One of the most successful movies of 2024 was Mufasa: The Lion King, a prequel to the 2019 remake of The Lion King. It brought in almost $604 million and ranked seventh overall in the box office for movies last year. However, in spite of how well it did, Mufasa: The Lion King has been extremely controversial. Many condemn it as a failure or a missed opportunity to do something greater, while others praise it as a masterpiece. Was this film really a fumble, or did Disney craft something special?

The most significant complaint about the 2019 remake of The Lion King is that the characters looked expressionless, an observation I concurred with. However, many have said the same about Mufasa: The Lion King. This does not do the animators justice, as they put forth an extensive effort to make the characters more expressive. They even managed to get Zazu to be more lively, which is especially difficult to do for an animal with a rigid beak that inhibits many expressions. Nonetheless, they did this through his body movements and eyes, which is true for all the characters. For instance, the muscles around the lions’ eyes move a lot more, allowing for a variety of human-like expressions while the designs remain realistic. The difference is easy to see when comparing the movies side-by-side. Mufasa looks barely uncomfortable in the 2019 film, but you can really see the fear in his eyes in the 2024 prequel.

In addition to the lack of expression, some think that the photorealistic style in general is faulty. I have seen numerous remakes of scenes online featuring a 2D art style similar to what was seen in the original movie from 1994. While I enjoy looking at them, it pains me to know that these drawings reflect a great distaste for 3D animation that can be seen in many Disney fans. In fact, I argue that the photorealistic style can be just as unique and fun as 2D animation. Take Taka and Mufasa, for example: they look nothing alike. Taka looks like both his parents — inheriting some facial features from his father while his coloration is more similar to his mother — but he remains distinct. His parents are unique, and so are Mufasa’s. The antagonists all look different, even minor characters like Kiros’s two aides and the spies who attack Mufasa and Eshe, Taka’s mother. Specific design choices were made to suit each character’s personality, role, and/or connections in the movie. The artists behind these designs did a fantastic job at balancing uniqueness and realism to help make compelling characters that, while differentiable, still match their environment and each other.

Another issue I’ve heard discussed is how Taka (Scar) acts. Many seem to think that his rejection by Sarabi was too little to spur him into siding with Kiros, the prequel’s main antagonist. However, while it’s safe to say that Sarabi was the drop that made the pot boil over, she was not the root of the problem. Taka says it himself: “… but Sarabi chose you. Just like Mother. Just like my own father!” The stage had been set for Taka to resent Mufasa from the beginning, but it was the pain of rejection that drove him to pin the blame in the end. Taka is actually an extremely complex character, born with a lot of potential stifled by the expectations and poor teachings of his father, Obasi. In spite of everything his father says, Taka does his best to be kind to others and grows to resent his father’s attitude towards life. It’s interesting to see how his opinion of his father changes later on in the movie when he realizes that, just like Obasi said, Mufasa “betrays” him. Even through all the pain Taka felt, he still couldn’t bring himself to let his brother die. He makes a huge sacrifice, throwing himself in harm’s way to save his brother and getting injured in the process. This reflects a lot of personal growth, as he was shown to act somewhat cowardly earlier in the film when he fled from the lions attacking Mufasa and Eshe. Taka is a truly multi-dimensional character that goes through very complicated development, and that might be part of the problem. He’s so dynamic and “wishy-washy” that, to some, he just doesn’t make sense. I like to think of him as a typical teenage boy: raging hormones and an underdeveloped brain lead him to make some questionable decisions, but he isn’t inherently bad (at least, not until later in his life).

There are some smaller details in the film that really show how much research was put into its development. In the very first scene, we see Nala by herself, far away from Pride Rock. She finds a small hollow beneath a tree and lies down. At the end of the film, it is revealed that Nala was giving birth. This is an accurate reflection of real lion behavior: when lionesses are about to give birth, they split off from the pride to hide alone. After the cubs are born, they are kept hidden until they are strong enough to join the pride. In the movie, it isn’t clear exactly how long Nala is gone, but nevertheless, it is exciting to see this kind of behavior reflected in a medium like a Disney film. Another detail I enjoyed was the greater use of real lion sounds mixed in with the voice actors’ dialogue. This combination helped make the animals feel a little more believable and created a slightly more rugged tone. Most of the “roars” are still tiger growls, but making the transition to real lion roars would potentially confuse audiences. Economically, it’s best to stick with what the viewers will understand, and that’s a respectable decision. Regardless of the inaccuracies that do exist, I am happy to see that the animators and directors took the time to include these little things that, when put together, add so much to the atmosphere of the film and immersion in the story.

The fight scenes also seem to be much improved, both in their dynamics and accuracy. In the final battle, we see Mufasa get pounced and held down, and many of the attacks come from behind instead of head-on. This more accurately reflects real lion combat, and there are specific reasons they fight like this: firstly, you can avoid teeth and claws from attacking the rear, and secondly, it gives great access to the spine, which lions may bite in an attempt to paralyze their enemies. In the one-on-one combat in the movie, most of the attacks are head-on, but this is accurate and improved on as well. When Eshe is fighting one of Kiros’s spies, he flips her onto her back and pins her down by the neck and shoulders, a classic move used by real lions. The combat scenes have a chaotic but fluid composition that makes them feel natural while retaining their dramatic weight. They do an excellent job of enthralling the audience while feeling authentic, which is key to the creation of a movie like Mufasa: The Lion King.

The plot doesn’t seem to be discussed quite as much, so it seems that most audiences felt neutral or good about it. However, even avoiding ridicule doesn’t do the film justice in this area. There is so much depth added to the story that it changes the entire context of previous movies. For example, we now know why Taka is hated by the pride. It wasn’t just his ambition, but rather the actions he took that made him disliked. Taka was the rightful king from the start, but his decisions led to the destiny he was promised to slip from his grasp. This provides context for his isolation as well as his motivation, which is precisely what a prequel should do. The connections are even more exciting when Scar’s dialogue in the 2019 remake is evaluated. At the beginning of the film, Mufasa confronts Scar about his absence at the presentation of Simba. Scar’s lines were changed here from the original film, stating he was next in line “… before the precious prince arrived.” as opposed to “… until the little hairball was born.” This made the statement far more ambiguous, but because of what we see in Mufasa: The Lion King, it is almost certain that Scar was actually referring to Mufasa and not Simba. Scar, then known as Taka, was indeed first in line. His father had promised him everything, and had Mufasa not floated into the picture on a piece of driftwood, Taka would have become king.

This then begs the question: why did Mufasa become king? Just because Taka didn’t have a queen didn’t mean he couldn’t be king. After all, his mother was never referred to as a “queen” of any sort, and he ended up assuming the throne without a queen after Mufasa’s death. It all came down to Mufasa’s abilities, not just of body, but of mind. Mufasa was the one who united the animals of the pridelands (then known as Milele) against Kiros and his pride, convincing them that the white lions would come for them next. The animals of Milele didn’t have to continue their support of Mufasa after the battle, but they chose to. Mufasa was crowned by the animals, his “subjects”. This didn’t seem to be the case in Obasi’s pride, as those lions showed a great disinterest in other animals except as food. Taka discusses telling other animals what to do when he becomes king, but that’s just about where the associations between the lions and other animals end. The only exception is Sarabi’s father, who had a royal court of non-lion species, including Zazu. This tradition was carried on by Mufasa and Sarabi, as well as Scar and Simba, though each in a different way (Scar with his army of hyenas and Simba with more of a friend circle than a royal court). The different inter-species relationships depicted in the films just add another level of complexity to the world and create very interesting dynamics between characters.

One of the last details that make Mufasa: The Lion King so amazing is their use of parallels. Mufasa was swept away by a flood, which is extremely similar to how Simba was caught in the stampede. One can only imagine the absolute horror Mufasa felt seeing those wildebeest streaming through the gorge like the raging river of his early life. At the same time, this makes his readiness to jump to Simba’s aid without so much as a second thought far more significant. It allows his character to really shine by showing the audience that he would face the greatest trauma of his life to save someone he loved. Perhaps, the most significant parallel, however, is Scar’s signature finishing move on Mufasa. Taka sank his claws into Mufasa’s paws twice in the prequel, once at the beginning and once at the end. Both times, he was doing so to pull Mufasa away from danger. In the original movie and the 2019 remake, however, he does this to throw Mufasa down instead of hoisting him up. That infamous scene now has an entirely new level of depth to it, as Mufasa most likely would have thought that Scar was trying to save him, at least for a moment. It’s the sort of reuse of a very specific plot element that makes one feel as though everything has come full circle, and Mufasa: The Lion King could not have pulled it off better.

So, is this film a failure? Does it exceed expectations? Mufasa: The Lion King is a 3D-animated movie with an engaging story and dynamic characters. As the dramas unfold, the division between “good” and “evil” isn’t always clear. This film is inherently controversial, but looking past the unfounded biases, there’s much to praise. With an open mind, Mufasa: The Lion King is an excellent movie. It might not be the greatest, but it is certainly an improvement on the 2019 remake. With luck, Disney will continue this upward trend and supply us with even better movies in years to come.