MovieChat Forums > Robin Hood (1973) Discussion > Prince John's mane (or lack of).

Prince John's mane (or lack of).


If Prince John is a lion, then how come he does'nt have a mane?, I realise it probably has something to do with making him look less regal than King Richard but they could've at least given him a smaller one.

reply

well PJ is proably much young the King Richard and young lions doesnt have manes i think.

reply

True, but I think that PJ seems mature enough to have a mane, he cirtainly dosent seem to be an adolesent.

reply

How about emotional maturity?

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

He doesn't seem like an adolescent? You mean other than throwing tantrums when things don't go his way or lashing out at others around him?

For love denied blights the soul we owe to God.

reply

[deleted]

It's kind of hard to hear peter ustinov's voice and picture someone young to be honest.

reply

I think it's symbolic of him not being the rightful king.

reply

I always thought that it was suppose to symbolize that Prince John was a sissy. Sexist, yes, but I think it was suppose to say that he wasn't as manly as King Richard.

ETHEL: Common sense has nothing to do with it. When I say he's wrong, he's wrong.

reply

It was supposed to show his emotional immaturity.

reply

PJ is a pussy.

If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make your signature!

reply

Yes. And so is King Richard. They are both big pussies.
...What?

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

MetFanMac: "They are both big pussies."

So were Mufasa, Scar, and Simba. Now that I think about it, I suppose Captain Amelia was too, but in her case I guess that doesn't sound quite so insulting.

reply

Well Simba was a small pussy at first, but then he grew :)

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

reply

I always thought it was because PJ was unmanly... er... unlionly.

I mean, just look at him - he's as camp as a row of tents!

More! More raspberry glaze!

reply

Not all male lions have a mane.

Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!

reply

I agree that the lack of mane is intended to convey that John is not a true king, immature, etc.
However, just to throw in a biological viewpoint, not all male lions have manes. Most famously, the man-eating lions of Tsabo (seen in the movie, "The Ghost & the Darkness", are maneless. The actual bodies are stuffed & on display at Chicago's Field Museum.

reply

On a totally different note, does Prince John remind anyone of Stewie from Family Guy?

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights make a left.

reply

http://www.lionlamb.us/lion/lionfact.html

The mature male lion has a mane that covers the backside of the head, and the shoulders. The extent of the mane varies from individual to individual, with some having no mane at all, while others have a luxurious mane that runs onto the body, along the abdomen, and even onto the fronts of the back legs in exceptional specimins. The mane varies in color from the rest of the body, and tends to grow darker with age. Some lions in the Serengeti area and from North Africa have a nearly black mane. Just like th body hair, the mane color is determined by the ratio of dark hairs to light hairs present. The mane hair is stiff and wiry, like stiff horeshair. Besides it's primary role of protecting the male during fights, it has been discovered that female lions prefer males with bigger and darker manes.


It would seem that since the females prefer the males with bigger/darker manes-those are the males that would be the head of the pride (or king in this case...lol) while the others are more likely to be rogues (it seems that the rogues I've seen while watching nature programs tend to have smaller or no manes)

Time heals all wounds, so if you're uninsured, get a watch. ~ Steven Colbert

reply

It's interesting to note that the historical King Richard was a homosexual but not at all prissy--he was a "homomasculine" who was built like a gorilla and killed many men in combat.

On the subject of manes, an science report I read about 8 years ago, dealt with examples of lions with too much testosterone, causing male pattern baldness (no manes) but increased desirability to lionesses, much like Sean Connery.

Since few if any cave paintings show maned cats, it is sometimes suspected that lions did not have manes until fairly recent times.

reply

"I always thought it was because PJ was unmanly... er... unlionly.

I mean, just look at him - he's as camp as a row of tents!"

That just made my night! Lol!

*reads above post*

Hi Jessica! (I think that's you) *waves*

-Amanda

"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"

reply

Could the fact that no cave paintings show the manes not be down to the fact that only the female members of the pride hunt, so early hunter gatherers who were poorly armed and sometimes died just from hunting deer would have been lion meat if theyd gotten too close and may never have seen where the lions lived? Even hunters armed only with spears now would be better armed and coordinated than the hunters who made cave paintings. It just seems unlikely for it to be so recent in terms of evoloution. Thinking kind of when you take a bucket from the ocean, if theres no fish in it, it doesnt mean there are no fish in the ocean, type theory. The fact they never saw lions with manes doesnt mean there werent any.

reply

its a cartoon, this is why its not 100% accurate to real life.

reply