Crazy Lion King Theories That Will Blow Your Mind
Ever since Disney announced the remake of The Lion King, everyone can’t help but reminisce
about the animated film that shaped our childhoods and taught us all about the Circle of Life.
With an all-star cast, the return of James Earl Jones as Mufasa and some awesome CGI,
fans are super hyped.
Possibly more so than any other recent Disney remake.
But with all that hype, it’s gotten many people thinking about the original film.
And specifically theories that they never considered.
Although we’ve already done a video on Dark Theories about the Lion King, we feel like
we’ve only scratched the surface.
In fact, some of the theories still out there are even crazier than the ones we initially
talked about.
I’m _______ Brad with WickedBinge….
And these are Crazy Theories about The Lion King That Will Blow Your Mind.
Let’s get started!
AAAAAAAAHSOWHENYAAA-GONNA-HIT-SUBSCRIBE-BRUH?
The Lion King World Mirrors the The USSR
We’re kicking things off with a theory shared by Reddit user ‘Dahuoshan’ that, well,
dives a little deeper into political history than the average viewer would expect.
Still, when it’s broken down and you really start looking at the evidence…
It all kind of makes a lot of sense.
And given The Lion King uses the backdrop of Shakesphere’s Hamlet for the story, it
isn’t out of the realm of possibility that history or politics didn’t have a bit of
influence as well.
This theory establishes a rather interesting yet unexpected parallel between The Lion King
and, you guessed it – The USSR...
The Soviet Union.
Now, in order to really understand this theory, we need to look at the Soviet Union from the
standpoint of what it has also been known for historically – it’s political views
and style of governance.
For nearly seventy years, the one-party state was governed by a quasi-communist/socialist
ruling party.
Without getting into the complexities of their governance and the implications that it had
with the United States, looking at it from a purely structural point of view, you can
clearly see the similarities between the state and the world of the Lion King.
In the initial phase of the movie, we can see that the beginning mimics the pre-revolutionary
phase of Russia: specifically, just leading up to the forced abdication of Saint Nicholas
the Passion-Bearer in 1917.
Mufasa takes up the role of Tsar as the ruling leader, preaching to the animals of the kingdom
that everything is perfect when, in fact, everything is a lie.
The animals aren’t happy with Mustafa’s governance but must put up with him in order
to keep peace and have access to basic needs like food and water.
These animals represent the middle-class citizens who weren’t in favor of Saint Nicholas’
ruling style but kept quiet to avoid any conflict.
As we pointed out in previous video, The Circle of Life seems, in retrospect, like a piece
of musical propaganda that teaches animals to love their place in a hierarchy that makes
them dinner for those at the top.
In the Circle of Life, you also see the rise of proletariats who do not have access to
the kinds of services and needs that others in society have.
We’re talking about the hyenas.
That was, of course, until Scar came along, joined forces with the hyenas, and overthrew
Mufasa from the throne.
Scar granted the proletariats access to things like water, signaling the gradual shift that
the Soviet Union themselves went through in Marxism-Leninism in the late 1920s and 1930s.
So where does that leave Simba?
Well, Simba’s return symbolizes the end of socialism as well as the reintroduction
of a capitalist way of thinking – in other words, the progression of the state from communism
to capitalism.
Or then again, more likely it’s just a return to a traditional monarchy…
After all, he’s the king.
Although this may seem shocking, this credible theory does portray the Lion King in a very
different light, one that you probably wouldn’t have even considered.
There are holes in the theory, however.
The most obvious being that Scar and the Hyenas are portrayed with outright Fascist imagery
in his musical number, as opposed to that of Communists.
But a lot of the subtext remains.
The Lion King Is About British Imperialism
Not straying too far from the political innuendos that the Lion King has to offer, another plausible
theory which has surfaced actually looks at the movie from a similar angle.
The only difference is that this time, it’s the British who are in the hot seat.
According to this theory, the film actually mirrors the colonization of Africa by the
British.
As we know, the British are historically known for colonizing several nations throughout
the world.
In the process of doing so, they plundered land, subjugated them to what they considered
to be morally just ways of life, and left irreversible effects on culture.
One such place is Africa, and this is the brunt of this theory.
Scar along with his team of hyenas represent British colonists/imperialists who forcefully
entered African countries and forced the natives to adhere to their way of governance.
But that’s not all – the similarities go deeper, especially when you look at the
lives of Timon and Pumbaa who literally lost everything they had.
They are microcosms of the hundreds and thousands who too, lost it all as a result of British
colonialism.
This theory takes a rather poignant look at the movie from a cultural and historical point
of view, echoing the notions of renouncing imperialist actions that are seen in similar
works like “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad and “Black Skin White Masks” by
Frantz Fanon.
But what do you think?
Do any of these political theories seem sound?
The Lion King Teaches Us To Face Our Fears
According to Reddit user… sigh...
‘Beerinmybutt,’...
The Lion King teaches viewers a rather beautiful lesson on life and acceptance, mainly, the
need to revisit our past and face the things we fear head-on – that is the only way that
we’ll heal from our emotional suffering.
This is seen mainly through the character of Simba who goes through the motions of guilt
because of the loss of his father: something we call survivor’s guilt.
Simba feels responsible for the loss of his father, and this feeling of guilt is what
drives the plot throughout the entire movie.
For starters, Simba deliberately tries to forget the tragic loss of his dad and bury
the past.
Still, he’s not able to erase the memories of Mufasa let alone the feeling of guilt that
he experiences because of his lost.
Even when Simba is asked to lead the pack, he rejects the offer – why?
Because he feels that Scar is the rightful leader.
We see the emotional guilt of his father’s passing as a crippling agent which prevents
him from advancing in life and becoming a better lion.
Because of this guilt, he’s stuck in a stasis in which he can neither advance nor regress,
and is meant to wallow in feelings of guilt for the rest of his life.
However, the turning point happens when he recognizes that he must go back into his past
in order to advance, specifically, in the climatic ending where he goes to find Scar.
Apart from the obvious tear-jerking moment that this scene caused, the real lesson that
we’re supposed to take away from this is that you need to go back into your past and
resolve any previous hurt or pain that you may have in order to move forward in life.
As difficult as it may be, you need to remove the band-aids off of the emotional scars which
you have and expose them so that they can be healed.
If not, you’ll live a life in which you can’t ever progress because you’re constantly
worried about the past.
Kiara Will Be A Bad Hunter Because Her Parents Were Bad
Reddit user ‘gramfer’ has a very interesting theory on an often-overlooked character – Kiara.
If anyone had high hopes and expectations for Simba and Nala’s daughter, you should
probably think again.
Chances are, there’s a very logical reason why Kiara sucks at hunting.
Why?
She’s a lion - she’s got to have it in her.
It’s in her D.N.A, after all.
Well, yes and no.
While Kiara might inherit the instinct to hunt, she isn’t so good at it because it’s
not really in her D.N.A.
In The Lion King 2: Simba’s Pride, we can see that she struggles with hunting.
She couldn’t get the final test right.
Well, it’s all because her parents weren’t good hunters.
If Kiara has no one who can properly guide her on how to hunt, there’s no way that
she can get it right, no matter how much her instincts try to point her in the right direction.
Simba and Nala were horrible hunters, especially Simba.
He had never had a proper education as his father passed away when he was young.
Simba is a bad hunter because he never got to learn from those who came before him.
Therefore, it’s believable that irrespective of a lion’s instincts, if he or she isn’t
taught by good hunters, the chances of continuing the legacy seem dim.
In Kiara’s case, so dim that her light is barely visible…
Simba Caused The Drought
For those who may not have considered it, Reddit user ‘Spixdon’ has got news for
you – Simba probably caused the drought in Pride Rock.
Now, let’s put things into perspective – the past kings of Pride Rock are in the sky.
Mufasa specifically communicates with Simba through the clouds.
For that reason, it’s easy to believe that Mufasa along with the other kings residing
in the sky have control over the weather.
Considering that Simba is the rightful king and leader of Pride Rock, the allegiance of
the kings who have gone on to the sky resides with him and only him.
Therefore, when he leaves Pride Rock, the clouds which bring rain follow him as he is
the rightful king.
When he returns to Pride Rock, it begins to rain and the drought has come to an end.
For that reason, it’s believed that Simba caused the drought.
The saddest part is that he doesn’t even know it!
What a weird and crazy way of looking at the drought that plagued Pride Rock.
But what do you think?
Do any of these theories seem legit?
Do you have any crazy theories about The Lion King that we missed?
Let us know in the comment section below!
Don’t forget to like this video, subscribe and hit that notification bell.
But most importantly, stay wicked!