Animation Source Forums

She's just stating the facts from the commentary track of the first film and the official trailer of TLK2 and of how Kopa has never officially been mentioned to be the cub in the film too. And those three facts naturally result in that it is not officially Kopa in the film itself but just in the books and in some fans' personal opinion.

Maybe you're the one who's not really looking at the cub. I mean, where did you get the "green-eyed"? The cub at the end of the first film does not have green eyes. It has just big, black pupils. I wish it did have green eyes, as it would be one more proof of that it's not Kopa who has brown eyes.

ElChivato --> *shakes head* You're wrong. I ask you to take a screenshot comparison test. Put the cub at the end of the second film, and the cub at the beginning of the second film side-by-side. They. Are. Different. Maybe you can't see it or choose not to see it NOW, but one day, you will. When I was young, I thought the two were the same, but now that I'm grown, I have examined them carefully. They are not the same. Not at all.

You're the one who comes off as horribly young and thoughtless.
Because you:
- think that outside appearence is all that matters / the most crucial aspect in knowing who or what a thing really is.
- totally ignore all the other facts about the thing.
- telling people they're wrong while you yourself are not even regarding all the facts given.

A fact is that the cubs are different in appearence design but their identities are not. Because in the movie univers itself the cub is not given any identity before TLK2's official trailer wherein it's literally blended into Kiara. Before that, the only name the cub was known by in the movie universe, was Fluffy with no gender reference as in one without an identity. Resulting in: Fluffy/Kiara. Not Kopa who was never mentioned in the films or even the commentary track.

But wait, I'm confused. If Fluffy is genderless, then it can't be Kirara offically, right? Because the same directors didn't direct TLk2?

The fact that TLK2 was created by different people than TLK, only means that Fluffy is not Kiara in canon. But as Kiara and Fluffy have been blended into one in official movie universe content while TLK2 is continuing the canon film, in the movie universe Fluffy's identity is Kiara. In short: Fluffy is Kiara officially FOR the canon movie though not literally canon.

But why can't Kopa be real? People most believe in Ahadi and Uru, why not kopa?

Anubis --> The way I'm viewing this is for starters, that cub 'Fluffy' is not, in any way, Kiara. It can't be. It's impossible. And yes, the director of The Lion King did not direct Simba's Pride. The directors of The Lion King were Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff. The directors for Simba's Pride are Darrell Rooney and Rob LaDuca (co-director). So, the films were made by two sets of different people.

ElChivato --> You my friend are young and do not know how to see with the eyes of a person who claims to love TLK. There are two screenshots. Take a good look. They are not the same. They cannot be. Simba's Pride took place a few years after the first film. Tell me. What happened, in your fan-thinking during that time.

Kopa can't be real for the movies because:
1.) No one in the movie universe has ever called the cub Kopa; not the characters and not the creators.
2.) The cub's creators called it Fluffy when Kopa already existed in the books.
3.) TLK2's official trailer uses Fluffy and Kiara, but nnot the baby Kiara from the film and not Kopa. Meaning, Fluffy = Kiara.

That is also why Ahadi and Uru either are not real for the movie universe. They're Kopa's relatives origining from the books and as Kopa doesn't exist in the movies, nothing from his life does either.

People can always believe in whatever the heck they want, but it doesn't make the things real.



*blinks* What the HELL are you saying?
- "You are young..." - You don't even know my age! By all means I could be older than you.
- "...and do not know how to see with the eyes of a person who claims to love TLK." - That sentence doesn't make sense to me, especially when you relate it with age. Anyway, are you trying to say that I don't love TLK? If so, where did that come from?

And then:
1.) I don't need your screenshots. I'm not blind. And in case you missed it, I already stated in my previous comment that the cubs are different in appearence design. Which should've told you that I KNOW the cubs look different and so I don't need screenshots for proof.
2.) Simba's Pride was produced and released a few years after the first film, but that doesn't mean anything for the story matters. There is no fan-thinking needed here. The official facts say that Fluffy and Kiara are the same cub in essence. IN ESSENCE. As in ONLY their appearence differs.

Look. In my viewpoint, Kopa did exist, and Zira killed him in revenge over the death of Scar, and was exiled to the Outlands along with her children and followers. Then Simba and Nala had Kiara.

That viewpoint was assumable seeing to your argument choices...

I never really thought of Kopa to be a really official character, but that's just me. I like Kiara better, but she's not my most favorite character of them all. She seemed to act a little bratty at times when she didn't get her way, but all and all I like her better than Kopa.

No,it's not just you,I like Kiara,and dislike her for the same reason.^^

Well, if you dismiss the idea of Kopa - Simba and Nala's firstborn child - existing, you might as well dismiss the idea of Mufasa and Scar having parents, since, as you think the movies and the books are separate, which I don't believe. Then again, with all these little missing plots and questions, isn't that why we have fandom popping up all over the Internet? In fan-art, fan images, and, oh, let's not forget, fanfiction.

Denying an identity of a first-born child is not the same as denying an entire creature from existence, especially a creature that is impossible to not exist, such as parents are. So no, I might not "just as well say" that they don't have parents. Why am I explaining this to you? This was pointless when said to a person who has obviously decided that outside appearence is all that matters and that thus you're absolutely right about the identity.

As for your belief that the movies and books are one entity, well, there are TONS and tons of facts to prove that they're not - even in the book universe alone, not to mention when regarding the facts also from the movie universe. But you likely are to close your eyes and pretend they don't exist or mean anything, so I'm not going into details, again.

We might as well end this debate right here. You're looking from a fanficcer's point of view and mindset. I am looking from the movie making point of view and common sense point of you seeing to the Company's franchising and with the mindset of a person who loves fanfiction but also the official facts. Thus we will never see eye to eye.



I don't think that's the reason why a fandom pops up anywhere. A fandom pops up because of the films' stories, not because of they're relative plot holes. If it was the other way around, this fandom would exist because of what is NOT there instead of what IS there, and then this would not really be The Lion King fandom but a Conspiracy-based Fanfiction Fandom Related to The Lion King. I actually think this fandom is more close to the last mentioned the way the fanbase is now.

My basic point is; even if there was never anything else but the movies and even if TLK2's creators had kept the original designs, there would be an online fandom, there would be fan art, fan images and fanfiction. What in the world makes you think there wouldn't?

i don't care what other people say elchvito. me and you are right , they are not. and tell them about alex simmions saying that kopa was all his charecter.