By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies Discussion - The "Original Story" - The Kimba VS Simba Controversy, Disney The Lying King

Tagged games:

 

How do you feel with these

I feel betrayed 1 3.23%
 
My Childhood is a lie 1 3.23%
 
Disney is worst and Evil 7 22.58%
 
Murica 0 0%
 
I don't care i support plagiarisme 3 9.68%
 
LOL you are late to the party 19 61.29%
 
Total:31
NightlyPoe said:
DonFerrari said:
To claim Kimba or japanese animation as cheap is very low from someone that claim to study animation.

Don't deflect.  Kimba's animation in the 1960s was very limited and obviously had a low budget.  And Japanese animators were still many years away from developing the modern anime techniques to overcome those constraints.

But the thing is several times people end up plagiarizing without even not noticing themselves because it became ingrained in their memory. And other parts is taking several small cuts as reference. You don't want to call it rip-off your right, but don't just try to hammer it down as non-sense.

Both myself and the video acknowledged the possibility of a few visuals being shared, though there's no actual evidence of it.  However, the notion that it is a rip-off does need to be hammered down because, in the end, it's just an internet myth that doesn't even make sense to anyone who has watched a few episodes of the series.

No deflection. It is simply unnecessary to do an attack on Kimba and call it cheap (and it have connotation of bad not only low budget). As an animator you should have respect for Osamu Tezuka instead of the need to do this type of attack.

Your interpretation of rip-off seem a little narrow. And also it isn't just internet myth, this was covered a lot before internet. The first I heard of this case I think was on magazines on late 90s.

And I woud say that what need to be put down is the idea that they didn't use Kimba at all since they refuse to credit it there is every right to claim they ripped it off.

Last edited by DonFerrari - on 28 May 2020

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network

I knew about this in 1994. Lion King was still an excellent film.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

sundin13 said:

I never really looked too hard into this controversy, but I was definitely someone who believed it from hearing the murmurings or watching some cheap two minute youtube mashup. I watched this video yesterday and the whole thing I'd say was a pretty fascinating look into not just the controversy, but it also hints at some interesting stuff in our own psychology which lead us to believe these things without having the information necessary to make such a judgement.

I feel a bit weird now using this as my conclusive opinion as I still have not watched Kimba, but I have to say that I'm convinced that The Lion King was not a Kimba ripoff.

That officially published book by Madhavi Sunder, which included several inaccuracies, listed old youtube links as it's sources. I definitely don't think you should feel bad. Especially when this video is a whole lot more well sourced and comprehensive.



DonFerrari said:
JWeinCom said:

If you believe this, the best thing to do would be to actually watch some of Kimba.  It's so overwhelmingly different that at best you could argue that Lion King took a few isolated shots from it.  If you had 100 different teams all tasked explicitly with making a movie based on Kimba but changed enough to avoid a lawsuit, I doubt any of them would come up with something similar to Lion King.

Your same argument could be said to Slam Dunk and several others copyright claim infringment and would still not invalidate that one series used the other as basis or ripped it.

I actually think that something being wildly different from the material it allegedly is copying would actually invalidate the claim that there was copyright infringement. Even if the Lion King was inspired by Kimba (which I don't see much reason to believe) that's not copyright infringement if the end product is completely different.  Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by Twilight and in fact did use Twilight as its basis(started out as a fanfiction) but the end product is nothing like it, so there's no infringement.  Kimba itself was inspired by Bambi (as was the Lion King), but the end product is nothing like Bambi, so there's no copyright infringement. 

What element did the Lion King take from Kimba that would be so specific that it would amount to copyright infringement?



JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Your same argument could be said to Slam Dunk and several others copyright claim infringment and would still not invalidate that one series used the other as basis or ripped it.

I actually think that something being wildly different from the material it allegedly is copying would actually invalidate the claim that there was copyright infringement. Even if the Lion King was inspired by Kimba (which I don't see much reason to believe) that's not copyright infringement if the end product is completely different.  Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by Twilight and in fact did use Twilight as its basis(started out as a fanfiction) but the end product is nothing like it, so there's no infringement.  Kimba itself was inspired by Bambi (as was the Lion King), but the end product is nothing like Bambi, so there's no copyright infringement. 

What element did the Lion King take from Kimba that would be so specific that it would amount to copyright infringement?

I'm too lazy to look it up but i can assume that a company as Disney knows how to avoid doing any copyright infringement and if it happened i could assume they would have already payed for it.



Around the Network
Leynos said:
I knew about this in 1994. Lion King was still an excellent film.

Yeah, made in the golden era of Disney.

Still one of my favorite movies.



JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Your same argument could be said to Slam Dunk and several others copyright claim infringment and would still not invalidate that one series used the other as basis or ripped it.

I actually think that something being wildly different from the material it allegedly is copying would actually invalidate the claim that there was copyright infringement. Even if the Lion King was inspired by Kimba (which I don't see much reason to believe) that's not copyright infringement if the end product is completely different.  Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by Twilight and in fact did use Twilight as its basis(started out as a fanfiction) but the end product is nothing like it, so there's no infringement.  Kimba itself was inspired by Bambi (as was the Lion King), but the end product is nothing like Bambi, so there's no copyright infringement. 

What element did the Lion King take from Kimba that would be so specific that it would amount to copyright infringement?

You can't have your cake and eat it. The use of 100 different teams trying to make a copy of Kimba without breaking copyright law wouldn't make a movie similar to Lion King (which no one can prove would happen or not since it is hypotetical) wouldn't prove they weren't copying the idea or premisse on Kimba. Like in the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

JWeinCom said:
DonFerrari said:

Your same argument could be said to Slam Dunk and several others copyright claim infringment and would still not invalidate that one series used the other as basis or ripped it.

I actually think that something being wildly different from the material it allegedly is copying would actually invalidate the claim that there was copyright infringement. Even if the Lion King was inspired by Kimba (which I don't see much reason to believe) that's not copyright infringement if the end product is completely different.  Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by Twilight and in fact did use Twilight as its basis(started out as a fanfiction) but the end product is nothing like it, so there's no infringement.  Kimba itself was inspired by Bambi (as was the Lion King), but the end product is nothing like Bambi, so there's no copyright infringement. 

What element did the Lion King take from Kimba that would be so specific that it would amount to copyright infringement?

Both of them feature male lions as main characters, one called (S)imba and the other called (K)imba, both characters have a talking bird as sidekicks, both had their father killed when they were cubs, both of them talked to their dead father in a vision on the clouds. And both shows feature a black haired lion with a scar in its left eye as a villain (with a group of hyenas as henchmen). 

And to add insult to the injury, there are plenty of shots that are eerily similar, like WAY too similar. Take a look at this video and go to 01:04 for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHps2iC8W3o

I haven´t watched the show so I am not really able to say how much different they were able to make it to avoid a lawsuit, but to say it is not even inspired by it?



chakkra said:
JWeinCom said:

I actually think that something being wildly different from the material it allegedly is copying would actually invalidate the claim that there was copyright infringement. Even if the Lion King was inspired by Kimba (which I don't see much reason to believe) that's not copyright infringement if the end product is completely different.  Fifty Shades of Grey was inspired by Twilight and in fact did use Twilight as its basis(started out as a fanfiction) but the end product is nothing like it, so there's no infringement.  Kimba itself was inspired by Bambi (as was the Lion King), but the end product is nothing like Bambi, so there's no copyright infringement. 

What element did the Lion King take from Kimba that would be so specific that it would amount to copyright infringement?

Both of them feature male lions as main characters, one called (S)imba and the other called (K)imba, both characters have a talking bird as sidekicks, both had their father killed when they were cubs, both of them talked to their dead father in a vision on the clouds. And both shows feature a black haired lion with a scar in its left eye as a villain (with a group of hyenas as henchmen). 

And to add insult to the injury, there are plenty of shots that are eerily similar, like WAY too similar. Take a look at this video and go to 01:04 for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHps2iC8W3o

I haven´t watched the show so I am not really able to say how much different they were able to make it to avoid a lawsuit, but to say it is not even inspired by it?

That video you posted shows clips from the 1997 Kimba film, so by your own logic, Kimba must have ripped off the Lion King... That 1:04 clip? From 1997.

Oops.



Remembers me a clip from The Simpsons, where Lisa's Jazz friend dies and appears in the Sky, and then Mufasa also appears and talks by saying "You must avenge my death, Kimba - I mean, Simba"



"Quagmire, are you the type of guy who takes 'no' for an answer ?"
"My lawyer doesn't allow me to answer that question"

PSN ID: skmblake | Feel free to add me