The Problems with The Lion King II Simba's Pride AMW Page, and why the Movie Shouldn't Be here. (Opinion/Rant?)
Heya guys, Beastars Fan here, and today is a very important. and kinda another thing that has been bugging me since I came to these wikis, Unlike Raya and the Last Dragon. which I talked about the problems of the AMW Page on that Film before. and about the flaws of the Reception Wikis in general. And a lot of people did support it (Thanks for 6 upvotes, I really appreciate it.) and how I wanted to see better from the Reception Wikis in the future, today I will discuss another Underrated film similar to Raya, which I do understand the flaws of. But did seem.... Kinda Harsh, and a little, Nitpicky to say the least. Some of the reasons fell incomplete. and kinda felt like a CinemaSins review of this film that is today considered the most Underrated and Mostly-beloved-by-the-fanbase Lion King Sequel, Lion King 2: Simba's Pride.
FreezingTNT Months ago moved the Film along with it's other Sequel, Lion King 3: Hakuna Matata (Lion King 1/2 actually.) and I was a little bit confused on why, He said he moved it because it had a lot of Bad Qualities. I looked over the Bad Qualities of Simba's Pride, and the reasons seemed... Untrue and feels a little bit like a Nitpicky Blog review other than just Talking why the Film is bad. Now I am not trying to BlackLash against FreezingTNT Or anyone who hates this film. I'm fine with people hating this film, it's their opinion. And I'm only trying to defend it not in a Toxic Fan-Boy Matter, but a understanding matter of What the Page lacks, and why it feels more like a personal opinion article than just a Article for a So-Called "Average" Movie, And why Lion King II: Simba's Pride was actually better than What most People remembered.
Just like the Raya and the Last Dragon Page Response, I'm going to talk about the flaws of the Page, and what we can learn about why the Page is a little.... well harsh to say the least to the Film. And talk about what Information they didn't get right, or Reasons that needed more Explanation in my opinion..
First the Page itself: It doesn't feel Complete, as just as i said, It feels like a personal opinion article a little to me other than a Article for so-called "Awful" or "Average" Movies. There is No "Reception" Heading, which makes it difficult to explain why Lion King 2 is So-called "Bad". and There are only 3 Videos to valid their claims. As most of the Videos seem like Unpopular Opinions other than Most Pages which have a lot of Videos to explain how people "Hated" or were "Neutral" to the Film.
Now The Caption: "A not-so-good follow-up to one of the greatest films in the Disney Renaissance era, let alone one of the greatest films produced by Disney."
My Response: Okay, to begin, This feels a little harsh and kinda not really true at all. The Lion King II: Simba's Pride was actually considered by Most Disney and Fans of the Lion King and The Lion Guard to be the "Greatest" Direct-to-Video Films Of all time made by Disney. and was even a Cult Classic as of today. Most People praised the film for it's faithful followup to the 1994 Film. and even considered way better than The Third Movie, which I was going to talk about the flaws of that page on on here too. But I might do that in another blog. Anyway, it's one of those "Better" Disney Direct-To-Video sequels than Jungle Book 2, Fox And The Hound 2, The Little Mermaid 3, and other Sequels that People might have Hated. It's also Decent similar to Cinderella 3, and The Little Mermaid 2, which is rumored to be moving to AMW because it was removed from GMW for unknown Reasons. and I'm kinda worried about that, Because a lot of Disney fans really love those films. and maybe even most people from the Reception Wikis consider these films to be underrated and should deserve more love. FreezingTNT Made a Kinda misunderstanding Statement About that the People who enjoy Lion King 2 and these Films don't recognize the Flaws or Bad Qualities, Which in my opinion is just a very Misunderstood statement, Not a bad one, But a little bit Misunderstanding.
Just to tell you, Most Flaws of a Film are mostly hard to point out unless you were a real Critic. to be honest, Sometimes these critics can even Pick out flaws that feel like untrue nitpicks other than True Flaws, which made me feel a little bit bad that Lion King 2 had to be here instead of GMW where it used to be in. Plus, since he added Lion king 3, I am also concerned Little Mermaid II Would also be here despite Disney Fans loving and praising those Films today, And it feels like Awful Movies Wiki is trying to add "Underrated" or "Films that deserved Better" Movies here with Reasons that seem as it came from a CinemaSins or Nostalgia Critic Video. And I am really concerned about this, I'll talk about this more after I talk about the flaws with each so-called Bad Quality and Why they feel a little Nitpicky.
Now with the Reasons:
1. The story is very predictable, with it being just another generic retelling of Romeo and Juliet; while the previous film was loosely based on The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, the latter was never adapted into multiple works repeatedly the way Romeo and Juliet was.
My Response: This Reason feels a little bit misunderstanding and kinda Harsh to say the Least, first off, How is the Story Predictable? and yes it is based on Romeo and Juliet, But the First Movie wasn't based on Hamlet Either. While yeah, It had Simliarties To Hamlet, Such as The Uncle killing the Prince's Father, and the Prince gets revenge for it. But the (Based on Hamlet) Thing isn't true. According to Fatherly.com's article, Which is linked here: https://www.fatherly.com/play/what-is-the-lion-king-based-on-the-answer-isnt-hamlet-shakespeare/ The Lion King isn't based on Hamlet. Instead being based a little on Joseph and Moses from the Bible. While yeah, the Filmmakers themselves said it was based off Hamlet, But it isn't the "Same" as Hamlet despite having some Coincidences and Similarities. Jon Solo even himself said in his "Messed Up Origins Of The Lion King" Video in which he gives out differences between the two and debunks the Theory completly, The Film also is loosely (while not confirmed) based on Osiris and other Legends and Myths from Egyptian Folklore. And The Idea of a Adaptaion of Romeo and Juliet isn't really a bad thing. and it isn't Generic, as unlike in the Original Shakesphere Play, the Couple had a tragic Death. While in the Film, The Couple (Kiara and Kovu) Are still Alive and end up together. It is basically a interesting retelling, not a generic retelling, Like we hadn't had any Retellings of Romeo and Juliet with Happy Endings except For Gnoemo and Juliet and other Adaptations. But still, this reason feels a little harsh with no Sources to back up it's claims whatsoever.
2. On the topic of unoriginality, while it isn't exactly a full-on rehash of the previous film, it still rehashes specific elements from the previous film; for example: Both films open with animals slowly heading towards Pride Rock to see the presentation of the Lion King's new cub.
Nuka is a rehash of Scar, as both characters are lions who are jealous of their respective siblings being destined as the future king.
The father tells his child not to go to a specific location because it is awful, and the child disobeys their father; the father then scolds the child after the latter disobeyed their father and the former points out how they could've been killed.
A group of animals plan to overthrow the Lion King by manipulating his offspring into trusting a core member of the aforementioned group.
My Response: I could understand this flaw a little, Yeah they did recycle some ideas. But in a good way to say the least, But, they didn't do it to the entire story completely, For The First Example, It supposed to have animals cheering on the birth of Simba and Nala's Daughter Kiara (Kopa does not show because The Filmmakers didn't knew who he was, and Kion didn't show because he didn't exist yet in the Franchise.) Because if you seen at the end of the First Film, they did the same thing, Cheer on Simba and Nala's Newborn Cub. And the Beginning of the Sequel does The Same Thing, So it basically didn't rehash, it just Picked up how the first Film ended, Basically the same Ending Scene, with the Introduction to the Idenitiy of the Cub. It picks up after the last film left off, not recycled it. And The Second Example is just A little Concidence, While yeah, Nuka is jealous that Kovu is gonna become King after he tries to "Defeat" Simba. But it doesn't mean it rehashed Scar and Mufasa's Relationship from the first Film, Plus. He was only jealous because Kovu was chosen instead of Him despite being the Oldest. Maybe you need to understand the Lore of the Lion King Universe a little? and the Third Example I can understand a little, but, Feels a little misunderstanding. Simba wanted Kiara not to go to the Outlands because he is afraid of her Getting attacked by the Evil Lions who live there, Unlike in the Lion King, Where Mufusa doesn't let Simba go there because the Hyenas would attack him. It's just a Coincidence, So what's the big deal? And the Fourth Reason I could understand a little too, But still feels a little misunderstood and incomplete, The Groups of Animals to overthrow the King isn't the same here at all. in the Original, Scar Sends his Hyenas to Overthrow Mufasa, Which they Succeeded, But in Lion King 2, That Sort-of-similarity doesn't come until Later, in which Zira Sends the Outlanders to go attack And Kill Simba, But unlike Succeeding, Kovu and Kiara stop them and Zira is defeated. So, what did they rehash? The Winning of the Villain to the throne? No they didn't... It is a Villain Loses part of Similarity unlike the Original One from the First film. So, this feels like a incomplete Reasoning other than a true Reasoning to say the least, Just to say.
3. While the animation is mostly impressive for a direct-to-video film, it tends to appear very odd at times, with some of the facial expressions, notably Timon's hurt nose expanding and shrinking repeatedly in pain after a bird pecks it or when an afraid Zazu warns Simba that his and Zira's prides will go to war against each other, appearing a bit over-the-top in comparison to in the previous film. The fire that appears in the climax of the previous film was fearful and animated impressively, and one can feel the danger of the fire; here, it looks far too realistic and thus out-of-place in a traditionally-animated film.
Upon looking at the characters, it seems as though they lack finishing touches and do not have as varied of a color pallete. Much of the visuals and colors are more... shaded than in the original; this is obvious in scenes set in daytime.
My Response: It looks odd a little because the Filmmakers wanted to try something new than the old Animation from the Original, Plus it was the Late 90s, So. What's the problem with that? And Disney had a history of putting Comedyish Funny Faces/Pause-The-Screen Funny Faces in their Films throughout the years. And Plus, what is wrong with making Fire realistic in a Traditionally-Animated Film? I mean, I know the Film wasn't made digitally, But Films were starting to improve alot throughout the late 0s and early 2000s. And The Colors are Shaded unlike the Original because they wanted to improve stuff, And that is with Films made in the late 90s than the early 90s, Haven't you seen Later Films with a simIlar Structure in the early-to-Late 2000s?
4. here are several problems with the characters:
Simba, while reasonable, is slightly unlikable, as he is portrayed as a bit of a jerk in a way it does go a little far. He is also yet another generic "overprotective father".
Kiara is also another typical "rebellious daughter" character.
Zira, while impressive, is not as memorable or menacing as Scar in the previous film; she is also yet another generic antagonist who wants revenge on another character for their deeds that occurred prior to the events of the film. She and her lionesses also pretty much come out from nowhere, as neither of them appear anywhere nor are even mentioned in the previous film; one could argue they were away during the events of The Lion King, but the viewer needs to understand why, so it'd be less jarring.
Nala and Zazu, two major characters from the previous film, are heavily underutilized and have very little screentime.
Nuka and Vitani are also not only underutilized, but also very underdeveloped. The former also feels like a reject who cannot be taken seriously, and there is a lack of emotional connection with him, as he is a buffoon and klutz who whines about his jealousy and talks about Kovu behind his back throughout the movie. Nuka is also written very inappropriately as comic relief, scratching off termites, burning into a ring of fire, and having his face be blown off by a geyser.
Timon and Pumbaa take over Zazu's role as babysitter to watch over Kiara, which goes against and contradicts their character traits in the previous film, especially bearing in mind as to how they basically raised Simba for most of his life: in the previous film, although they were comic reliefs, they were also smart characters who are self-sufficient and have survival instincts, which have led them to get as far as what they have; here, they are portrayed as idiots who don't know how to look after a lion cub or do it efficiently.
My Response: Like Most of AMW Pages criticizing Characters, even if they weren't meant to be bad. This Reason and the Examples about the Characters are Just Harsh and a little Mean-Spirited to the Returning and Newly-Introduced Characters in the Film.
Let's Explain Example 1: Simba is not a Jerk, and he isn't a Unlikeable Character, he is just very Misunderstood to say the least. And plus he was only Overprotective to Kiara Because he Thought the Outlands were bad People because of what Scar did to his Father and Pride Rock In the first Film, and is worried that Kiara would be Hurt, or even worse, Killed by the Outlanders.. The People that Scar Lived with in the first Lion King, Even though they weren't shown in the first one. They had to add a new Story to build somewhat a Franchise with Lore and History to explore. and Simba just Didn't Understand, and he was only Trying to Protect his Daughter because of Scar, and the horrors he has done to his family in the Original. He was just Misunderstood, and he later Changed and Accepted Kovu And Outlanders into his Family at the end of the Film, and was originally going to make them king at the end of Lion Guard. he is still a lovable Character in the film, He just had a Sad and Dark Past. and this Example just feels way too Mean-Spritied than just explaining on why he is unlikable. and Plus another reason why he is Overprotective because he Reminds Kiara of himself and Nala as kids doing the same things. So how is he Unlikable?
Example 2: Kiara is not a "rebellious daughter" character. She only wanted to see More outside of Pride Lands, and Doesn't want to just be a "Lion Princess" or "Future Queen" Because She is basically Just Curious about the Outside World. And Plus, there was a older Version of this Reason which was way more harsh Calling her a "Bland Protagonist" Which looked like as if it was written by a Member of the Toxic Kiara Hatebase And Kopa Fanbase. Kiara is not a bad Character, and is basically Lovable, as she was Praised and Loved by most fans of the Lion King. She does have a very Awful Hatebase from Kopa Fanboys on Deviantart and other websites using the "Kiara in Danger" and other Hateful Clubs that bash the Character for no reason at all. I know she was a little Unlikable in the First Seasons of the Lion Guard, But She still is a very Underrated Character that deserves love. The Same can be said for Other Characters that are misunderstoodly Hated by Fans, yet they don't understand the backstory. For Example, Scrappy-Doo did not Ruin Scooby-Doo or Killed the Series. He was originally created to save the Franchise from getting Cancelled, and The creators of the Later Seasons/Shows are actually at fault for Fred, Daphne, and even Velma being cut from the Series at the time. Not Scrappy Himself, More can be Explained Here: https://www.deviantart.com/tailsandspike4ex/art/Grinds-my-Gears-The-Hate-for-Scrappy-Doo-766766634
Example 3: Zira is a Memorable Character from Fans of the Lion King itself, While yeah, she would be Forgotten to Disney Fans that aren't fans of the Lion King, But she is still a favorite Villain from the Fanbase. She is also not a Generic Antagonist, she only wanted to kill Simba and make Kovu King because she was Disgusted of Simba killing Scar. and wanted to Get revenge on him and making Kovu the Rightful King. While Scar in the Lion King wanted to Kill Mufasa so himself could be king, Not so that a Offspring of Him could be king. There's a difference in that, And Plus. She and the Outlander Lions and Lionness were added to the Sequel and didn't appear in the First Lion King Because Lion King 2 wasn't even in development, or even existed at the time. The Filmmakers wanted to expand the World by adding new Characters, Locations, and others in. What is wrong with adding new ideas?
Example 4: Nala And Zazu didn't appear often because it's how the story is written, They still make Normal Appearances throughout the Film. and Nala is still a Main Supporting Character along with Zazu, so how is this even a bad quality to begin with?
Example 5: Okay. just like the Kiara and Simba Reason. This Reason feels too Harsh on Nuka and Vitani, as it gives out Harsh and Nitpicky/Biased Reasons to Criticize the Characters for no reason at all. Like "The former also feels like a reject who cannot be taken seriously, and there is a lack of emotional connection with him, as he is a buffoon and klutz who whines about his jealousy and talks about Kovu behind his back throughout the movie." Feels like as if it was written by The Nostalgia Critic. and also doesn't even say anything about Vitani at all. Which makes this Example incomplete and nitpicky to say the least. Plus the Comic Relief isn't Even a bad thing, as Disney Films sometimes put that in their Films sometimes about Characters doing goofy Slapstick Things. Haven't you seen Films like Aladdin with the Genie or even Mickey Mouse and his Friends doing Comical/Funny stuff like Dropping Anvils on heads and stuff Before? Maybe you need to understand how Disney Films work to be honest, no offense.
Example 6: I Know Timon and Pumbaa's Traits have been Changed, But the Reason why they were sent to babysit Kiara instead of Zazu was because Simba trusted Timon and Pumbaa and were his best friends when he was cub. and Thought that they would take care of her like they did in the First Film. And They were not portrayed as idiots in the Film, They were just not paying attention when they were fighting each other. Which is a common trait for (Leaving your Protector when they are looking.) So how is that even a bad thing? They are still likable characters regardless.
5. Mediocre soundtrack that lacks the charm and intensity of the one by Hans Zimmer for The Lion King.
My Response: The Soundtrack is NOT Mediocre! It had a lot of Good songs in it that were loved by fans alike, such as "He Lives In You" and "We are One" and Hans Zimmer didn't just write the entire Soundtrack for the Lion King, as Elton John wrote some songs for it too. This Reason feels like a Harsh Unpopular Opinion Rather than explaining why the Soundtrack is bad.
6. Most of the songs, while decent-ish, do not hold up well in comparison to songs such as "Circle of Life", "Hakuna Matata", "I Just Can't Wait To Be King", and "Be Prepared".
"He Lives in You" is rather moody and slow as an opener song for a sequence that tries to imitate the opening sequence of The Lion King.
"Upendi" is also rather unnecessary, as we not only already know Rafiki's intentions to get Kovu and Kiara together, but also have already seen Kovu and Kiara interact with each other so much to the point where they have great chemistry.
My Response: Well, I will agree that They do not Hold up well in Comparison to the Old Songs, But They are supposed to be different and they are actually better than the Original songs from the first Film. "He Lives in You" Actually is from the Album inspired by the Film "Rhythm of the Pride Lands" by Lebo M, as well as Broadway Musical Adaption of the First Film, and is actually amazingly well done and also appears in the 2019 remake as well. and as for "Upend" (which means love In Swahili.) Is basically played when Rafiki tries to get Kovu and Kiara together Because he really think they could become a couple in the future and bring peace between the Pride Lands And Outlands. Just like Reason 5, This Reason feels like a Unpopular Opinion, and doesn't give out sources to back up it's claims whatsoever.
7. Parts of the editing are really poor, to the point where one can easily tell that parts of the plot were changed last minute; Zira was supposed to intentionally kill herself (but was presumably cut for being too dark for a children's film), hence the more maniac-like look on her face during her fall in the final cut.
My Response: She makes That Maniac-Look on her face, Because if you understand Zira's Character More. She is not just evil, but also Insane to say the least. and they Left it there (Which I could be wrong) in the final film because they wanted to show out her more Insane Cletus Kassady-Like Personality. and Some Films have The Villains smiling in a Maniac/Crazy Manner before they Die. So what is wrong with that? How is that even bad to begin with?
8. Despite getting much of the original cast back, the performances of most of the cast members, aside from Suzanne Pleshette, all sound bored, with the performance of Edward Hibbert, who voices Zazu in the film, being a bit of a step-down from Rowan Atkinson's performance as Zazu in the previous film.
My Response: They replaced Rowan Atkinson with Edward Hibbert because Rowan Atkinson because of contractual obligations and scheduling conflicts. and plus the Voice Actors didn't really sound bored at all. Well, they might sound Different because of age, But it really makes no sense to say the least. So how is that even a bad thing?
9. The time skip not only feels confusing, but also muddies the pacing of the story. In the original film, the time skip during the iconic "walking on the log" scene worked, mainly because one can easily see the narrative purpose it serves; Scar and his hyenas are having their role of terror, and Simba has to reclaim his birthright, but he is too small and young, so it makes sense to age him up before he does so.
Now, it can be assumed that they try to do this with Kovu, who needs to become more older and powerful to take on Simba, but they establish the time skip weirdly early... but also too late at the same time; this means most of the film is spent with the older Kovu and Kiara, leaving the first twenty-six minutes of the film to feel more like a flashback than an actual part of the main storyline. Flashbacks can be effective with a good narrative purpose, but it lasts for... twenty-six minutes rather than a brief period of time.
My Response: Okay this Reason makes kinda no sense, and has no Explanation to why The Time Skip is Confusing or Mudding the Pacing of the Story. Plus the Beginning of the Film isn't necessary a flashback, as I said with the Reasoning of why the Animals cheer on Simba and Nala's New Daughter Kiara like they do with Sarabi and Mufasa at the beginning of the film. Is because they begin with what the first Film left off. And The Time Skip is included there Because it's more important to the story other than the Beginning Parts. So, is it a bad thing? No it isn't.. and Sometimes Flashbacks do have longer Times than other Flashbacks in other Media. This can be Explained more with Prequel Movies, or Prequel Episodes of a Cartoon or TV Show. Or Parts of a Movie where the Protagonist is Younger first, and would last for a period of the film until the end, Like for Example, there are films with Kid Protagionists which are told by a Narrator who is the Older Version of the Protagonist, such as The Polar Express and The Netflix Christmas Musical Movie Jingle Jangle: a Christmas Journey. and Sometimes Films do begin with a Backstory to clear up what's happening. Is this a bad thing? Heck no!
10. Several plot holes and inconsistencies, including: Kiara is supposed to be the infant cub seen at the end of the previous film (who was implied to be male; in fact, Kopa from The Lion King: Six New Adventures, the non-canon continuation of the original film before the release of Simba's Pride, was both male and implied to be the cub shown in the end of The Lion King), but her color is inconsistent with the aforementioned infant cub; (most) lions with the "brown-ish gold"-colored fur, as Pumbaa describes Simba in the previous film, are supposed to be male, while the females are supposed to have lighter fur.
It is established near the beginning of the film that Kovu was personally hand-picked by Scar as his heir to the throne, but it goes against his character in the previous film, in which he was portrayed as a narcissistic loner who only valued others for self-gain, not to mention that he never outspokenly said he had plans for a new bloodline upon becoming king; all Scar wanted was to be pampered and privileged.
It is unclear as to why the spirit of Mufasa would have to get Rafiki to get Kovu and Kiara to unite Simba and Zira's prides rather than convince Simba himself to do so. Even Kiara succeeded in reminding Simba of his "We are one" notion, so why can't Mufasa?
Zira's plan to set up the fire to get Kovu to save Kiara and have him bond with her so he can get closer to Simba and kill him is not only convoluted, but also pointless, since she can just lure Simba there and have the fire burn him to death.
After Kiara simply reminds Simba that Zira's lionesses "are them" and asks him what differences he sees, it somehow resolves all of the disputes and divides over Scar, with almost everyone agreeing to all get along from this point onward.
My Response: just like with the Other Reasons, This Reason also feels like it was written by a Person who doesn't understand the lore of The Lion King and the Lion Guard at all, and some of them don't even give out reasons to why they are bad to begin with. Basically, let's start with the so-called "Examples" Again like the Others.
Example 1: Okay, this Example about Kiara is kinda Nonsensical and doesn't give out any Additional Information other than just being Picked as Female instead of Male In Development, and also Having a Lighter Color after the change Than in the Original Film. As I said, The Lion King 2 didn't exist or was In Development yet at the time. Even though it was planned in 1994 before the Film was released in Theaters that same year. And they had to change Some stuff from the Original before making The Sequel, Which is what Most Filmmakers do when planning something. What is wrong with Development Changes or Franchise Changes?
Example 2: That's because The Outsiders didn't exist in the Original Film at that time, and They changed that About Scar because. as I said, They had to change Stuff from The Original Film Because they wanted a better Storyline or Universe they want to Create for Fans to Explore and Learn more about..
Example 3: Mufasa Tells Rafiki That Instead of Simba because he didn't wanted his Son To act foolish against him. and Simba would Refuse to listen to Mufusa if he said that, So he Tells Rafiki it because Rafiki was basically his Trustworthy Friend of some sorts. and Plus Mufasa wanted the Outlands and Pride Lands to live in peace because Even though he might not forgive Scar for killing him in the Previous Film, He still Loved and Cared for Scar. and according to Fantheories, It is possible that he wanted his Brother to act more better, and Wanted Him to be there for him, instead of just being a disrespectful jealous evil lion.
Example 4: It's Because Simba is Smart, and he isn't stupid enough to do that! and if he was trying to Chase after Zira only for her to make him fall into the Fire and Burn to Death, that would just be Stupid and Would Ruin the Film because Simba would be killed off, and Would Ruin The Lion Guard Storyline Entirely. Like what the heck? How is this even a bad quality at all?
Example 5: This One doesn't have any Reason to why it's "A Bad Example." As Kiara says the Lionesses "Are them" to Simba about the Outlanders Because the Outlanders are Lions too and the Same Species, and they had a rough Life and Past throughout the Original Film (Though they didn't exist at the time.) and Simba wanted to Do what is right for Them instead of them being treated horribly and starved to death instead of Being in a Place where their own Kind live, and live in peace. How is it a bad thing of Simba realizes that the Outlanders are not like Scar at all, and just had a Rough Life to change his Mind at all? this makes no sense at all...
11. Kovu's realization of his and Zira's intentions after spending some time with Kiara feels rather rushed, as the time between his intentions to attack Simba and this specific scene lasts for... three minutes of the film's runtime.
My Response: .....Okay It isn't really Rushed, and it Only shows that he is ready to Attack Simba, It only lasts for Three Minutes, because if you hadn't listened to the Song Before. Maybe you'll understand how he Got ready to attack Simba. This is just Preparation, Not a Rushed Thing. Like is this even a bad thing? If it is. Then how?
12. At times, the film is also heavy-handed, when it comes to specific elements and details:
The awkward way it drops major characters' names, specifically when Simba and Zira address each other by name during her introduction scene, or when Nala and Vitani briefly interact with each other in the film's climax.
The patronizing exposition dumps which occur in the middle of specific scenes, notably when Nuka rants about how Kovu isn't even Scar's son and that he just took him in. During the "Upendi" sequence, Rafiki literally has to spell out the blossoming romance between Kovu and Kiara; it also literally has to end with Kiara realizing how "upendi" actually means "love".
My Response: The Introduction Scene with the Major Character Names isn't a bad thing, as it is kinda Hilarious at the end when Timon and Pumbaa say their name. As I was saying, They were doing that Because Simba and Zira (which even though its unknown if they knew each other at the end of the first film. Because the Outlanders didn't exist at the time.) Possibly knew each other prior to the events of the Film. and Also the Nuka rants thing is actually more understanding if you watched a little more. as I Said and others said, He is jealous with Kovu and wanted to be the king, Not Kovu. and the Upendi part of the Reason really feels incomplete and makes no sense, and Kiara just didn't know What Swahili Meant at the time of that Scene, Plus what is wrong with Rafiki trying to teach Kiara and Kovu about love? Nothing? Alright then.
13. Zira's motivations are fundamentally flawed: she intends to take the throne and run it similarly to Scar, but the problem with that is that Scar is a terrible leader who did not even know whose power is poorly-handled and didn't know the proper ways of running a kingdom to the point where his hyenas were picking up the pieces.
It is also never explained, implied or even inferable as to what Zira admired about Scar or what she expects to gain when grasping the throne, and it weakens her motivations even more.
My Response: Her Motivations aren't really Flawed, and She Is simliar to Scar in her Personality except More Insane and Evil. and what Zira Admired about Scar is because it's implied she also hated Mufusa and was Jealous of him, Even though she didn't exist yet in the Previous Film.
So yeah, as I said, The Page feels like a Unpopular Opinion article with Kinda harsh Reasons and No "Reception" Heading, and there are only 3 Videos to back up their so-called claims of why Lion King II is bad. Just to tell you, I really don't think this film should be on here. Because a lot of People who loved the original Film loved it, and it was also one of the reasons why the Lion King Fanbase grew in Popularity. and I feel like The So-called Bad Qualities that FreezingTNT Claimed to have found felt like they were made up with no Sources to back up their claims. The Film should be brought back to Greatest Movies Wiki along with Little Mermaid 2 And Maybe Lion King 1/4 Because Disney Fans called them The "Good Side of Direct-To-Video Disney Sequels" and they deserved better than just being forgotten. as I said at the beginning of this article, It's okay if you hate Lion King II, it's your opinion. It's okay if you disagree, But it is kinda important if you understand a little. Because, well, Just to tell you something. Just because a film has many Bad Qualities doesn't mean it's a terrible Film. Some Films have flaws in it, But they are hard to notice unless you were a true critic. But still, Movies are meant to be enjoyed. Whatever you like them, or hate them. It's okay if you want to talk about your Opinion, I really hope you guys understand... If you don't, You can read my Raya and the Last Dragon AMW Page Response here: https://awfulmovies.miraheze.org/wiki/Blog:Why_Raya_And_The_Last_Dragon_should_not_be_here,_and_the_Problem_with_the_%22Just_Because_a_Film_has_a_good_Reputation_doesn%27t_mean_it%27s_good%22_Rule_and_the_Reception_Wikis_themselves_(Rant_of_sorts%3F)
Thanks for reading and have a great day guys.