Monster_Kid said:
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.

Don't try to point this at me, and say it's my fault. Your the one who conflicted yourself a few times, and you lie about me calling you a baby. - You are no where suitableto be the bigger man.

Also, I tried twice not to argue, but how can I not if your making false accusations about me?!

Bj007pro said:
Don't try to point this at me, and say it's my fault. Your the one who conflicted yourself a few times, and you lie about me calling you a baby. - You are no where suitableto be the bigger man.

Also, I tried twice not to argue, but how can I not if your making false accusations about me?!

https://e621.net/forum/show/190091

Bj007pro said:
So...now can we get back on topic since the baby is now blocked?

You called him a baby, end of discussion.

Now back on topic.

I wouldn't say that Zootopia is a "furry" movie. I'm too tired to type up an essay about it but the way the characters are designed and animated are not presented as sexy (which is what I believe would be present in a "furry" movie.) Yes, there's the nudist scene and the dancing tigers along with Shakira-Gazelle but the nudist scene is more of a tongue-in-cheek jab at the "animals wearing clothes" thing and the animators don't detail the butts of the nude animals. Usually, a movie that goes for the easy joke of "Haha, there's a naked butt" would do that. And the tigers...well, the best explanation is that when you have back-up dancers, you want to notice them enough to enhance the main act's performance. And I guess sparkle shorts are the way to go.

Plus, it actually does tell us more about Edmond Otterton. Because the fact that he was there tells us that there's more than the smiling dad in the photo. He has his own quirks and favorite activities. Probably scared to admit it to his wife out of fear of being judged if that photo of him trying to hide his face while entering the Oasis is anything to go by.

What I feel like a "furry" movie would be is a movie that makes it hard to be accessible to people outside the demographic. Not that we can't have anthropomorphic characters be sexy, violent, bold and the like in a movie. But Zootopia works because it makes it easy to be interested in what's going on. And I feel like if there's a writer involved in the furry community trying to write a movie about anthros, they might try too hard to make sure to appeal to furries while forgetting about the rest of the audience that might see it.

That's why I include humans in my fictional world but I change the rules of what the social ladder would normally be so that way the conflict is about the individual, not the species.

RandoChris said:
I wouldn't say that Zootopia is a "furry" movie. I'm too tired to type up an essay about it but the way the characters are designed and animated are not presented as sexy (which is what I believe would be present in a "furry" movie.) Yes, there's the nudist scene and the dancing tigers along with Shakira-Gazelle but the nudist scene is more of a tongue-in-cheek jab at the "animals wearing clothes" thing and the animators don't detail the butts of the nude animals. Usually, a movie that goes for the easy joke of "Haha, there's a naked butt" would do that. And the tigers...well, the best explanation is that when you have back-up dancers, you want to notice them enough to enhance the main act's performance. And I guess sparkle shorts are the way to go.

Plus, it actually does tell us more about Edmond Otterton. Because the fact that he was there tells us that there's more than the smiling dad in the photo. He has his own quirks and favorite activities. Probably scared to admit it to his wife out of fear of being judged if that photo of him trying to hide his face while entering the Oasis is anything to go by.

What I feel like a "furry" movie would be is a movie that makes it hard to be accessible to people outside the demographic. Not that we can't have anthropomorphic characters be sexy, violent, bold and the like in a movie. But Zootopia works because it makes it easy to be interested in what's going on. And I feel like if there's a writer involved in the furry community trying to write a movie about anthros, they might try too hard to make sure to appeal to furries while forgetting about the rest of the audience that might see it.

That's why I include humans in my fictional world but I change the rules of what the social ladder would normally be so that way the conflict is about the individual, not the species.

Fantastic post. I agree that Zootopia is not a furry movie, but there's a couple points I want to make.

Usually, a movie that goes for the easy joke of "Haha, there's a naked butt" would do that.
I think it's important to note there are some kid friendly movies that still make jokes like that. I'm not entirely sure if that's what you meant by an easy joke, but butt and fart jokes are common in non-Disney animated films.

(I won't comment on the movie specific details from there, because I saw the movie a while ago and don't remember much. If I haven't made it clear yet I don't find it very memorable

What I feel like a "furry" movie would be is a movie that makes it hard to be accessible to people outside the demographic.
Now this is where you lose me. Like I said before, there are so many different kinds of furries, and there are so many different types of movies that could be made with a furry audience in mind. But most importantly, I'd like to believe we're better than this. I don't think we'd want to put our names on something vile or sexual that only furries could like it, right? Sure, a romance story might be hard for some non furry viewers, but besides, weren't Nick and Judy implied to have a relationship or something? once again I don't remember, but there's tons of porn of them so there's that.

Monster_Kid said:
Fantastic post. I agree that Zootopia is not a furry movie, but there's a couple points I want to make.

Usually, a movie that goes for the easy joke of "Haha, there's a naked butt" would do that.
I think it's important to note there are some kid friendly movies that still make jokes like that. I'm not entirely sure if that's what you meant by an easy joke, but butt and fart jokes are common in non-Disney animated films.

(I won't comment on the movie specific details from there, because I saw the movie a while ago and don't remember much. If I haven't made it clear yet I don't find it very memorable

What I feel like a "furry" movie would be is a movie that makes it hard to be accessible to people outside the demographic.
Now this is where you lose me. Like I said before, there are so many different kinds of furries, and there are so many different types of movies that could be made with a furry audience in mind. But most importantly, I'd like to believe we're better than this. I don't think we'd want to put our names on something vile or sexual that only furries could like it, right? Sure, a romance story might be hard for some non furry viewers, but besides, weren't Nick and Judy implied to have a relationship or something? once again I don't remember, but there's tons of porn of them so there's that.

The butt joke thing was more about fully detailing the ass of the naked character instead of leaving it cartoonish like in the film.

And the 2nd part of your reply, it's not that I think the movie a furry would make would be "vile" or "sexual." Mind you, I wasn't fully awake when I typed that. But what I was trying to say was that the writer would want to show themes or scenes with their characters that are not normally seen in other movies with mainly anthro characters. And they might focus on that too much that they lose sight on the rest of the movie. Romances with anthro characters are seen all the time (just look at Mickey and Minnie Mouse) but I can't tell you which movies that I've seen that shows the same level of intimacy between two anthros as a live-action romance film would.

RandoChris said:
The butt joke thing was more about fully detailing the ass of the naked character instead of leaving it cartoonish like in the film.

And the 2nd part of your reply, it's not that I think the movie a furry would make would be "vile" or "sexual." Mind you, I wasn't fully awake when I typed that. But what I was trying to say was that the writer would want to show themes or scenes with their characters that are not normally seen in other movies with mainly anthro characters. And they might focus on that too much that they lose sight on the rest of the movie. Romances with anthro characters are seen all the time (just look at Mickey and Minnie Mouse) but I can't tell you which movies that I've seen that shows the same level of intimacy between two anthros as a live-action romance film would.

And there in lies the problem. I can't describe how badly I want an itelligent romance with furry characters, but for now we're stuck with fanfiction and comics.

Monster_Kid said:
And there in lies the problem. I can't describe how badly I want an itelligent romance with furry characters, but for now we're stuck with fanfiction and comics.

We don't want creators to hold back...though we also don't want to try and recapture what Fritz the Cat brought to the table, if anyone remembers that.

RandoChris said:
We don't want creators to hold back...though we also don't want to try and recapture what Fritz the Cat brought to the table, if anyone remembers that.

I was going to reference it actually! Ralph Bakshi is unbelievably talented, and I would be more than happy to have that represent our fandom.

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.

Bj007pro said:
Don't just say you know it's true because you follow them, give us the source link.

Mana_Dragon_Flammie said:
Screencaps, plz.

No offense but why do i gotta do work to prove my point...you WANT proof go follow them on twitter and read their Twitter post history, im not gonna waste my time proving anything

Its what they said, its the truth, and if you dont believe me thats your problem and not mine...

Its not my fault you aren't up to date with social media lol

Tranquil_Bunny said:
No offense but why do i gotta do work to prove my point...you WANT proof go follow them on twitter and read their Twitter post history, im not gonna waste my time proving anything

Its what they said, its the truth, and if you dont believe me thats your problem and not mine...

Its not my fault you aren't up to date with social media lol

...Okay, I'm new to the conversation and I have no idea who's being claimed to be a furry.

RandoChris said:
...Okay, I'm new to the conversation and I have no idea who's being claimed to be a furry.

Nobody, the developers of Zootopia mentioned that furries were a part of their target demographic.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nobody, the developers of Zootopia mentioned that furries were a part of their target demographic.

And that's it? Then...that's a thing. :/

It's worth noting that the creative direction of Zootopia was done much more freely than your typical Disney film.

Now if we agree that its a Furry film if it is tailored to Furries then yes Zootopia is a Furry film.

We know that Disney is aware of Furries. Many of Disneys past movies such as 101 Dalmatians are essentially talking animals not Furry (as in the genre). More recent movies such as Bolt are also essentially talking animals and are not Furry characters. Bambi is essentially talking animals as well. All of these movies might as well be animals from an animals perspective but talk so we know what's going on. It is not an alternate perspective that uses anthropomorphic animals to affect their own social situations and their own world (classic sense of Furry genre). Disney movies such as Mulan and Chicken Little are essentially Funny Animals (what the Furry genre was a reaction to and differentiated itself from). Films like Robin Hood presented an alternative (a fox) to the known character Robin Hood and the characters aren't essentially just animals that talk. This is the standard that makes it Furry. Other Disney examples: The Aristocats and The Great Mouse Detective. Most Disney films are not Furry in this sense but Zootopia definitely is. It uses anthropomorphic animals to depict an alternative reality (not essentially talking animals) using the characters for verity and definition of character.

Also this film is not aimed at children. It is aimed at 14-24 age group. The very first scene tells us that us that is not fit for a very young audience nor would the issues it addresses be of much significance to a child.

P.S. There's three ways to use the word Furry (with a capital F), Furry meaning all anthropomorphic animals, the Furry genre or of particular interest to the Furry community. I mean Furry as in the genre throughout this post.

Jackal32 said:
It's worth noting that the creative direction of Zootopia was done much more freely than your typical Disney film.

Now if we agree that its a Furry film if it is tailored to Furries then yes Zootopia is a Furry film.

We know that Disney is aware of Furries. Many of Disneys past movies such as 101 Dalmatians are essentially talking animals not Furry (as in the genre). More recent movies such as Bolt are also essentially talking animals and are not Furry characters. Bambi is essentially talking animals as well. All of these movies might as well be animals from an animals perspective but talk so we know what's going on. It is not an alternate perspective that uses anthropomorphic animals to affect their own social situations and their own world (classic sense of Furry genre). Disney movies such as Mulan and Chicken Little are essentially Funny Animals (what the Furry genre was a reaction to and differentiated itself from). Films like Robin Hood presented an alternative (a fox) to the known character Robin Hood and the characters aren't essentially just animals that talk. This is the standard that makes it Furry. Other Disney examples: The Aristocats and The Great Mouse Detective. Most Disney films are not Furry in this sense but Zootopia definitely is. It uses anthropomorphic animals to depict an alternative reality (not essentially talking animals) using the characters for verity and definition of character.

Also this film is not aimed at children. It is aimed at 14-24 age group. The very first scene tells us that us that is not fit for a very young audience nor would the issues it addresses be of much significance to a child.

P.S. There's three ways to use the word Furry (with a capital F), Furry meaning all anthropomorphic animals, the Furry genre or of particular interest to the Furry community. I mean Furry as in the genre throughout this post.

To be honest, I think there's more to a "Furry" movie than just having anthro characters as the main focus. I know you're just talking about what Disney has done but that's a lot of gray area if you try to apply that criteria to other shows and movies.

Is Power Rangers SPD appealing to furries with Doggie Krauser? Are the animal characters in Bojack Horseman meant to draw in the furry audience? Were some of the cartoons a lot of young adults watched as kids that had anthro characters that don't quite fit "Funny Animals" or "Talking Animals" meant for furries?

Maybe. Who knows. Now, I know where you're coming from with Zootopia, and yeah, you can call it a "Furry" movie in that anthros are the main characters. But I believe people mainly use anthropomorphic animals in stories and other creative works because we, as humans, have an easier time becoming connected and attached to animals than other humans. And when we're interested, we learn more easily. With a lot of the charities and efforts from people to try and save endangered species and help animals in need, it's obvious that we care greatly about them. So when an animal is presented like a person, it doesn't feel difficult to become attached since, a lot of the time, they're representing something that we're fond of.

And that IS part of Zootopia's appeal, because when you see a character like Judy Hopps, who's presented as a hard worker, an optimist, and someone trying to do the right thing, it's easy to root for her as she tries to accomplish her goals. That's not to say it'd be hard to if she was human, but combine her motivations with her appearance as a cute bunny, you feel a different kind of connection that still works to the movie's benefit.

I can't really say what IS a "Furry" movie because the criteria differs from person to person. You can definitely say what appeals to furries in a movie, but you can't really say "That's a furry movie" as a definite example. And even then, just saying that makes Zootopia feel lesser than what it really is. Because calling something "a furry movie" gives the impression that they're exploiting the furry community just to make a quick buck when that's not the case.

Though I will say that your statement here feels misguided:

Also this film is not aimed at children. It is aimed at 14-24 age group. The very first scene tells us that us that is not fit for a very young audience nor would the issues it addresses be of much significance to a child.

I don't speak for the filmmakers but a PG rating just means that the content may not be suitable for all children and it's the parent's choice whether to take them. (In comparison to taking kids to see Deadpool but that's a different matter.) Kids perceive a lot more than you're giving them credit for. The only things that I can think of that would require a PG rating would be the scenes where the predators are feral and legitimately scary and maybe some of the innuendo but stuff like the latter are for the adults to laugh at.

And...really? The issues of being judged for your appearance or judging others for theirs are not significant to a child? That's...wrong. Completely wrong. That's why I brought up the easy attachment to anthro characters because by appearance, they're more welcoming to kids. And even if kids somehow can't understand why Nick gets mistreated in his first scenes or Judy in her scenes with Chief Bogo, they'll wonder about it. Even if they don't ask, they'll think about it.

GUYS! GUYS!!

This movie does have some relation to us Furries!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B8vfSAwQzc

(I know this is legit information because it's said from a legit channel!)

Go here to skip straight to where they start talking about Furries: https://youtu.be/8B8vfSAwQzc?t=5m37s

FurryLover001 said:
stuff

define "legit" in this case. sorry but that seems kinda silly using the word "legit" to describe a youtube channel.

thought that is an interesting tidbit, never knew about that.

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.

I study animation and I have my normal art website which contains all clean stuff and here I do my naughty stuff, weirdly I do all my clean stuff in a different style so that no one makes the connection, I hope to work in animation one day and I wouldn't want the two stuff to crossover.

I still haven't seen it

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

Hah, yeah. right/