Girlwithatornear wrote:
She is a mother of three who thinks love is a weakness so she's not a good mom but she tries, she lets Kovu go when he betrayed her. She needs someone to blame for Nuka's death but she is not willing to kill her son. Basic mother stuff. She is however willing to sacrifice Vitani in the the battle. Why did she not kill Kovu then if he betrayed her and killed Nuka? She is driven mad by Nuka's death in a state of grief thinking that is weakness she tries to avenge Scar. The only one who never turned on her to her eye. She probably blocks out Nuka. I still think she is just incapable of processing her emotions and is torchered inside. She probably blames herself for every bad thing that's happened but thinking emotion is a sign of weakness tries to blame somebody else.
I think you're missing the point of Nuka's death scene. Beyond starting a full out war between the Pridelanders and Outlanders, it was an allusion to how in Shakespeare's
Romeo and Juliet, Romeo slays Tybalt and is banished from his home (Romeo being Kovu, and Tybalt being Nuka). (Note: there are obviously many differences between Shakespeare's play and the Lion King spin on it, but remember, Simba's Pride was
based on Romeo and Juliet, not rewritten with changed character names.)
The scene was also to show Kovu's conflicting loyalties and was meant to shed light on how Zira has constantly placed Kovu on a path to be Scar's successor. This was enforced by Zira hitting Kovu and giving him a scar to match Scar's appearance. Kovu then runs away after being banished by the Outlanders, only to be banished from the Pridelands.
Girlwithatornear wrote:
Now with the deleted scene of Nuka's death movies don't like to show emotion why make complex characters when you could just have goodguys and badguys? Also they have a limited time span so they wouldn't "waste time" on a mothers grief or complex characters. So yeah I mean they didn't spend much time on Simba's grief for his father. He comes down pleads with him to wake up and then runs into his crazy uncle seems it could have been written better.
Any decent screenwriter knows that you cannot just kill off your main protagonist without resolving some major plot points such as the forbidden love between Kovu and Kiara, and the feud between the two prides. So Zira's decision to not kill Kovu was more of a way for the writers to be able to keep the story going. And besides, as we've seen in the franchise, death is a very serious matter. We've only seen four on-screen deaths: Mufasa, Scar, Nuka, and Zira.
- Mufasa's was a necessary plot point that made Simba start his journey.
- Scar's wasn't even seen, we assume that the hyenas killed him; and his death is confirmed in Simba's Pride, but we never see a corpse. Beyond that, Scar's death was a means to an end for the first movie.
- Nuka's death is similar to Mufasa's in that it is a major plot point in the rising action that directly brings the Outlanders to the climax (the battle scene between the two prides.)
- Zira's death was similar to Scar's, where she is assumed to have drowned in the gorge. There is no corpse to prove it though.
We've never seen a lion kill another lion. The only character who has come close to this is Scar, and even then, he used his ingenuity to start a stampede to kill Mufasa, instead of using his bare hands. When given the opportunity to kill Simba, he has the hyenas do it. Why? Because every single screenwriter knows that you cannot get away with that amount of gore and violence in a movie aimed at families and kids. A brother killing a brother for a throne is diabolical enough as is. Death is a serious thing in the Lion King Universe, and the only way that it was made acceptable was with the Circle of Life theme in the entire movie.
Touching on your thought that the movie wouldn't waste time with character emotions; every single (good) writer will always take the opportunity for their characters to feel and explore as many emotions as possible. It allows for character development and investment in the story. When characters are well developed, the audience takes an interest for them and begins to sympathize and empathize with their motives and emotions. Why do you think so many people cried at Mufasa's death? It was because given the short amount of time we experienced him in the first movie he had very good characterization. We saw him interacting with other characters and saw the depths of his various emotions: He demands respect, but also gives it (the first scene where Scar is introduced), he is playful (when he plays with Simba under the stars, when he teaches Simba to pounce), and he is also brave despite his fears (scene where he plays with Simba under the stars). But, because we see him as a grand king, we don't assume (like Simba) that he feels fear, and the writers touch on this, which gives Mufasa more dimensions as a character. The writers gave the audience a chance to bond with Mufasa though his emotions, and when he died, just as Simba cried, the audience cried.
Interesting note on the audience crying: My friend and I actually watched the movie recently, and she sobbed for the billionth time when she watched Mufasa's death. But the only reason why she
still cries at that scene is because of the character and emotional build up.
If you kill a character off that no one has an emotional investment in, then nobody cares and it makes a weak story. Nuka's death was meant to have emotional significance for the audience. After all how do you appreciate feeling joy, love, and happiness if you don't feel sorrow, hatred, and fear?
Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 9:06 pm 
