramatic battle involving rain and the like(although, there was no fire), that can be attributed to the standard dramatic cliche of how lot of final showdowns take place. Ever notice how a handful deal of Disney classics involve rain, lightning, and so forth in their final confrontations? What TLK did wasn't isolated, and Kimba's battle with Claw was also derivative of that tired cliche.

I'm around half and half when comparing the two. Maybe leaning more towards comics. My preference changes from time to time. Disregarding some of the hilariously wrong generalizations being made in this thread concerning the whole "It's only superheroes and action" nonsense, Western comics do often have cohesive and interesting stories to tell. They're also more well paced due to not being hindered by crazy deadlines and release schedules that wind up forcing manga authors to constantly pad out their chapters/issues, causing plot progression to slow to a crawl, with half of the pages being filled up with nothing substantial(the Shonen genre is the one that mostly suffers from this). When there is action, it also tends to blend in with the storylines a bit better and doesn't take away the focus. The trade off is that you don't have a lot of panels dedicated to a bunch of really awesome choreography that one would find in a lot of action-packed manga, but it is a necessary sacrifice for the sake of good pacing and story structure. Aside from decent pacing, one other great strength usually found in comics the dialogue in various interactions. While 30-40 decades ago, it used to be a bit too over the top and hamfisted, there's a sense of humanity and believability in the way comic book characters often talk in recent times, even when it's just some crazy villain making a sinister monologue. It feels like a really organic movie script put into graphic novel form. With manga dialogue, the quality usually varies, but it's often a bit more overly emotional and melodramatic outside of the more adult material. Sometimes it works in a particular series' favor, but it can get rather overbearing depending on the scene and type of story the author's trying to tell. Characters can also kind of just go into these random deep analyses about how they're/someone else is feeling(usually with the obligatory flashbacks) and going on and on about their life stories, as if they're doing a character study. It's essentially laying out all the themes, thought processes and developments on the table instead of letting readers interpret and find them on their own. I often believe this is why a number of people often fall into the illusion thinking "manga are more deeper" when the only difference is they're just being spoon fed all the stuff that gives those stories their depth through clunky exposition. One aspect where manga prevails over comics is their accessibility. Even though they have similar release schedules with their initial issues, you can often grab a convenient compilation of chapters put together in various volumes, and keep up with their stories much more easily. That's not to say comics don't have paperbacks and hardcovers(they obviously do), but manga paperbacks often pack in a lot more and aren't released under random titles, just simple volume numbers. This makes it much easier to collect and keep up with the material. Another positive aspect with manga is the variety of stories written, and the freedom of creativity. While one wouldn't exactly say their writers are more "imaginative"(and any implications from the people in this thread that say that are objectively wrong and bigoted), but because they're originally catered to their home country, which is a much smaller audience, it allows for a lot more legroom to write the most expressive and unusual stuff with a much higher chance to be worthy of publication and actually sell. Then they get localized and foreigners wind up enjoying them anyway, despite the extremely unusual material. This is in a direct contrast to up-and-coming Western comic book authors, who probably share very similar unique ideas and crazy character designs, but are forced by stifling publishers and head honchos to keep their projects more grounded in favor of catering to a larger audience that aren't turned off by outlandish and "silly" things. It's a really grating limitation that manga fortunately often avoids. Comics and manga both have another difference in how they're written, and it hilariously brings about both negatives and positives on each side. With comics, you'd often get revolving writers with long-running series, so quality can be a bit inconsistent. For a year or two, you'd get an amazing writer, then another year you'd get an average or terrible one. This fluctuation can often hurt a series' enjoyment, but the gain from this is the fact that at least you'll know the bad stuff won't last, and that there's always someone able to pick up the pieces and rectify whatever screw ups some terrible author created for a franchise. The flawed writing is ultimately left in the dust, and their replacements begin paving the way for better and more interesting developments. Less long-running titles are often a bit more self-contained and usually keep the same writer(s) and artists. Similar to those shorter comics, manga are also usually done the same author(or co-authors) all the way through(with a couple of assistants that change over the years), and they're usually the ones creating those new publications. From the start, this can turn out to be a tremendous positive and can be the best for a good deal of stories, but a lot of manga series often wind up getting into a slump after their publishers and editors push them to keep them going. The creators can get burnt out, and their series ends up hitting these pitfalls and become overly bloated and insufferable to read. The quality winds up getting so low, and they rarely recover from it. Ultimately, both Western comics and manga have many different positives, flaws and limitations, but neither of them are really better or deeper than the other. Everything bounces about in quality, and it all comes down to preference.

It's mainly less to do with superficial reasons like "choppiness" and more to do with the limitations that come with the package of producing the low-budget minimalistic/limited style of animation that anime utilizes. The minimalized amount of movement prevents the use of unique character acting, gestures, mannerisms and more complex animation that gives an animated character more personality and makes them more alive. Anime usually isn't too terribly hindered by such a loss(not to mention there's the upside of having more detailed and shaded art since there's less animation to work on) but it's understandable why the loss of that complexity turns away some people. They're not looking for visual candy, but that subtle layer of depth that makes an animated character feel even more "complete" and "alive."

There's a lot of cartoons and animated features that delve into thought provoking concepts, themes, and have a modicum of depth to them. Gargoyles, the various DC Animated series, the Avatar/Korra franchise, etc. While there is a significant amount of animated shows that focus on humor, it isn't wise to just sweep under the rug any of the more sophisicated series out there. That's like saying "all anime is porn or loli moe crap."

In a way. However, it's actually a bit of a trade off. Anime is often mass produced and each episode/OVA/Movie is made on a lower budget and in quicker time than usual. This means that they have to cut back a lot on the animation, so a good deal of episodes/films are filled with static shots, and characters not making much motion other than their mouths flapping up and down during non-action sequences. Pan shots are used a lot to give a sense of movement too. There are exceptions to that(the Otomo movies Akira and Steamboy are notable for using full animation akin to the expensive style Disney films and other Hollywood animated features utilize), and every show/movie varies in quality, but more often than not the focus on the animation is a lot more minimalistic, with high quality artwork being a nice gain from that sacrifice. It's easier to make detailed drawings when you're not animating them much. I like it when both the art quality and the animation is outstanding, and one can usually look to Disney for that perfect marriage of both qualities at their best. It's unfortunate that they don't produce traditional animated features these days...

It's too early to say if this series conflicts with anything that occurs in GT(given that it takes place much earlier than that), but Battle of Gods and the recent Resurrection F film essentially already went and retconned it anyway, considering all the power boosts and lore expanding Toei and Toriyama himself made with them.

This was THE video game trailer back in the '90s for me. https://youtu.be/dJ-toUi9jDc

It'd probably take a good deal of effort to produce such a sequel. People give a lot of flak to SE for "not giving them what they want," but it'd most likely require a LOT of time and money to faithfully reproduce FFVII with modern sensibilities and graphical fidelities. What could have been easily done back then is a whole other ball game now, and it'd be horrible if they were forced to sacrifice so much to make such a project more feasible(it'd probably turn into another Hallway XIII). Also, even if they could pull it off, what makes me a bit pessimistic is how SE has time and time again proven themselves to be incapable of portraying these characters and its world properly anymore. These days whenever we see them(be it in that awful Advent Children/AC Complete film, the rest of the FFVII compilation, or cameos in other titles), the characters are rendered into one-dimensional, anime stereotypes. Cloud, who was once a significantly more compelling and complex individual in the game he originated from, is now usually portrayed as some robotic, brooding stiff devoid of any real personality just to cater to the teenage fanbase that think those type of characters are "cool" and "badass." While one could argue that SE would be forced to stay a bit more true to their original personalities due to working on remake, you can bet that they'd still probably warp the characters in some form to act more like their modern counterparts. As for the world, it's not a gigantic issue, but I get the feeling it definitely wouldn't look as a vivid and colorful as in the original. In all this modern FFVII-related media, they often like to make the world look a bit more drab and gritty now. It's not completely devoid of color, but it definitely lacks the charm that the original game presented. SE seems to prefer to go in more serious directions concerning FFVII material these days, ignoring the fact that the original game was actually pretty goofy and cartoony at its core. If they went ahead with a remake, you can bet all that hilarious stuff and the distinct art direction that managed to bring some light to a grim and dark adventure would be utterly sucked out. As for things tying in more with the compilation, I'd rather they not do that. It'd leave a bitter taste in my mouth if I saw any Advent Children foreshadowing in there. That's the last thing I'd wanna see get referenced in a re-imagining of the original game. Crisis Core doesn't really need much tying in as it's already based on information and flashbacks from FFVII anyway. I suppose they could redo to fit in with how that scenario went down in CC, but I feel that'd just spit on Sakaguchi's intentions with that scene in the flashback it originated from, as it wasn't meant to be an over the top, heroic battle like in CC.

The Nostalgia Critic/Doug Walker just misinterpreted what the moral of the story was. What Simba was obligated to do was to return back home and take his place as king, and he allowed fears and guilt to prevent him from doing something important and the whole natural balance was thrown into disorder because of it. True, his guilt stems from a lie, but whether he actually killed Mufasa or not is irrelevant as the damage was still done and he was still screwing about in some oasis instead of doing what he was supposed to. Walker's criticism would be more appropriate had the film revolved around someone who was obligated to make amends with the wrong doings of his past but then it turned out he was innocent all along. If the film had just been about that with nothing else on the line but that person's own life, then it would most definitely be a problem. However, that wasn't what The Lion King was about. While Simba would have had to explain himself and try to deal with this little "murder" issue with the lionesses, that isn't the big picture here. The main thing was for him to get over his fears and take his place as king to restore order, not "fess up and take his punishment like a man... er... lion."