Like what above says.

I think it's very alike right? Isn't Furries Anthropomorphism?
But I know other reasons, but can't...put them into words.

What's your guy's fellings?

Eh?

I dunno, there have been tons of movies with animals walking on two legs and talking and wearing clothes (while for some reason being bottomless half the time) and basically acting like humans. So, furries.

I remember reading a while ago that they actually intended for the movie to appeal to Furries.

Not really though? Condensing such a broad topic into one movie is just wrong. There are so many different types of furries. I mean, I'm a furry and I didn't find any of the characters in Zootopia attractive.

It's far from the first furry movie, but it is presently the most technologically advanced.

I didn't watch Zootopia because it was a furry movie, but because it was a Disney movie and therefore going to be delightful to watch.

I just think the movie was also meant to be Disney on steroids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlqWbT-xiw&t=15s

I think it wasn't directly aimed to furries, more to an audience between 12 and 20. It sure has mature and deep backrounds, (like racism,the short question of how far politicians should go to protect the public or terrorism, to name 3 points)but it's mostly for kids.

Would say it's a furry movie but not primary.

(A studio for more adult (no porn) furry movies would be cool in my opinion)

The DEV and, like, workers who worked on Zootopia ACTUALLY said it was a movie specifically pointed in the direction of furries believe it or not. I read it on twitter, cause i follow them

Tranquil_Bunny said:
The DEV and, like, workers who worked on Zootopia ACTUALLY said it was a movie specifically pointed in the direction of furries believe it or not. I read it on twitter, cause i follow them

Surprising for the dev to admit it, but not too surprising for the workers.
Many animators are furries. From what I've heard, there's always some openly furry artists in animation schools... and a lot of closet furries. And some who end up as furries by the time they graduate.

Getting employed for some big project is actually one common reason why furry artists pull their adult art off the internet: the employer doesn't openly approve of it.

Tranquil_Bunny said:
The DEV and, like, workers who worked on Zootopia ACTUALLY said it was a movie specifically pointed in the direction of furries believe it or not. I read it on twitter, cause i follow them

Don't just say you know it's true because you follow them, give us the source link.

old news thread

Tranquil_Bunny said:
The DEV and, like, workers who worked on Zootopia ACTUALLY said it was a movie specifically pointed in the direction of furries believe it or not. I read it on twitter, cause i follow them

Screencaps, plz.

If it was Furries: The Movie, I'm pretty sure all the characters would look like the thousands of OCs that exist. Like, Judy would probably have purple fur and a rainbow mohawk, for example.

Genjar said:
Surprising for the dev to admit it, but not too surprising for the workers.
Many animators are furries. From what I've heard, there's always some openly furry artists in animation schools... and a lot of closet furries. And some who end up as furries by the time they graduate.

Getting employed for some big project is actually one common reason why furry artists pull their adult art off the internet: the employer doesn't openly approve of it.

huh, cool

TheGreatWolfgang said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLlqWbT-xiw&t=15s

Why did you just link to funny moments compilation? Is there something I'm missing?

Monster_Kid said:
I'd personally love to see a deep and emotional drama that just so happens to have furry characters. Like Only Yesterday: furry edition.

Or the original story they had with the necklaces and Nicks wonderland for predators ^^

That was all uncalled for. My apologies.

what the fuck

Monster_Kid said:
That was all uncalled for. My apologies.

Yo, the forums allow you to edit your posts, y'know, so that you don't have to post a bunch of consecutive times. What I do if I realize somebody was "Uncalled for" but not worthy of being deleted, is I edit the post and put [\s][/\s] around it to strike it out, and if necessary put the apology after it on the same post. Some users will use the edit feature to copy the entire post, then make a new one with it and hide the old one, so that the thread still gets updated without having the appearance of multiple posts from the same user.
But, uh,

Monster_Kid said:
The moral of the story--

This one should just straight up be hidden.

D4rk said:
Or the original story they had with the necklaces and Nicks wonderland for predators ^^

i know about the collars, but what's this wonderland for predators?

Tranquil_Bunny said:
The DEV and, like, workers who worked on Zootopia ACTUALLY said it was a movie specifically pointed in the direction of furries believe it or not. I read it on twitter, cause i follow them

Told you! *caugh*

404dotexe said:
I remember reading a while ago that they actually intended for the movie to appeal to Furries.

Remember Cats Don't Dance? Lion King? Oliver and Company? The jungle book? Aristocats? Lady and the Tramp? Ice Age?

All these gave Animals human like traits and emotions. How is this any different? Even Cats Don't Dance had them in full clothing.

Furrin_Gok said:
Yo, the forums allow you to edit your posts, y'know, so that you don't have to post a bunch of consecutive times. What I do if I realize somebody was "Uncalled for" but not worthy of being deleted, is I edit the post and put [\s][/\s] around it to strike it out, and if necessary put the apology after it on the same post. Some users will use the edit feature to copy the entire post, then make a new one with it and hide the old one, so that the thread still gets updated without having the appearance of multiple posts from the same user.
But, uh,
This one should just straight up be hidden.

Alright. Thanks!

404dotexe said:
Told you! *cough*

Stop posting multiple times in quick succession.

The edit feature is not optional.

Also, don't mock other users.

I don't know man, Hardcore Henry is pretty furry.

Monster_Kid said:
And since when were there rules on how much I post?

Oh, you know, for more than 3 years now.

Spamming or Trolling

Monster_Kid said:
Because I'm totally trolling

Only said the same thing over and over and had nothing value able to add to the conversation

What a weenie peeny

Knock it off.

Monster_Kid said:
Not really afraid of being blocked ya nazi terrorist

k.

Monster_Kid said:
Not really afraid of being blocked ya nazi terrorist

*user blocked*
That comment was uncalled for, but whatever.

So...now can we get back on topic since the child is now blocked?

Hiatuss said:
Remember Cats Don't Dance? Lion King? Oliver and Company? The jungle book? Aristocats? Lady and the Tramp? Ice Age?

All these gave Animals human like traits and emotions. How is this any different? Even Cats Don't Dance had them in full clothing.

Yeah, but I'm talking about movies that have no relation with/to humans. Ice Age 1, 101 Dalmatians, 102 Dalmatians, Over The Hedge, Open Season, Managaster, they all have human species in them.

Movies like, Ice Age 2/3, The Lion King 1/2/1.5 (or 3), Happy Feet/2, Kung Fu Panda 1/2/3. Had no relation with/to humans.

______________________________________________

Also, I found this link to a Reddit page that shows someone else that agrees with me...or are thinking across the same line/s as me...

https://www.reddit.com/r/furry/comments/39ihbr/is_it_just_me_or_is_zootopia_suspiciously_furry/

I think you mean Madagascar. Also Happy Feet 1 and 2 did include humans even if for a short time. I mean I guess the movie itself could have specifically geared towards furries but the fact is that Anthros have been done quite a lot especially on TV shows. Not even involving humans either. Darkwing Duck, Tail Spin, Skunk Fu, etc. There's also Video games like Sly Cooper and Solatorabo and Tail Concerto.

Hiatuss said:
I think you mean Madagascar. Also Happy Feet 1 and 2 did include humans even if for a short time. I mean I guess the movie itself could have specifically geared towards furries but the fact is that Anthros have been done quite a lot especially on TV shows. Not even involving humans either. Darkwing Duck, Tail Spin, Skunk Fu, etc. There's also Video games like Sly Cooper and Solatorabo and Tail Concerto.

Fucking auto-corrected due to being on an iPad.

And two, I don't see your point is going.

Bj007pro said:
And two, I don't see your point is going.

Where's "One"?

The point is exactly what he said. Happy Feet movies do have humans. The whole middle-point and end-point of Happy Feet one involves mass human civilization, not sure about the second one as I haven't seen it yet. And then, there are plenty of shows that you hadn't listed yet that have fully anthropomorphic animal communities without humans. It's called "Contributing to your point."

Actually i think this might be the first time that disney is consciously dealt with furries.

that's it, i'm changing my username to Managaster

Munkelzahn said:
i know about the collars, but what's this wonderland for predators?

Wasnt the script that Nick has a place where predators can have "fun" and Judy hunts him for that?

Alotta people are saying it's a subliminal white supremacist call to arms.
Just when I thought I'd heard it all.

Munkelzahn said:
that's it, i'm changing my username to Managaster

I will support you, Munk Mana, whatever you do. Well, as long as what you do involves name changes, no promises elsewise

D4rk said:
Wasnt the script that Nick has a place where predators can have "fun" and Judy hunts him for that? [/quote] I need to stop reading this thread. I figured the whole predator/prey thing was a joke from Weaver.

Furrin_Gok said: And then, there are plenty of shows that you hadn't listed yet that have fully anthropomorphic animal communities without humans. It's called "Contributing to your point."

What am I? A fucking walking Wikipedia?

Munkelzahn said:
that's it, i'm changing my username to Managaster

Damn! I thought you were really going to do it! xP

Just wanted to rejoin the fourm to apologize. Sorry to anyone involved. All of my comments were removed. Feel free to ignore this and hate my guts, but this does at least clear my conscience.

Monster_Kid said:
Just wanted to rejoin the fourm to apologize. Sorry to anyone involved. All of my comments were removed. Feel free to ignore this and hate my guts, but this does at least clear my conscience.

I would just like to say thanks for being mature and apologising. We accept your apology.
I hope see you posting on here more, just having fun and being sensible!

Lol

Bj007pro said:
Lol

What? (Not in a mean way, just curious)

Monster_Kid said:
What? (Not in a mean way, just curious)

There's nothing mean about asking "What" in response to a senseless "lol" post in a very serious topic, as the statement of "lol" on its own is the mean post.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's nothing mean about asking "What" in response to a senseless "lol" post in a very serious topic, as the statement of "lol" on its own is the mean post.

Thank you.

TruckNutz said:
Alotta people are saying it's a subliminal white supremacist call to arms.
Just when I thought I'd heard it all.

OH BOY YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS

Monster_Kid said:
What? (Not in a mean way, just curious)

Furrin_Gok said:
There's nothing mean about asking "What" in response to a senseless "lol" post in a very serious topic, as the statement of "lol" on its own is the mean post.

I don't know where you got that from, I was just laughing at how people find it hard to stay on topic. I never read Monster Kid's post throughout. Lol.

Furrin_Gok said:
Where's "One"?

The point is exactly what he said. Happy Feet movies do have humans. The whole middle-point and end-point of Happy Feet one involves mass human civilization, not sure about the second one as I haven't seen it yet. And then, there are plenty of shows that you hadn't listed yet that have fully anthropomorphic animal communities without humans. It's called "Contributing to your point."

If you do watch Happy Feet 2, you'd be surprised to find it has a sort-of-implied gay couple in it. Can't find a good clip, but they're one of them says:
"We could start a family."
"We're both guys!"
"We'll adopt!"
"You adopt, I'll adapt."

Best part of the movie.

I don't consider Zootopia a furry movie.

Calling it "a furry movie" implies that it was made with a furry psychology in mind and/or was made by or for furries. Neither is true. It's a modern animal fantasy made for children, and the only one turning it into a furry movie is the furries. The same thing happened with Robin Hood back in the day.

And while we do see some rather ample curvature on Gazelle, that's not a Disney decision; Shakira requested it to better fit her self-image (which is more than a little delusional might I add.)

The furry fandom isn't in a state where I'd be comfortable stressing it in anything I would be showing to the public at large, especially children -- and Disney is one of the leading children's entertainment companies, making them likely much more conservative about it than I am.

Qmannn said:
This mentality always confused me. What exactly does it mean for one to be furry?

It simply confuses everybody.

Qmannn said:
This mentality always confused me. What exactly does it mean for one to be furry? What does it mean to specifically appeal to furries beyond characters that are a (typically anthropomorphic) hybrid of human and non human animal traits?

Outside of animal stereotypes and certain biological characteristics associated with a represented species, what makes the characterization of furry characters any different from that of non furry characters?

Qmannn said:
This mentality always confused me. What exactly does it mean for one to be furry? What does it mean to specifically appeal to furries beyond characters that are a (typically anthropomorphic) hybrid of human and non human animal traits?

Outside of animal stereotypes and certain biological characteristics associated with a represented species, what makes the characterization of furry characters any different from that of non furry characters?

It all depends on the context. To me, a furry can be anyone, and a furry movie/book/game can be anything. Things change when you add context.

Disney is considered the pioneers of general furry movies

And I consider Zootopia to be the first child friendly movie made with s furry audience in mind. When you keep the staff's perspective in mind as well as the subtle fan service with the tiger dancer scene and the nudist colony it only makes sense.

(I don't care for Buzzfeed by the way, I just linked them because they did a decent job compiling the evidence.)

All that said however, I don't want Zootopia to be considered the definitive furry movie like everyone wants it to be. With the fear of once again starting fights, I don't think it's good enough for that, and I don't want people to think of Zootopia when they think of who I am.

I'd say that there's been plenty of furry movies. For instance, the Russian adaptation of the Jungle Book can get pretty 'furry' at times.

And I'd definitely consider movies such as Macskafogó furry. Anthros have always been popular in Europe. The oldest anthro movie that I can think of is The Tale of the Fox (1930). French.

...but yes, it certainly depends on exactly what you count as furry. And Zootopia might indeed be the first movie that's specifically marketed for the furdom. That, or Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009).

Happy Feet, for example, was clearly made to capitalize on the popularity of The March of the Penguins. Not aimed for furries.

Genjar said:
For instance, the Russian adaptation of the Jungle Book can get pretty 'furry' at times.

what is this bootleg Disney shit

Monster_Kid said:
All that said however, I don't want Zootopia to be considered the definitive furry movie like everyone wants it to be. With the fear of once again starting fights, I don't think it's good enough for that, and I don't want people to think of Zootopia when they think of who I am.

What, so....you're the ruler of movies now so you can say what is what?

Monster_Kid said:
And I consider Zootopia to be the first child friendly movie made with s furry audience in mind. When you keep the staff's perspective in mind as well as the subtle fan service with the tiger dancer scene and the nudist colony it only makes sense.

No one knows on how most likely closely to wrongly this statement could be...

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Rustyy said:
what is this bootleg Disney shit

The Jungle Book (1894) is a collection of stories by English author Rudyard Kipling. The stories were first published in magazines in 1893–94. [Source]

Bj007pro said:
What, so....you're the ruler of movies now so you can say what is what?

No one knows on how most likely closely to wrongly this statement could be...

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I have no desire to argue with you. I simply said I PERSONALLY don't want Zootopia to be considered the definitive furry movie.

As for your dispute of Zootopia being intended for furries, feel free to argue that point! Just please don't be mean, you've already called me a baby, and now you're egging me on just because you disagree with me.

NotMeNotYou said:
The Jungle Book (1894) is a collection of stories by English author Rudyard Kipling. The stories were first published in magazines in 1893–94. [Source]

I believe the confusion was regarding the adaptation, not the source material. I mean, everyone knows where The Jungle Book came from. It was a book, like you said. (Not in a rude way of course.)

Monster_Kid said:
As for your dispute of Zootopia being intended for furries, feel free to argue that point! Just please don't be mean, you've already called me a baby, and now you're egging me on just because you disagree with me.

You don't want to argue with me, but then you say I'm "intending" for Zootopia to be a movie for Furries. I never said that you unhonest person.
I was asking for people's thoughts, which isn't a crime in any state or place in the world. So read and believe what you will, mate.

Bj007pro said:
You don't want to argue with me, but then you say I'm "intending" for Zootopia to be a movie for Furries. I never said that you unhonest person.
I was asking for people's thoughts, which isn't a crime in any state or place in the world. So read and believe what you will, mate.

Where did I say that? I said I don't want Zootopia to be a furry movie, and I don't want to fight, which makes sense after you insulted me and commented this

"
What, so....you're the ruler of movies now so you can say what is what?"

Monster_Kid said:
Where did I say that? I said I don't want Zootopia to be a furry movie, and I don't want to fight, which makes sense after you insulted me and commented this

"
What, so....you're the ruler of movies now so you can say what is what?"

How is that an insult? The only was for that to be an insult is if you were actually the ruler. But you aren't, so that wasn't an insult.

And where did you say that?...

Monster_Kid said:
As for your dispute of Zootopia being intended for furries, feel free to argue that point! Just please don't be mean, you've already called me a baby, and now you're egging me on just because you disagree with me.

And you're a total liar! I have not once called you a baby, nor am trying to "egg" you on. Please, find your Q's & A's.

Bj007pro said:
How is that an insult? The only was for that to be an insult is if you were actually the ruler. But you aren't, so that wasn't an insult.

That's where you're in the wrong, man. Such a sarcastic comment can only be seen as malicious.

Cut it out, all of you.

NotMeNotYou said:
Cut it out, all of you.

Exactly what I was trying to avoid. Thank you Furrin_Gok for explaining my reasoning better than I could.

I plan on sticking on this forum because the topic interests me, but I'm done with this. Bj007, let's please get back on topic.