"Taka", My @$$
Let's Get Our Facts Straight, Shall We?

NOTE: Alright, a lot of people have been asking me recently, "Hey, what happens if TLK3 comes out and all the stuff your fightin' against and sayin' isn't true actually is true and that's how Disney always planned it to be? You'd look pretty stupid, wouldn't ya'? Huh? Huh? Wouldn't ya'?" My response to this question is. . .

. . .yes.

Regrettably and unfortunately, yes. If, for the very unfortunate and rare case that this is how Disney originally planned all of this to work out, then I will silently withdraw this entire rant and objection, admit defeat, and slink away into a far corner in the deep, dark depths of nothingness, where I will proceed to indulge myself in self-pity and a heaping bowl of comforting chocolate mousse to soothe my battered pride and ego, while all the while still cursing Disney and it's stupidity for following through on something so idiotic and insulting towards the beloved character I hold so dear and regard with so much respect.

There. I said it. I hope you're all happy.

HOWEVER, if this is indeed not the case in TLK3 then I will instead point and laugh at all those who doubted me and bask in the glory of knowing that I was right all along. So, until any definite proof - ie TLK3 - comes along, I will continue my wonderful rant.

So, without further adieu. . .THE RANT. *Du du duuuuu!*




Alright, let's plunge right into this whole icky, much debated, Taka issue. Although I'm know most of the fandom is more than well aware of who this name refers to and it's origin, some of the newer members may perhaps not. In a very small, compact nutshell, Taka is a name that a large majority of the TLK fandom refer to Scar as, originally a product of a very rare book that was published titled, "The Lion King: Six New Adventures - A Tale of Two Brothers" that claims both that this was his cubhood name before he received his namesake, and also how exactly he in fact got his scar. As a result of this particular book, speculation has risen many times on whether or not what it claims is indeed the cold hard fact that many people have decided to regard it as. I say that it's not.

I first came across the use of this name in a random piece of fan fiction which I at first raised an eyebrow at and nothing more, immediately assuming it was the product of the author them self made specifically for their story. No big deal there. But then it appeared in another piece of fiction, and before I even really realized it, the name "Taka" had been plastered all over the net - fiction, art, forums, chats; in some cases the name "Scar" hardly even seemed to exist any more. To say the very least, this made me angry and rather annoyed to see that people were, for some reason I didn't know at that time, apparently messing around with a character that I enjoyed so much. *Twitch spasm twitch twitch*

Although the canon-quality of this particular book is backed up by its Disney manufacturing, I still find it hard not to question its reliability. Among its flaws, people have to consider its consistency; Ahadi is described in the book as: "He had a long black mane and bright green eyes." and yet an illustration shows him looking unmistakably like Mufasa. You also can't help but notice that, in contrast to the official movie released, the books claim that Simba fathers a son named Kopa. If people claim the authenticity of "A Tale of Two Brothers" by backing up their arguments by saying Disney obviously has concrete ideas in regards to their past and future characters, then I guess I can't help but ask whether they regard the book's, Kopa, or the official movie's, Kiara, as canon material. As a result of these inconsistencies, I obviously can't help but argue against the entire "Taka" claim, and further fight for the movie references and them alone.

In all truth, a large part of my dislike in regards to the name, "Taka", is simply from my belief that Scar was named such from the very start. I realize this is somewhat of a close minded idea on my part, but hell, I just can't help it. A tiny voice in the back of my head persists in taking the concept of a different name and smothering it into the dirt with it's size nine, steel-tipped boot. Perhaps something happened during his birth, maybe there was some type of accident involving a large, sharp, particularly pointy object contacting with his brow directly after or soon following his birth; there's many logical theories of how Scar received his namesake at the very beginning, and thus, was always called it. The tiny voice with the size nine, steel-tipped boots has always and most likely will always prevent me from considering otherwise.

Not only has a large majority taken to referring to Scar by this name, but some take it to the point of completely remodeling the character. "Taka" has become a name that is commonly associated with a perception of Scar as being a sweet, wide eyed, innocent youth; a concept that I simply can't comprehend. Some fiction that's out there persist in remodeling Scar to the point where he's just Simba with a black mane, which leads to the question of. . .why don't you just use Simba? If you want to favor a character, then try favoring a character you don't have to completely realtor. Scar was meant to be a cunning, malicious bastard. That's his appeal, people. No matter how many people try to beat the image into my head with rusty sheet metal and blunt rocks, I just can't see Scar frolicking and romping through the daisies. I mean, really. . . Gah. . . That's not right, people. And not just the image of Scar frolicking - which is not only not right, but oddly unsettling and downright terrifying. Frolicking in itself is just plain not right. Frolicking and romping should be outlawed, with the exception of it being through hills of chocolate, and even then, it should be limited to a sprightly gait, and nothing in the form of daisies should be within a clear ten miles of the designated romping area. But now I'm getting off topic. *Cough cough*

Furthermore, not only do I find the very idea of this concept oddly unsettling, I can't even figure out where it originated. Although "Six New Adventures" illustrates Scar with the name, "Taka", nowhere throughout does it display him at any more sweet or compassionate than he is in the movie. He practically attempts to kill his brother in the book; not exactly "cuddly ball of sunshine" classification quality we have there. Hence my obvious confusion.

I'm not implying that it's my belief that the moment he was born, he was all, "Muh ha ha. . .that chubby brother of mine'll be the first to go. Muh HA." But I have always held the firm belief that a single incident in the past did not cause him to do a complete 180 into Mr. Homicidal. Personally, I've always visioned Scar as the conservative youth who purposely alienated himself from those around him, for reasons of his own, similar to the character we're introduced to in TLK; clever, sly, and well spoken, with a sarcastic wit that most likely was not in high favors with those around him. Someone who enjoyed playing the role of rebel and instigator, and had the uncanny talent of being able to go about it without getting pinned with the blame; often ignored and overlooked, but a kid with big ideas and no chance to exercise them. Surrounded by a society that doesn't tolerate his attitude or ideas, it all inadvertently contributed to a bitterness and pessimism that had been boiling and building up over time.

So with all that said, here's one very fervent "Whoop whoop!" for Scar, the suave, black maned, tyrannical bastard, in all of his terribly nasty goodness. *Cheers and throws cookies for everyone while she proceeds to grind "A Tale of Two Brothers" into the soggy dirt*

*The tiny voice with the size nine, steel-tipped boots applauds enthusiastically*


Picture ©Snowy

Please take the time to participate in this small survey: