On the other hand, your instincts are entirely right about The Lion King, and when I say “YMS eviscerated it”, I mean that it’s the most comically ridiculous yet superficially believable accusation of plagiarism you could possibly come up with. This is genuinely worth 147 minutes of your time, and it’s one of the funniest videos I’ve ever watched. One of the comments summarizes it best: “Damn, can’t believe kimba invented Africa, and real life just ripped them off like that.”
And now people are accusing the upcoming Disney movie Hexed of being a ripoff of Owl House because apparently Owl House invented the idea of a hero being transported to a magical world.
I understand Owl House fans are mad that Disney canceled the show prematurely and made the ending rushed. I agree that Disney shouldn’t have done that. But I’m not going to fault Disney for making another story where a character is transported to a magical world. Heck, Disney did it decades ago with Alice in Wonderland and with Peter Pan. They also did it with the Chronicles of Narnia and there are many more examples, both Disney and non-Disney
In 1973, a promotional booklet was released with a public announcement by Williams about the status of his project:
Nasrudin was found to be too verbal and not suitable for animation, therefore Nasrudin as a character and the Nasrudin stories were dropped as a project. However, the many years work spent on painstaking research into the beauty of Oriental art has been retained. Loosely based on elements in the Arabian Nights stories, an entirely new and original film is now the main project of the Williams Studio. Therefore any publicity references to the old character of Nasrudin are now obsolete.
So it seems the Thief and the Cobbler was based in part on the Arabian Nights, and the original plot was also from Arab folklore.
So in other words, Aladdin is merely based on the same work of classic literature, which I believe is public domain. So allegations of plagiarism are foolish, unless all references to Arab folklore are now off the table too.
One of the comments summarizes it best: “Damn, can’t believe kimba invented Africa, and real life just ripped them off like that.”
That’s pretty funny. I might watch the video another day. From your comment I gather enough to conclude that the main premise of the accusation is “Shakespeare told by animals,” and I concur that that’s laughable.
From your comment I gather enough to conclude that the main premise of the accusation is “Shakespeare told by animals,” and I concur that that’s laughable.
It’s somehow baser than you suspect for the accusations against The Lion King – but more complex for Aladdin. I’d highly recommend Lindsay Ellis’ video for a history lesson exploring the nuances. I’ll at least spoil that Kimba has nothing to do with Shakespeare and that whatever level of tepid, token generosity you’re willing to grant the plagiarism accusations, it’s dumber than that.
So the plot wasn’t even similar, and people were just upset that the characters were lions? That is indeed even more laughable.
Some people must really get off on hating on the Lion King because I’ve also heard it called racist for the following reasons:
The characters have African-sounding names. (Um, what, would it be somehow less racist to name them “Steve” and “Nancy”?)
They didn’t employ black voice actors in enough main roles. (Mufasa was voiced by a black man).
The hyenas were allegedly depictions of racist tropes. (As a kid watching the Lion King, I never made this supposed connection that the hyenas were ostensibly caricatures of black people; they were just hyenas. The critics who apparently perceived that connection are racist for doing so).
I’ve also heard people criticize it for ostensibly promoting monarchy (it’s a fucking story, and it’s based on a plot by shakespeare about a monarchy. I don’t think the intent was to make a political statement about the advantages of monarchy)
Anyway, I read the backstory behind The Thief and The Cobbler and it sounds like all the nuance has less to do with Aladdin and more to do with Nasrudin. It’s not Aladdin’s fault it took the producers 40 years to put out a subpar film. And it’s not like Miramax owned the rights to Arabian Nights or even the “Arabian aesthetic.” It might be complex, but none of that complexity is Aladdin’s problem.
And now people are accusing the upcoming Disney movie Hexed of being a ripoff of Owl House because apparently Owl House invented the idea of a hero being transported to a magical world.
I understand Owl House fans are mad that Disney canceled the show prematurely and made the ending rushed. I agree that Disney shouldn’t have done that. But I’m not going to fault Disney for making another story where a character is transported to a magical world. Heck, Disney did it decades ago with Alice in Wonderland and with Peter Pan. They also did it with the Chronicles of Narnia and there are many more examples, both Disney and non-Disney
I see. From wikipedia:
So it seems the Thief and the Cobbler was based in part on the Arabian Nights, and the original plot was also from Arab folklore.
So in other words, Aladdin is merely based on the same work of classic literature, which I believe is public domain. So allegations of plagiarism are foolish, unless all references to Arab folklore are now off the table too.
That’s pretty funny. I might watch the video another day. From your comment I gather enough to conclude that the main premise of the accusation is “Shakespeare told by animals,” and I concur that that’s laughable.
It’s somehow baser than you suspect for the accusations against The Lion King – but more complex for Aladdin. I’d highly recommend Lindsay Ellis’ video for a history lesson exploring the nuances. I’ll at least spoil that Kimba has nothing to do with Shakespeare and that whatever level of tepid, token generosity you’re willing to grant the plagiarism accusations, it’s dumber than that.
So the plot wasn’t even similar, and people were just upset that the characters were lions? That is indeed even more laughable.
Some people must really get off on hating on the Lion King because I’ve also heard it called racist for the following reasons:
The characters have African-sounding names. (Um, what, would it be somehow less racist to name them “Steve” and “Nancy”?)
They didn’t employ black voice actors in enough main roles. (Mufasa was voiced by a black man).
The hyenas were allegedly depictions of racist tropes. (As a kid watching the Lion King, I never made this supposed connection that the hyenas were ostensibly caricatures of black people; they were just hyenas. The critics who apparently perceived that connection are racist for doing so).
I’ve also heard people criticize it for ostensibly promoting monarchy (it’s a fucking story, and it’s based on a plot by shakespeare about a monarchy. I don’t think the intent was to make a political statement about the advantages of monarchy)
Anyway, I read the backstory behind The Thief and The Cobbler and it sounds like all the nuance has less to do with Aladdin and more to do with Nasrudin. It’s not Aladdin’s fault it took the producers 40 years to put out a subpar film. And it’s not like Miramax owned the rights to Arabian Nights or even the “Arabian aesthetic.” It might be complex, but none of that complexity is Aladdin’s problem.