In movie number three, there was a problem in the Great Valley- a lack of water. The adults handled this by arguing for an extended period of time, which accomplished nothing. The kids also had a problem- their peers, or, the bullies, were heading into danger. Littlefoot did not hesitate, left the valley, then saved the mean teenagers. So, in retrospection, the adults couldn’t handle their problem while the kids jumped right into theirs and solved it. Isn’t that teaching kids that careful planning is a waste of time and rushing into danger is the solution? Furthermore, it might make kids not worry about being reckless, as their parents will just fix everything. I mean, I once made a thread in this section comparing The Lion King to The Land Before Time. Well, here’s a difference, making The Lion King’s example of this more appropriate for developing minds.

In The Lion King, Simba recklessly charges into the unknown, and because of that, he was nearly killed. The gang of five was also nearly killed for wandering off. So what was the difference, you ask? Simba got a royal scolding from his father. Mufasa gave a huge lecture that taught kids what can happen if you head into danger. The adults in The Land Before Time? Hm. “This is no time to go exploring.” Really? Is that all? Just like the adults failed to respond to a problem, they failed to chide their children and reveal just how wrong it was for them to leave like that.

The gang wanders off in multiple films, why are you just signaling one of them out?

If we're going to compare to TLK, Simba did something completely stupid out of pure selfishness. That's part of why Mufasa gives a "royal scolding".  ("You DELIBERATELY disobeyed me!"). Yeah, the kids often run off into danger and are rarely scolded by their parents. But the situations are different. First is the fact that they pretty much almost always do it to rescue somebody. The second is that they come from very different backgrounds than Simba, who, before he recklessly charged into the unknown, had only ever known the safe home he'd grown up in. The Gang of Five, on the other hand, were born outside the Great Valley and KNOW firsthand how dangerous the world out there is. They rarely go out there without a good reason. I think the only example I can think of is Littlefoot at the end of 6, which I DO have issues with.

But back to the rest, I'm not saying that that makes them constantly running off the safe or even always the right thing to do but I don't think it's a good analogy. They have experience and knowledge of danger that the main character of The Lion King doesn't. Littlefoot's grandparents actually DO have a talk with him in LBT 2 about how he shouldn't be running into danger, and from what we hear, the other kids' parents have the same talk with them. And while the kids don't always listen, they are at least aware of the risks and don't run off for the same self-serving reasons as in LK. Just because the kids parents don't always give them the same lecture you mentioned in The Lion King doesn't mean these movies are trying to teach the opposite.

And honestly, why are you putting The Lion King above LBT on an LBT forum?

  Ichy is definitely an evil character,...  He did display somewhat psychopathic tendencies, as he, too, was willing to kill the Gang in cold blood

I feel these are way too opinionated. You're acting like your opinion of him being evil is definite. I get that people will see him as evil, but carnivores are pretty debatable, like the original Sharptooth. So it's unfair to even compare him to Sierra, who I will agree is definitely evil, even if he's one of my favorite villains of the series.

Even if it wasn't the same-same treestar, it's still the one his mother "gave" him in that scene where he heard her voice. He even tells Ducky it's mother's special gift, so when it was destroyd, it definitelly broke his heart.

I guess, but since we don't see him react that way,  it's possible he may have been able to seperate it from his mom. But I'm pretty sure he doesn't tell Ducky his mother gave it to him, and there really isn't any time between when they meet and when they encounter Petrie when it could have happened.

destroyed Littlefoot's first tree star to wipe out one of the few living memories of her,

I don't think that was the actual treestar she gave him, since the one she gave him was bigger.

I’m not mad—and I’m sorry if it seemed that way—but I wanted to let you know that the member you appear to be repeatedly asking for explanations is no longer here. Maybe I misinterpreted things, but from my viewpoint, you seemed to be getting mad at him.

Honestly, I’m just confused. Why all the bashing of LBT 3??

In movie number three, there was a problem in the Great Valley- a lack of water. The adults handled this by arguing for an extended period of time, which accomplished nothing. The kids also had a problem- their peers, or, the bullies, were heading into danger. Littlefoot did not hesitate, left the valley, then saved the mean teenagers. So, in retrospection, the adults couldn’t handle their problem while the kids jumped right into theirs and solved it. Isn’t that teaching kids that careful planning is a waste of time and rushing into danger is the solution? Furthermore, it might make kids not worry about being reckless, as their parents will just fix everything. I mean, I once made a thread in this section comparing The Lion King to The Land Before Time. Well, here’s a difference, making The Lion King’s example of this more appropriate for developing minds.

In The Lion King, Simba recklessly charges into the unknown, and because of that, he was nearly killed. The gang of five was also nearly killed for wandering off. So what was the difference, you ask? Simba got a royal scolding from his father. Mufasa gave a huge lecture that taught kids what can happen if you head into danger. The adults in The Land Before Time? Hm. “This is no time to go exploring.” Really? Is that all? Just like the adults failed to respond to a problem, they failed to chide their children and reveal just how wrong it was for them to leave like that. Hyp got reprimanded the worst, but the only complaint his father made about him leaving was that his departure was a distraction to solving the water problem. “Duh, dad?” “Yeah?” “I’m going to enter a near death situation.” “Nah, don’t do that! It might distract me!” The full concept of the danger was never passed down from parent to child. The parents simply took care of the sharpteeth, and all was fine. So, kids were glorified as being the ideal characters and the authority and wisdom of adults was thrashed in this film by making it seem like not planning is the way to get things done, and doing dangerous things will simply cause your parents to bail you out. Did the head writer have parent issues…?

I just don't understand this person's problem with LBT 3. He brings up a completely random other movie just as a way to bash it.

Wow, this is very spammy behavior, Greylizard. Please stop posting consecutively unless you have anything new to add to a topic.

I’m just sad that DiddyKF1 didn’t respond to my posts.

You never responded to any of my posts.

@GreyLizard226: Erm, I also agree with @aabicus (LettuceBacon&Tomato) , which means I wouldn't have much to add to the discussion of this thread. Just because nobody is responding doesn't mean people are ignoring you, could just mean they don't really have anything to add to this thread. And with the type of topic that you posted, I'm not surprised that only one person had really anything to say about it after he basically said what everyone else was probably thinking.

As for my own thoughts, while it is possible that the Disney movie that you pointed out inspired an LBT plotline... I mean, there are just so many movies out there that have the same plot lines as other movies in the past, I am talking about this in general. I can't name specifics off top of my head really, but there's just bound to be many cliche/reused/older plot lines that many movies will and have already used by their movie predecessors. I'd say its rare for a movie to be completely original/new these days, and that the strengths/merits of a movie will come from how they execute an already established trope instead. Execution being key is what I'm saying here.

That makes sense. But just to be on the safe side, you did read what I quoted and was referring to?

Can’t believe this still hasn’t gotten more replies.