Animation Source Forums

what do you guys think ? do you think kopa is real or kiara ?

Kopa is not real for the movies because no movie maker ever called the cub Kopa while they did call it Fluffy and then Kiara. (They do use that cub in the official trailer of Simba's pride, use it for baby Kiara.)

So, because I accept both movies, I voted Kiara, though in the most official canon it is genderless.

Kopa is real imo. The TLK: The six adventers were before the second movie. First come first serve.

no he is not becasae the oringnal script in 1993 , before the movie was in theaters , said the cub was genderless .

i argee the oringal script {1993 } said the cub was genderless !

Oh yeah, and the script too says it's genderless or rather--again--does not give it a gender. It's always just "the cub".

I think this topic could be honestly debatable only if the film makers never officially refered to the cub as anything, but they did: first as Fluffy and then as Kiara. Thus, in the official story by the movies Kopa never existed.

And not to mention that Kopa wasn't created by any of the film makers or anyone from Disney at all anyway, but by outsider comic/childrens' book writers--so it makes no difference that the books came before the sequel. And the film makers made it quite official by indeed calling the cub Fluffy when Kopa already existed in the books, and then later using Fluffy for baby Kiara in the official trailer.

Regarding the title of this topis: Kopa in himself is not a lie, but if someone claims he's officially the cub at the end of the first film as in canon/Kiara's brother, then that is a lie.

Then Kirara cannot be concidered real, for the orignal creators did not intend for her.
But like I said, I think Kopa is real.

Kiara wasn't intented by the original creators, that is very true, but she is real for the movies because of how she was made.

Fact: The original creators didn't believe anyone would care about the film in the first place. They say that on the commentary track or in the bonus feature documentaries, can't remember in which. The cub is a character that appears on the screen for five seconds at the end of a story that evidently was not intented to be continued.

Natural result: The character's identity was not important at all and thus it wasn't decided but left as genderless Fluffy.

Fact: The book universe's books contradict each others, thus Kopa is not the only son Simba and Nala have in the book universe while all the books in it are equally official.

Natural result: Kopa can not be claimed to be real for the films any more validly than any other version of the cub in the other books.

Fact: Kopa was not created by any of Disney's film makers or anyone at Disney at all.

Fact: The cub was still called Fluffy even after Kopa and all the other sons existed in the books--meaning the original creators didn't accept Kopa nor the gender from the book universe.

Fact: Disney's movie studios decided to make a movie sequel after all and thus Fluffy needed a real identity. Hence, the keyword: real.

Fact: Both movies are Disney's official movies made by Disney's movie creators and thus the sequel becomes a valid part of the official story that is the movie universe (minus the TLK1½ which ic evidently meant as a parody.)

Fact: In the sequel's official trailer, Kiara was literally pointed out as the cub from the first film, as in Kiara became officially its real identity. Because it can't have two identities in one story.

The official identity could be debatable only if the original creators hadn't refered to the cub as anything and if the sequel's creators hadn't put the same cub into their official trailer. But they all did all that.

Result: Kopa, Kiara and Fluffy are all real in the general TLK Universe, but only Fluffy and Kiara exist in the movie universe. But then again as Fluffy isn't an actual identity for a character, it is down to only Kiara existing in the movie universe. As in you have genderless Fluffy only if you ignore the sequel completely.

Technically, both characters are real.

Kopa = Real in The Lion King: Six New Adventures (book)
Kiara = Real in The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (film)

I don't understand why suddenly there's a heated debate over this.

Because this topic is not about if they both are real in themselves in general. Look at the poll question and the question asked in the original post: they are provoking a debate about the cub at the end of the film and if it's really Kopa or Kiara. So, the OP was literally asking for a debate, and debates may naturally sometimes become heated.

Sorry for random question, but did Simba really have any other kids that Kopa and Kiara(and maybe mysterious Fluffy at the end of TLK)? Who are they?

Well, not really--they are Fluffies as in whoever a reader wants them to be--exept that they can't realistically be Kopa.

Example 1:

The book "Friends In Need" has Mufasa first meet Zazu by saving Zazu from Banzai, Shenzi and Ed, and then grateful Zazu following him and helping him and after Zazu helps him save Sarabi's life, Mufasa realizes the bird is very useful and because of this makes Zazu the royal councelor.

Whereas in the books "The Six New Adventures" wherein Kopa appears, Zazu had become the royal counsellor by her mother being Mufasa's father's counsellor.

^These two stories contradict each others and thus Fluffy in "Friend In Need" story's future could not be Kopa. But then again, it could be Kiara because Fluffy's gender isn't defined in it.

Example 2:

Don't know the names but I read there are other storybooks (and I seem to recall reading one such myself as a child) that tell how Rafiki presented Mufasa to the Pridelands when Mufasa was a baby. There are TENS of The Lion King storybooks--retellings of the film as well as new stories--all from dfifferent authors, so that is entirely possible and even likely.

Whereas in "The Six New Adventures" Rafiki first came to the Pridelands when Mufasa was a teenager. Again, the books contradict and thus Simba's child in those other stories could not be Kopa. If it could be Kiara, I don't know as I don't know if the cub's gender is defined in those stories. If it is defined as a boy, then yes, there are other unnamed children in the book universe. When I find out the names of those stories/that story, I'll let you know.

Honestly? I believe both are real, they are both included in something so that's my verdict :3

However, thinking about it realisticly (any huge TLK fans and Simba x Nala supporters may kill me for this) Simba would probably have many other cubs in his life as king aswell and Kopa and Kiara, not by Nala either. It's what lions do, that's why I support people who make Simba x Vitani cubs and so on c: (This might not have anything to do with the topic, but thought I'd post it anyway 83)

I just wish to remind you that we are not talking about real life lions who mate 50 times a day with several mates and almost around a year. We are talking about Disney lions in human-like kingdom setting. While they do follow real life lions' habits and biology to some extent, I think it's obvious thrir mating habits is not one of them. Because if it was, the whole point of the original The Lion King would completely fail because any of Mufasa's assumed cubs could've come and claimed the throne and killing Simba would've gained nothing certain for Scar. In fact, Scar said he was the first in line until Simba was born. So it is evident Simba was Mufasa's only child. Also, if Simba was morally allowed to and interested in mating with just anyone in his pride or outside it, he would, instead of having only Kiara who he feels the need to over-protect.

Another evidence of this is that they know and apply the concept of marriage--even to the degree of arranged-since-infancy marriages.

So, no, Disney's TLK lions evidently do not mate like real life lions. So if Simba was to have many other cubs in his life, they would be by Nala.

Simba's Pride's makers have officially confirmed that in their story the cub from the first film IS Kiara. In this official article they say "It starts off where the first film left us with a twist - you think it's a king but it's a queen!" And remark also that he says that we THINK it's a boy, not that it actually was in the film itself. But the point is, one of the animators has confirmed that the cub from the first film IS Kiara in their story.