(I originally published this at deviantArt and Fanpop as BenDaImmortal.)

Read this entire post before commenting, please. Thank you.

While I'm totally ready to admit if I turn out to be wrong, right now I have reasonable doubts that those scripts are fake. Even more-so than with those famous Tad Stones e-mails and the Facebook Darrell Rooney, which simply don't have anything official to back up their genuinity while could very easily be fakes. And to me everything's unofficial until proven official. Yes, these scripts as fakes would've demanded a ridiculous effort and amount of time and I don't really know what motive anyone would have to fake them. But just keep reading, please, and you'll see why I still suspect.

I trust the 1993 script version to be genuine, official, because it's been shared for profit for years and I think Disney would've sued the selling web store(s) for all they've got by now if it wasn't permitted and for real. But the 1990 script versions seem to have come out of the blue for non-profit sharing. (I know the 1993 script has been put online non-profitely too but at least I can find it also on sale, in a web store, and it has been so for years.)

So that's one reason. Then there's also these two reasons:

- As history shows, a group from this fanbase has HUGE difficulties in drawing the line between what's their own personal preference/fanfiction and what's really canon/official, and another group has the tendency to blindly trust that first mentioned group and join it in spreading inaccurate stuff.

In addition and more importantly:

-  The 1995 Laserdisc release of the movie reveals that "King of the Beasts" / "King of the Jungle" was the movie's title BEFORE it was titled "The Lion King". But the dates on these published scripts' covers contradict that official information.

KING OF THE THE BEASTS: script
---> The date on the cover clearly reads: MAY 23, 1990

THE LION KING: script
--> The date on the cover clearly reads: JANUARY 19, 1990

The last time I checked, January is many months before May, and therefore January should be on the cover of "King of the Beasts" and NOT on the cover of "The Lion King".

The funny thing is, also those Wikipedia pages say that this "The Lion King" script is an updated version of that "King of the Beats" script and the other way around, which is accurate according to the information from the Laserdisc. But the Wiki pages completely ignore the date issue of the covers which indicates that it hasn't been officially addressed.

And this is all I was able to find on these scripts' origin:

"5/13/2012: Early drafts by JT Allen and Ron Bass, dating back to early 1990, are now available thanks to "Jiminy Cricket", who worked at a literary agency at the time."
 -from The Lion King WWW Archive (which is a fan site)

That doesn't sound convincing to me. I'm sorry but it doesn't. Where did that site get that information on the person who published these scripts? Why isn't that person revealing his real name or allow it to be publicly revealed? WHY ARE THE DATES CONTRADICTING THE LASERDISC INFOTMATION and why are the Wiki pages ignoring it? (EDIT: I've received an answer to that last question: the WIki pages' starter didn't pay attention to the dates at all,)

I know Disney's official web site is riddled with inaccurate information about The Lion King, totally proven wrong by the movies' contents. But Disney's official web site issues doesn't automatically mean that the Company doesn't get the bonus features of their official movie releases correctly, especially when it's meant to be information about the production. And even if they didn't get them right, it's STILL the official information while this script matter has zero trackable official background provided.

This situation is too shady AND officially-released-fact contradicting, so I call those scripts fanbase bluff. Feel free to dig out more information and we'll see if it changes the light of this situation in any way.

EDIT: I thought of this a bit more, and came to a conclusion that this could be an illegal leaking of Disney's property. But I'm not too convinced about that possibility, hence the official-fact-contradicting covers. And I've heard of crazier and more troublesome hoax crap pulled in this world. Some people just enjoy seeing how many people believe in the lie and whatever comes out of that believing. Also, as history's shown, a large number in The Lion King fanbase is easy to mislead in terms of fanfiction vs. official.

Thus, though I do acknowledge that illegal leaking is likelier the case here, I really would not put it past someone to have pulled an elaborate hoax (with an unfortunate mistake on the dates) even as it is, but especially on a fanbase such as The Lion King's is.

Similar articles :

• Definitions in The Lion King Fandom
• The cub: 3 facts about the gender issues
• The cub's timeline
• How official are The Lion King: Six New Adventures
• The Lion King Characters That Just Aren't There
• The lion king : Official Game (1994)
• Fluffy's story
• About the Lion King 2
• fan theory or fact?
• Is Kiara's real Dad Simba?

Report this article

Last comments

Kieran	November 21, 2012

@ ChrisBoyce: Oh dear. Look, there is no point in this article where I'd complain about the scripts' inner content being slightly different from officially published materials or the movie. OF COURSE they are even if they are genuine. After all these are supposed to be EARLIER script versions. I wish you'd read the article a bit more carefully before writing a lengthy comment with an attitude. The things I issued in this article, are: - the source of these articles' publishment is unknown - whoever published them, does not dare to make money with them - the date vs. movie name combination on the covers, do not match officially published information on the production And I am being very real. I even acknowledge in this article that unauthorized leak of genuine scripts is likelier the case because this would be very troublesome as a hoax. But that I just wouldn't put it past this fanbase to pull an elaborate hoax seeing to that there's a large group of people who have troubles drawing the line between official and fanfiction or even accapting the official facts, and another group that is easily mislead by it. That IS part of the reality of this fanbase and world. Again, remark that I do acknowledge in this article that it's likelier this is just an unauthorized leak, even if I prefer the hoax possibility so long as the dates/names matter contradict officially published information.

Chris Boyce	November 20, 2012

These are the real thing. No doubt in my mind about that. The "Lion King" cover is NOT contemporary with the rest of the Jan 1990 script. That's just a red herring. precisely what happened there is open to conjecture, but its unlikely to be anything complicated, and in my mind certainly NOT a conspiracy. The title "The Lion King" for the project came years after when the story was completely revamped. These two scripts agree closely with long published concept art, but NOT precisely. For example the later script has the scene with the vultures, but doesn't name them: the art does. This and several other changes means that there must have been some script development in between these scripts and the art. That makes perfect sense and fits the timeline, as well as the tortuous path that is story development. You have to remember that 27-29 people are credited in one way or another with some input into writing The Lion King. J T Allen simply rates an "additional story material" credit for this. That "material" is not the story concept, that, it is clear came from within Disney. Instead its mainly the names. Whether they have been "illegally" released or not is a matter of conjecture. These are scanned copies possibly of copies. They are not scan of originals. Released by some agent somewhere? Maybe... why not? Why? Not sure, but I have my suspicions. I have no doubt whatsoever that these ARE the origins of TLK. They are certainly the origins of many of the names of the characters we now love, but not necessarily the characters as they are now. In short please get real. These are the real thing. Is there any problem with that? is that threatening in some way? So Lion King didn't spring fully formed with mountains of back story s many fans want to believe. So what?