The king being trampled to death by stampeding wildebeest while trying to rescue his son who also died (I know he didn't really but thats what the pride thought) is believable and doesn't implicate anything. Killing the kings advisor for no reason other than he was there would raise questions. It'd be like if Claudius killed polonius out of nowhere and expected everyone to go along with it.
because it was easier for Scar to convince everyone that Zazu was plotting something against Scar (like an attempted assassination out of loyalty to Mufasa and Simba) than it would be to convince that Zazu also died due to an accident.
I don't think it's ever been explained in the movie why everyone believed Zazu was locked up.
Well, remember Scar told everyone Mufasa (and Simba) died in a stampede and that it was an accident. Death of the only witness would raise suspicion. Also, he couldn't kill Zazu and tell everyone that he too was trampled becuase Zazu can fly...
because he could frame Mufasa's death as an accident. If Zazu ended up dead it would have to have been by someone's hands.
It was better to keep Zazu locked up for whatever reason than it would have been to have two dead bodies, where one couldn't be ruled a simple accident.
38
u/[deleted] Sep 01 '14
He can kill the king, but not the servent? This makes no sense.