I really wonder how do people see "so many plot holes"? Because I can see ONLY TWO and even they are relative.
A plot hole is something that causes the plot or a part of the plot to not add up or to not make sense. These two pelikula don't have such, as all you have to do is pay attention to what is sinabi and how it is said, and at some points to use common sense.
1.) The cub's disensyo and the ceremony.
But officially that is not a plot hole. As Disney has made it official it is "Fluffy"/Kiara in the movie universe. As in introduced no one else in the pelikula - basically we just have to accept that in the movie universe the cub in the end of the first film is Kiara and they just changed its disensyo and forgot how the ceremony went. I mean, we don't have to accept it but whether we do or don't, the fact remains that there never was anyone but Kiara in the movie universe; because "Fluffy" isn't a real name and "Fluffy" has never been ibingiay a gender in its own film and SP is in the only official movie sequel and it introduces only Kiara without any references to any siblings.
Also, "Fluffy"'s looks don't selyo its gender in any way; the ear rims aren't gender related as Sarabi, a female had them and baby Simba didn't have them. The balahibo colour isn't 100% gender related because Mufasa and Scar were brothers were of completely different colours. Not both Scar and Mufasa can look like their father, so males apparently can look like their mothers or someone else. Resulting in a female possibly looking like her father. Also, we can not see where "Fluffy"'s belly balahibo ends and techincally it doesn't end anywhere as they just didn't draw it.
Thus, Fluffy throughly really doesn't have a gender in the pelikula until Kiara gives it that.
So, plot hole it may be in some fans' eyes but officially it is not.
2.) Kovu's age looks as he looks too close to Kiara's age when combined to how he was supposed to be hand-chosen sa pamamagitan ng Scar who dies many months before the cub in the end as in Kiara was born. As in, he should be older than Kiara.
But...Kovu has that tuft on his head, it is possible he was born just before Simba returned to Pridelands. Zira even says he was born just before Simba exiled them, which must have happened very soon after Scar's death.
So, after all, the only thing in the movie that speaks against him being older than Kiara and instead makes him look the same age, is his size.
But even that the pelikula combined actually explains away. The Pridelands was barren and completely out of pagkain when Kovu was born and in the outlands they apparently had little food. Of course a lion cub will remain small for his age if he lacks quality pagkain from birth. Of course the first six months he suckled gatas from his mother...but maybe that gatas wasn't as high quality as it could've been because the mother hadn't had quality pagkain either.
Thus, could be seen as kind of an issue but not really a plot hole.
CLAIMED PLOT HOLES WHICH I INTENT TO DISPROVE:
Simba over-protecting Kiara is clearly explained in the film in the very same scene wherein his over-protectivness is brought up. He over-protects Kiara because Kiara is just like he was when he was a cub and Simba was traumatized sa pamamagitan ng his childhood experiences as a wild-running child. Starting from the elepante Graveyard and ultimately sa pamamagitan ng the stampede and his dad's death. Add to that how he totally didn't trust the banished Outlanders for they were Scar's heir and Scar was the resident evil.
That's why Zazu refers to the outsiders as "backstabbing, murderous outsiders". Guilty sa pamamagitan ng association is a very common thing in life and life's not fair like Scar wisely stated in the beginning.
Or, if there should be madami meaning on the word 'murderous' - don't forget that to be labeled murderous, doesn't mean they've downright killed/murdered somebody. All it takes is a failed attempt to kill/murder someone, for everyone to know that they're murderous. It was Simba who sinabi "You can't turn you're back on them!" - so perhaps they (or Zira) had tried to murder Simba already back then when Simba had first tried to trust them.
There most certainly is no plot hole there!
Zira and co. were banished, perhaps for a possible, failed murder attempt - or simply because Zira was Scar's supporter and the rest were Scar's daughters and sons or just sa pamamagitan ng being born and raised during Scar's reign, generally related to the evil uncle who had totally poisoned Simba's mind and at the time when the exile must have happened, Simba's wounds must have been open wide. And he wouldn't have the wisdom he'd needed anyway as he had left the immature lifestyle only couple of days ago. There really isn't needed anything madami or new characters to explain the exile of the Outlanders.
The story of TLK would naturally lead to a whole lot of psychological depth and meaning in events between TLK and SP - and the TLK story alone offers all that is needed for it. There is no plot hole in the exile. There is no freakin' Kopa and child murder involved in the movie universe. If there was they would've refered to such. But they didn't.
This leads me to the scene where Zira offers Kovu for Simba to kill:
Even I have over-analyzed this one though always ignoring any book universe related theories which totally don't belong to the movie universe's official story because the books weren't written sa pamamagitan ng the film makers and likely not even known sa pamamagitan ng them. I used to think this scene had something to do with Scar having killed Simba's Dad in order to become king and Zira offering Scar's "son" for Simba to kill in order to revenge that.
But then I stopped and listened to the dialogue as a whole. The dialogue goes: "You know the penalty if you return to Pride Lands!" "But THE CHILD does NOT! Although... If you need your pound of flesh. Here." *pushes Kovu towards Simba*
Hence, they are talking about generally the returning to Pride Lands and how Simba had laid down a law that if they do, they shall be killed and that Zira knows it. She makes a note that the child does not know that and remember how this child had been the one who had returned to Pride Lands. Zira was there just to fetch him home. So, she was saying that the child had crossed the line because he didn't know the penalty for that - but if Simba needed to go through with the penalty as in his "pound of flesh" - she would not stop him and even pushed her son closer to the king. That's all. No previously murdered kids, no siblings for Kiara, nothing to do with Mufasa's death... Just the penalty for returning which Kovu had ignorantly done. NO plot hole there.
The Outlanders even existing even though we don't see them at all in TLK but only hyenas. And/or where did they come from / the Outlanders being Scar fans though he was a sucky king and not even the hyenas were happy.
1.) We don't necessarly get to see the entire pride in the end of TLK.
2.) Because Scar needed a successor and even in general life goes on scenario - realistically there had to be some mating going on, then new cubs born and grown up during Scar's reign. Lions that look like him. Not to mention that his reign must have lasted for four to five years in the least. Regarding Simba's physical development seeing to real life facts of male lions' growth.
So it is actually TLK film's mistake that it doesn't ipakita lions that look like Scar.
3.) Zira was a psycho, fanatic, obsessed tagahanga girl of Scar's and apparently the only one. No one else of the outlanders really cared about Scar or getting the Pride Lands back. As in everyone but her had been unhappy with Scar's reign, just like the hyenas. Remember how when it came to the moment of truth, everyone else but Zira gave up and joined Simba's side and even showed fed-up expressions. Before that point they probably followed Zira because Simba wouldn't have them. Lions need some sort of a leader. They rarely live outside prides.
Zira could've been one of the original lionesses we didn't get to see during Simba's childhood. It is highly unlikely in the face of logic, that Scar was supposed to be the only one in the pride who looked essentially different. He was just the only one shown because the story was about him and his brother and nephew - not about the lionessess/pride.
So basically what SP does is add some realistically existing characters which weren't but could've easily been and in my opinion should've mutually been at least briefly shown in the first film just for the sake of realisticness.
No plot hole there either - at least not for SP's part.
Where the heck is Sarabi?? Well, according to Disney's official web site she is in the film. But it also claims that Nala isn't in The Lion King 1½ though she clearly is... So the site isn't all that reliable. But even if Sarabi is somewhere in the SP film, admitted, I doubt anyone has spotted her for sure because she isn't pointed out... So I'm gonna offer this; Sarabi must have been quite old at the end of TLK and would've been even older when Kiara was born and growing up. She could've died of old age or not socilized much due to the old age. So, still no plot hole - all it takes is a little use of common sense.
.......
Have I forgotten something?
I think a summary of this post could be that most of the so-called "plot holes" are perfectly filled with a little thought to realistic life and the characters' psychology for which the TLK film alone offers all the base needed. That's the beauty of The Lion King in my opinion; that it's SO deep and SO dark in SO many ways that it affects the characters psychologically very strongly and complexily, and gives room for many new wonderful characters... In short; a sequel doesn't need anyrhing else for a background.
Basically, people should remember that those two pelikula are supposed to be one entity, form one long movie. They don't have plot holes, just some unexplained backgrounds that are left up to tagahanga interpretation and fanfiction.
A plot hole is something that causes the plot or a part of the plot to not add up or to not make sense. These two pelikula don't have such, as all you have to do is pay attention to what is sinabi and how it is said, and at some points to use common sense.
1.) The cub's disensyo and the ceremony.
But officially that is not a plot hole. As Disney has made it official it is "Fluffy"/Kiara in the movie universe. As in introduced no one else in the pelikula - basically we just have to accept that in the movie universe the cub in the end of the first film is Kiara and they just changed its disensyo and forgot how the ceremony went. I mean, we don't have to accept it but whether we do or don't, the fact remains that there never was anyone but Kiara in the movie universe; because "Fluffy" isn't a real name and "Fluffy" has never been ibingiay a gender in its own film and SP is in the only official movie sequel and it introduces only Kiara without any references to any siblings.
Also, "Fluffy"'s looks don't selyo its gender in any way; the ear rims aren't gender related as Sarabi, a female had them and baby Simba didn't have them. The balahibo colour isn't 100% gender related because Mufasa and Scar were brothers were of completely different colours. Not both Scar and Mufasa can look like their father, so males apparently can look like their mothers or someone else. Resulting in a female possibly looking like her father. Also, we can not see where "Fluffy"'s belly balahibo ends and techincally it doesn't end anywhere as they just didn't draw it.
Thus, Fluffy throughly really doesn't have a gender in the pelikula until Kiara gives it that.
So, plot hole it may be in some fans' eyes but officially it is not.
2.) Kovu's age looks as he looks too close to Kiara's age when combined to how he was supposed to be hand-chosen sa pamamagitan ng Scar who dies many months before the cub in the end as in Kiara was born. As in, he should be older than Kiara.
But...Kovu has that tuft on his head, it is possible he was born just before Simba returned to Pridelands. Zira even says he was born just before Simba exiled them, which must have happened very soon after Scar's death.
So, after all, the only thing in the movie that speaks against him being older than Kiara and instead makes him look the same age, is his size.
But even that the pelikula combined actually explains away. The Pridelands was barren and completely out of pagkain when Kovu was born and in the outlands they apparently had little food. Of course a lion cub will remain small for his age if he lacks quality pagkain from birth. Of course the first six months he suckled gatas from his mother...but maybe that gatas wasn't as high quality as it could've been because the mother hadn't had quality pagkain either.
Thus, could be seen as kind of an issue but not really a plot hole.
CLAIMED PLOT HOLES WHICH I INTENT TO DISPROVE:
Simba over-protecting Kiara is clearly explained in the film in the very same scene wherein his over-protectivness is brought up. He over-protects Kiara because Kiara is just like he was when he was a cub and Simba was traumatized sa pamamagitan ng his childhood experiences as a wild-running child. Starting from the elepante Graveyard and ultimately sa pamamagitan ng the stampede and his dad's death. Add to that how he totally didn't trust the banished Outlanders for they were Scar's heir and Scar was the resident evil.
That's why Zazu refers to the outsiders as "backstabbing, murderous outsiders". Guilty sa pamamagitan ng association is a very common thing in life and life's not fair like Scar wisely stated in the beginning.
Or, if there should be madami meaning on the word 'murderous' - don't forget that to be labeled murderous, doesn't mean they've downright killed/murdered somebody. All it takes is a failed attempt to kill/murder someone, for everyone to know that they're murderous. It was Simba who sinabi "You can't turn you're back on them!" - so perhaps they (or Zira) had tried to murder Simba already back then when Simba had first tried to trust them.
There most certainly is no plot hole there!
Zira and co. were banished, perhaps for a possible, failed murder attempt - or simply because Zira was Scar's supporter and the rest were Scar's daughters and sons or just sa pamamagitan ng being born and raised during Scar's reign, generally related to the evil uncle who had totally poisoned Simba's mind and at the time when the exile must have happened, Simba's wounds must have been open wide. And he wouldn't have the wisdom he'd needed anyway as he had left the immature lifestyle only couple of days ago. There really isn't needed anything madami or new characters to explain the exile of the Outlanders.
The story of TLK would naturally lead to a whole lot of psychological depth and meaning in events between TLK and SP - and the TLK story alone offers all that is needed for it. There is no plot hole in the exile. There is no freakin' Kopa and child murder involved in the movie universe. If there was they would've refered to such. But they didn't.
This leads me to the scene where Zira offers Kovu for Simba to kill:
Even I have over-analyzed this one though always ignoring any book universe related theories which totally don't belong to the movie universe's official story because the books weren't written sa pamamagitan ng the film makers and likely not even known sa pamamagitan ng them. I used to think this scene had something to do with Scar having killed Simba's Dad in order to become king and Zira offering Scar's "son" for Simba to kill in order to revenge that.
But then I stopped and listened to the dialogue as a whole. The dialogue goes: "You know the penalty if you return to Pride Lands!" "But THE CHILD does NOT! Although... If you need your pound of flesh. Here." *pushes Kovu towards Simba*
Hence, they are talking about generally the returning to Pride Lands and how Simba had laid down a law that if they do, they shall be killed and that Zira knows it. She makes a note that the child does not know that and remember how this child had been the one who had returned to Pride Lands. Zira was there just to fetch him home. So, she was saying that the child had crossed the line because he didn't know the penalty for that - but if Simba needed to go through with the penalty as in his "pound of flesh" - she would not stop him and even pushed her son closer to the king. That's all. No previously murdered kids, no siblings for Kiara, nothing to do with Mufasa's death... Just the penalty for returning which Kovu had ignorantly done. NO plot hole there.
The Outlanders even existing even though we don't see them at all in TLK but only hyenas. And/or where did they come from / the Outlanders being Scar fans though he was a sucky king and not even the hyenas were happy.
1.) We don't necessarly get to see the entire pride in the end of TLK.
2.) Because Scar needed a successor and even in general life goes on scenario - realistically there had to be some mating going on, then new cubs born and grown up during Scar's reign. Lions that look like him. Not to mention that his reign must have lasted for four to five years in the least. Regarding Simba's physical development seeing to real life facts of male lions' growth.
So it is actually TLK film's mistake that it doesn't ipakita lions that look like Scar.
3.) Zira was a psycho, fanatic, obsessed tagahanga girl of Scar's and apparently the only one. No one else of the outlanders really cared about Scar or getting the Pride Lands back. As in everyone but her had been unhappy with Scar's reign, just like the hyenas. Remember how when it came to the moment of truth, everyone else but Zira gave up and joined Simba's side and even showed fed-up expressions. Before that point they probably followed Zira because Simba wouldn't have them. Lions need some sort of a leader. They rarely live outside prides.
Zira could've been one of the original lionesses we didn't get to see during Simba's childhood. It is highly unlikely in the face of logic, that Scar was supposed to be the only one in the pride who looked essentially different. He was just the only one shown because the story was about him and his brother and nephew - not about the lionessess/pride.
So basically what SP does is add some realistically existing characters which weren't but could've easily been and in my opinion should've mutually been at least briefly shown in the first film just for the sake of realisticness.
No plot hole there either - at least not for SP's part.
Where the heck is Sarabi?? Well, according to Disney's official web site she is in the film. But it also claims that Nala isn't in The Lion King 1½ though she clearly is... So the site isn't all that reliable. But even if Sarabi is somewhere in the SP film, admitted, I doubt anyone has spotted her for sure because she isn't pointed out... So I'm gonna offer this; Sarabi must have been quite old at the end of TLK and would've been even older when Kiara was born and growing up. She could've died of old age or not socilized much due to the old age. So, still no plot hole - all it takes is a little use of common sense.
.......
Have I forgotten something?
I think a summary of this post could be that most of the so-called "plot holes" are perfectly filled with a little thought to realistic life and the characters' psychology for which the TLK film alone offers all the base needed. That's the beauty of The Lion King in my opinion; that it's SO deep and SO dark in SO many ways that it affects the characters psychologically very strongly and complexily, and gives room for many new wonderful characters... In short; a sequel doesn't need anyrhing else for a background.
Basically, people should remember that those two pelikula are supposed to be one entity, form one long movie. They don't have plot holes, just some unexplained backgrounds that are left up to tagahanga interpretation and fanfiction.
