This is the talk page for the Kopa article.
This space is used to discuss improvements to the article, not the topic in question. Please remain civil and sign all comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

"The only exception to this is a book that was published four years before the release of Simba's Pride, in which the cub is specifically mentioned as a girl. "

Sorry to be a bother, but I would like to know: what book is it?

NotAGothChick101 Put your love glasses on... 20:54, July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Some Lion King storybooks. Here's an example I've found: The Lion King Storybook Final Page User:Chris14 (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That book calls the cub a boy, Chris. NotAGothChick was asking for which pre-SP book called the cub a girl. I saw a person link to this image in this post on the Lion King Origins forum, claiming that it was from a 1994 book, but he/she didn't mention the book's name. This made me a little skeptical, since I've seen 1994 TLK books that have been reprinted after SP's release where the cub's gender was changed. (These books also have two publishing dates: 1994 and 1998.) Akril (talk) 00:34, January 13, 2013 (UTC)

Non-Canon Versus Semi-Canon

There is no such thing as "non-canon" for characters who appear in literature inspired by the original film. For a definition of the word non-canon: [1]. Though he is not apart of the movie universe, he is not non-existent. And Mheetu is not non-canon, either; he is merely a deleted character. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 03:15, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could throw anything in UD and i cant believe you just cited that. Non-canon characters are NOT part of the official story-line or any spin offs. Kopa WASN'T know about and even his creator has completely laid claim to him. Kopa is an official fanon characters at least, non-canon at best. He isn't Semi-canon because he doesn't exist. Kiara REPLACED him. They don't live side-by-side, because according to you, Kiara isn't canon either though she's clearly fluffy and Simba and Nala have one child.

That child is NOT Kopa.Werebereus 06:19, January 22, 2012 (UTC)Werebereus

Now you're changing the argument. We're not arguing whether Fluffy is Kopa or Kiara; I don't even want to get into that. "Non-canon" is associated with fanfics. Kopa appears in literature inspired by The Lion King, as well as two audio stories. He is canon to some degree, no matter what you try to say to prove your point. How is Crocodile semi-canon and Kopa is not? Crocodile doesn't appear in the movie; as a matter of fact, he's never mentioned again. Neither is Ahadi or Malka or Tama. But they're not "non-canon." --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 14:57, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to, I said it all for you:

"Fluffy is canon. Kiara is not. End of story" - You, on Kiara's Talk. Kiara is MORE Canon than Kopa and Simba and Nala, again, have one child. We have been TOLD Kiara is Fluffy, but no one can say the same about Kopa.Werebereus 17:56, January 22, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, Kopa is non-official. First, it is rather impossible for Kopa to be canon becuase he doesn't appear in the first movie, and is certainly not Fluffy. And he can't be semi-canon becuase he doesn't appear in any other work tied with the first movie made or approved by the original filmmakers to be so. The last thing he could be is official, but Kopa is not included in the official movie universe made up of the three Lion King movies. So, Kopa can only be non-official, and the same should apply to all other characters in the book and comics universe. Chris14 (talk) 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. JUST Kopa. I'm sure he was meant to be Fluffy at one point, but he's not ANYMORE. He was replaced.Werebereus 20:59, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
Fluffy was not meant to be Kopa or Kiara. He is simply a placeholder name for the cub at the end of the film. And I agree with Chris. This whole "semi-canon" and "non-canon" thing is not really appropriate for any of the book or comic characters. "Canon" is used to describe characters involved in the first film, "official" is used to describe characters from any of the three movies, and "non-official" can be used to describe characters from any related merchandise. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 22:10, January 22, 2012 (UTC)
But guess who he became? KIARA. NOT Kopa, therefore Kiara and Kopa are only technically siblings. Official is a disney approved character, semi-canon is for spin-off characters and non-canon aren't part of the story. There is no such thing as non-official because it translated into NOT official. FANON is what you're thinking of. Kopa does not/never existed, 6NA was supposed to be adoubt the adventures of Fluffy and Fluffy IS Kiara. Its not hard.Werebereus 03:56, January 23, 2012 (UTC)Werebereus

Actually I think Kopa got replaced with Kion and partly Kiara because Kiara is the first born.and I remember reading something that said Kion resembles Kopa and that Kiara was the one who ended up getting more attention(or something like that) than Kopa either that or the writers were considering having Kopa be the one born in the lion king before the movie had Kiara end up being the first born.

I don't see what's so confusing about this. "Canon" is for all the characters who are involved in the original published work, aka the first film. "Official" is for all the characters who are involved in the movie universe. And "non-official" is for all the characters who are involved in related merchandise, because they are, technically speaking, not official. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 13:15, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Non-official translates into NOT OFFICIAL. Do you not know what official means? Or Non? Official means that they are approved by disney. Both Kiara and Kopa are approved, both with the intention that they both be "Fluffy". Kopa was the sole child of Simba and Nala for a while and then Kiara came along. Any Canonity Kopa had was destroyed when she was made. Kopa no longer existed when SP came out. He got REPLACED because she was FLUFFY. Kopa no longer exist in ANY storyline, hes NON-CANONWerebereus 14:20, January 23, 2012 (UTC)Werebereus

But that's totally opinionated. Fluffy is Fluffy. Kopa is not Fluffy and Kiara is not Fluffy. Thus, neither are canon. And Kopa is not all of a sudden non-existent just because he got replaced. The filmmakers themselves admitted that they had no knowledge of him during production: And the only characters truly approved by Disney are those that are apart of the movie universe, so "non-official" would be very fitting for book and comic characters. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 01:30, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
NO. Fluffy is Kiara. Its even SAID that she is, and i dont give a damn if you don't think so just because they aren't 'the same people' who made the first film<----THAT is opinionated. PRECISELY. The unknowingly DELETED Kopa. I've SEEN the interview before anyone on this site, sos dont you dare push that link on me. It their approved, they're Semi-canon. It doesn't matter how "true" it was.Werebereus 20:19, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Please calm down; it's really not that big an issue. -____- The point is: "non-official" is a much more professional term to use than "non-canon." The word "canon" is mostly used to describe fanfic-related material. Please don't undo my edits again or the page will be locked, as constant edit warring makes our wiki look bad. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 22:07, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't. There goes your opinion. AGAIN. Non-canon and non-official are not the same thing if that's what you're implying. This war wouldn't be here if you just admit you are WRONG. You've told me nothing to support anything youve said so far -- you're just playing big bad moderator. Lock it. See if I care. You act as if everyone floods to Kopa's page and are watching him go from Canon to Non-canon everytime the refresh. Chris disagrees with you, I disagree with you, you must be wrong. Honeyfur, you dont even know what Canon means. Fanfics and Canon are not related AT ALL.Werebereus 23:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I took Chris's side of the argument. It's you no one agrees with. Why does it even matter to you? The only official characters in the universe are those who appear in the movie; thus, all book and comic characters are "non-official." What is so confusing about that? --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 00:09, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
What part of Non-official litterally translates into NOT OFFICIAL don't YOU understand? Fanfics and Fan characters NOT official aka NON-Official. You're essentially saying Kopa and Mheetu are fan characters. And oh look. You locked the page. Why? Because you cant solve this any other way that doesnt involve using your "mighty mod powers" can you? No? Didn't think so.Werebereus 00:43, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring is counter productive. I shouldn't have to keep undoing your edits. Anyway, if you don't like "non-official," how about "unofficial?" See here: "Non-canon" is just way too basic and not nearly official enough. Technically, it's not even a real term. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 00:47, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Why are you citing sites that could be just as wrong as you are? You cry and complain about "oh dont put your opinion here but then you turn right around and do just that and when someone points it out you just go calm down. CANON IS A REAL TERM. No. No Un-official, no non-official. If we can have Semi-canon we can have non-canon.Werebereus 00:51, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. No "semi-canon" or "non-canon." Instead, every article in those groups can be moved to "unofficial," so there's less confusion and the principle is more basic. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 02:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
We explain what the categories mean so there is no confusoin. YOU are the only one here that's confusedWerebereus 02:31, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Why don't I do a poll on my group? After all, it DOES have 1000+ members. THAT is how well settle this.Werebereus 02:40, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Getting more opinions is not going to solve the problem. Why not just get rid of the "canon" categories and just stick to "movie characters" and "non-movie characters?" If you're going to cause so much drama over the thing, it's really not worth our time to make it into a huge deal when it's really just our separate opinions that's the issue. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 18:12, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Now you're just trying to move this argument. This isn't about who's in the movie and who's not. Its about wether Kopa can be considered a deleted character, aka Non-canon, aka no longer in any of the stories because he was replaced by Kiara.Werebereus 20:09, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
How am I "moving" the argument? I'm trying to get rid of the argument, because, quite frankly, it's kind of dumb that we're arguing about this and it's making our wiki look conflicted, therefore unreliable. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 21:52, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
You say that as if people come onto the talk page and read all this. They don't care what we're saying, they're looking at the article for facts and the Article is WRONG. There is no such thing as "Non-official". There isn't even a such thing as unofficial, according to The argument is about where Kopa stands on the canon chain, not whether he was in the movie or not, so you mentioned "non-movie" and "movie-characters is pointless. Canon is the truest and most reliable term here. Wikipedia has it, has a definition for it, Wikipedia even points out Semi-canon is just spinoffs.Werebereus 22:25, January 25, 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, plenty of people read it, because I've gotten some complaints about all the dumb arguing we do on this wiki. Anyway, who cares if "canon" is on an online dictionary? That has nothing to do with this argument. NONE of the characters who appear in any merchandise pertaining to The Lion King are "non-canon," because that term is only used to describe fanon material. Kopa doesn't appear in the sequel, but he appears in a book series, as well as two audio stories. He was replaced, but he's still a semi-canon character. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 00:38, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
What are they reading the talk pages for anyway? What they think is dumb about a talk page doesn't matter to me nor should it matter to you. The talk page is for discussion, not judging. PRECISELY HF. None of any of the comic characters, book characters are non-canon because non-canon is FANON and Fanon characters are Original characters which we dont allow on this site. Kopa was denied in favor of Kiara. At least put in his Trivia where he stands on the Canon Tree is very unclear since the creation of Kiara and the claim SHE is fluffy, not Kopa. And for godsake, unlock the page.Werebereus 01:09, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
It's already included on his page that he was denied in favor of Kiara, as well as on the Fluffy page. And if none of the other related merchandise characters are non-canon than neither is Kopa. Unofficial fits all the characters, even Kopa. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 02:54, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
Unofficial isn't even a word at this point Honeyfur. If Kopa was denied and ignored, he doesn't exist. He's NON-CANON. Kiara replaces him; eveyone can exist alongside her instead of him adn nothing would be differentWerebereus 03:07, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
What about Boma? The filmmakers intended for the scar to come from a clawed animal, not a hoofed one, so if I go by your theory, then Boma is at the same level of canonicty as Kopa. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 11:31, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
Very good. Now unlock the page.Werebereus 11:40, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
You obviously don't know what we're agreeing on, because the moment I unlocked the Mheetu page, you sprang on it and added it into the "non-canon" category. He was deleted, so of course he's non-canon. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 17:39, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
Then why'd you take Non-canon off if you know he's non-canon?Werebereus 19:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC)
Because he's under the "deleted characters" category. A non-canon category is just a waste of space. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 23:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I think Kopa Is the real King, Not Kovu. He would have made a great Character in The Lion King 2 KovuandNalafan360 18:07, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Here is my opinion on the subject. I'd say at the time that the comics/books came out they weren't planning on making a sequel. This gave writers a little freedom with a future story, but then they made the second and gave Simba and Nala Kiara with no mention of any other children. So I think Kopa became an alternate time line character. A what if.... type thing. In this case "what if they had a son instead of a daughter?"

Possible retroactive continuity

So we have this e-mail in the article which specifically says Alex Simmons came up with Kopa. But in the same space, he calls his Six New Adventures a prequel to the second film. Given there's no official word from Disney - and they seem to alter the continuity as they see fit (case in point with The Lion King III) I think it warrants considering a mention that, at least according to Alex Simmons, he considers the book to be in-line with both films? Ggctuk (talk) 20:27, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense. We could always add it to the Six New Adventures page itself. --Honeyfur Hakuna Matata 13:59, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
I'd also mention it on this page, with the addition that if this is the case, what happened to Kopa between the end of the book and the start of the second film is unknown. Ggctuk (talk) 18:53, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what it says. I'm not able to edit the articles for some reason, (I'm freshly registered here), but I would ask you to remove that Trivia bit because not everyone bothers to check the source referred. Alex Simmons says nothing like that in that e-mail, you just misunderstood it. What he actually states is that "It was obviously a prequel to the film, but I suspect they all saw it simply as a part of the book universe..." while if you read the e-mail all the way from the beginning you see that he is at that point talking about the first film. And about his story "The Tale of Two Brothers". As in, that he meant the backstory of Mufasa and Scar to be a prequel to the first film but that he suspects Disney saw it as simply part of the book universe. That bit in the e-mail has nothing to do with the sequel film, nor with the other five books in the series which by the way were not written by him. He talks about the sequel film only when answering that they never contacted him about Kopa and therefore he believes they never considered him for the sequel. KieranTheWolf (talk) 14:46, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

Okay, now the Edit button has finally appeared to me so I removed that incorrect Trivia myself. KieranTheWolf (talk) 14:56, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

I know what happened. He got tired of his (Idiot) sister, And ran off. Hopeing he'd have the luck Simba had. But he didn't and thus he died of starvation. Thats a concept of mine, I made it up. For the Fanon wiki, of course. TheNewGuy01 Bust My Buffers! 18:15, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

And anyone can comment on this if you like. TheNewGuy RoarKovu kiara congaline 00:54, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Um...thanks for sharing. In the valley of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. 18:40, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what exactly this has to do with improving the article? Ggctuk (talk) 18:51, January 10, 2013 (UTC)

Simmons saying Six New Adventures is a prequel to The Lion King is not reliable. He's not an official Disney employee. Simmons wrote tie-in books for Disney, but he wrote tie-in material for other companies, as well as the other Six New Adventures writers. Animator Andrew Collins confirmed in this magazine interview that the cub at the end of the film (Fluffy) is actually female. Collins, on the other hand, is reliable because he once worked for Disney since 1989 (until 2006) according to this website. Chris14 (talk) 0:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is why it's worded the way it is in the article. But the truth of the matter is, it's up to Disney themselves to decide. They haven't actually commented themselves to the contrary, nor have they confirmed. It's for that reason a debateable subject. Ggctuk (talk) 22:00, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Disney has commented on it. The canon filmmakers represent Disney. On the audio commentary, Rob Minkoff, Roger Allers, and Don Hahn agreed that the cub is neither male nor female, but "Fluffy". There isn't any retroactive continuity. The filmmakers denied the books possibly without having any knowledge of them. Chris14 (talk) 1:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Which is why it is in the Trivia section and is worded in the way I put it. Ggctuk (talk) 21:37, January 24, 2013 (UTC)

Many fanfics include Kopa and Kiara, but what about Tanabi? There are fanfics that place Tanabi as being the first/only son/child of Simba and Nala, in lieu of Kopa and/or Kiara. In others, it places Tanabi as the firstborn son and child of Simba and Nala and is therefore the older brother and Kopa and/or Kiara. What I like to know is why they're isn't more fanfics that include Tanabi and one or both of his younger siblings (especially since there ARE stories that mention Simba and Nala being the parents of at least 3 cubs. 22:36, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Tanabi's name was completely fabricated by TLK fans, not Disney.  He exists only in fanfiction.  Wikifur has a page on him but as the site's down, here's the main quote: "Tanabi is a popular character in The Lion King fandom, but who was not canon to The Lion King or its sequels." 03:30, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

As the previous poster mentioned, Tanabi is a fan-made version of Simba's son who used to be much more popular prior to the release of Simba's Pride. Kopa was a fairly obscure character when Simba's Pride came out, but when scans of TLK6NA became available in the mid-00's, Kopa started to "replace" Tanabi in fan art and fan fiction. Now Kopa is almost universally known while Tanabi has fallen into obscurity. Akril (talk) 04:18, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Does Kopa really disappear? Was he born after Kiara?

I am so confused on this concept... First, if Kopa did disappear, what did happen to him? If not, was he was born after Kiara? Kiara M249 (talk) 20:29, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows. 'Officially' speaking, Kiara is the only one to exist, as the only 'true' canon is the films themselves. This is why Kopa is identified as a 'semi-canon' character. As pointed out in the article, Alex Simmons considers his books to be the prequel to Simba's Pride which would indicate that, at least in his eyes, Kopa existed before Kiara in the universe. Disney haven't actually said anything in response to this specific statement. Ggctuk (talk) 20:38, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
    Okay, so your saying Kopa just... disappeared before Kiara existed? If not, it is not really sure what                    happened to him, right? Kiara M249 (talk) 20:56, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm saying that it is unknown what happened to him, IF the book is to be taken on the same level of canon as the films. It wouldn't be well explained if he just 'disappeared'. Ggctuk (talk) 21:07, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
     Okay, I think I understand now. Thanks. Kiara M249 (talk) 21:09, April 22, 2013 (UTC)

Is this nonsense?

I have read and sen that Kopa (or he has been replaced by Kion) was killed by Zira, and that is why she and her followers got banished. Is this just nonsense? --LordLime (talk) 20:30, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

That is a fan theory. The only "canon" material we have on Kopa is on his article. --Honeyfur 22:09, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Assuming he would be tied into canon...

The Roar of the Elders is a power given to the second born cub of the royals. Which means if he did exist back then, either he or Kiara would possess it. So here's my theory: Kopa is the third cub, born after Kion, and the stories featuring him take place after the events of Simba's Pride. Lord O' Darkness (talk) 01:37, October 5, 2016 (UTC) 

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+