Animation Source Forums

Right so lately i have noticed that people who are complaning how Simba and Nala different to how they look in the first movie. Here's my Theory:

Nala was left to grow up in a time were there was no food and no water, causing her to not get the right nutrition she need to fully grow. So she dosnt look like she is supposed to?

Same goes for Simba, unless Timon and Pumbaa turned their back every so often so he could eat meat, then he was living on bugs for the main part of his life meaning he didnt get the nutrtion he needed. When they returned to Pride Rock and everything got better they ate all the food they needed and grew into the chracters they are in SP. TAH DAH!

Interesting theory, Thamani, but the truth is, the makers of Simba's Pride were lazy and paid no real attention to the way the makers of the first movie created the characters so they made the character sloppy in the second film.

yes simba's pride is made in australia

[quote="Nala66"]yes simba's pride is made in australia

No Simba's pride is not made in Australia it's made in America

Either the creators didn't really pay attention, and gave the lions some changes as they grew up. Interesting theory though.
apparently, everything got tinged with blue to match the "darker" storyline, which might also explain the colour changes.

Actually, Simba's Pride was indeed animated by the Walt Disney Animation Australia studio. Some work was done in America as well of course, but the Australian company played a big part. Fun fact.

Hey,

Just like to say first great theory!

However I have to objective... Like most people have said, the creators were far too lazy to even look back on the couple's appearences in the first movie. Therefore that is why they looked different.

Sure, like you said, yes some of the some what starving and then suddenly eating again would effect their shape and weight however not that much.

Basically the colours, shape and just them themselves didn't appear right in the second movie.

I think the change of appearance was due to them getting older from when they were in the first film. Or eating more as was mentioned earlier in the discussion. However I like Simba better in the second one because he has filed out more and gotten bulkier (muscle wise)

It was Made in Australia. Back on Topic , Simba and Nala Looked So Different Because Different Animators Worked on The Movie , and it was also low Budget , so They Couldn't Make it like The First Movie.

I really don't know anything about the Lion King films since I'm not really a fan of them (I used to be a fan of the first film when I was little, trust me lol), but this should be a no-brainer. Coming up with all these theories to as of why they look different is over-analyzing. I highly doubt that the production crew sat down and discussed that they should look skinny because they didn't have the proper nutrition. The actual reason is the animation crew was not the same. And since this was a low-budget film, the animation crew isn't always going to be the best. But I will say I don't think the art quality of the 2nd movie is bad, it's certainly better than what you see in Balto 2.

Alright so to clarify In the second movie they had second rate animation people so they spent less time animating the correct context of samba and nala like thy did in the first movie. Hence Nalas eyes are blue instead of teal. Next item to consider. The amimatores are paid to draw there version of how they think samba and Nala are. Nextly, In the first movie they used real lions to model the ones seen in the movie. That's the tech part of this.

I hope this clarifies