Zootopia

[Vallium]

In other news dont movie theaters have rules against wearing masks? I bet some furfags will try suiting...the smart ones might just wear ears and tail, though

[PastryOfApathy]

1 minute ago, WolfNightV4X1 said:

In other news dont movie theaters have rules against wearing masks? I bet some furfags will try suiting...the smart ones might just wear ears and tail, though

Some do, some do but don't care. Ours is firmly in the latter category.

[Troj]

Submitted for your approval:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.deWG5YMQX

Also, what's the deal with this chick? She's clearly obsessed with furries, despite not seeming to "get" the fandom, and seemingly not considering herself a furry.

[Strongbob]

56 minutes ago, Troj said:

Submitted for your approval:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.deWG5YMQX

Also, what's the deal with this chick? She's clearly obsessed with furries, despite not seeming to "get" the fandom, and seemingly not considering herself a furry.

 

This is all starting to make sense.  So Disney makes a blatantly furry themed movie with probable assistance from actual furries, throwing us a bone you could say.  But to head off the inevitable 'furries ruin everything' show, they preemptively reach out to the community and demand pictures.  Essentially they are  saying "Hey, enjoy the furry movie, WE ARE WATCHING YOU."  This is brilliant.  

[LazerMaster5]

1 hour ago, Troj said:

Submitted for your approval:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.deWG5YMQX

Also, what's the deal with this chick? She's clearly obsessed with furries, despite not seeming to "get" the fandom, and seemingly not considering herself a furry.

Buzzfeed is literal cancer.

[Endless/Nameless]

12 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Furfags didn't invent the word anthropomorphic.

Well, duh. You don't need an etymologist to to tell you that. But here's the thing--why are they focusing on that aspect?? They keep playing the angle of "animals that look/act like humans". Talking animal movies are nothing new or unusual; you don't need to explain it to people. The movie could easily stand alone without an explanation. But yet, right away in their opening trailer, they go and define anthropomorphism to the masses like some kind of furry manifesto. Of course they're not going to come right out and say they're targeting the movie to furries, but their intentions are pretty obvious. And also wonderfully ambiguous. 

But it's not like it really matters all that much. It just interesting. 

2 hours ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Buzzfeed is literal cancer.

Agreed. I can't believe I used to enjoy browsing that cesspool. 

[Troj]

2 hours ago, Strongbob said:

 

This is all starting to make sense.  So Disney makes a blatantly furry themed movie with probable assistance from actual furries, throwing us a bone you could say.  But to head off the inevitable 'furries ruin everything' show, they preemptively reach out to the community and demand pictures.  Essentially they are  saying "Hey, enjoy the furry movie, WE ARE WATCHING YOU."  This is brilliant.  

Yep. These people were surely not born yesterday.

[PastryOfApathy]

16 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Well, duh. You don't need an etymologist to to tell you that. But here's the thing--why are they focusing on that aspect?? They keep playing the angle of "animals that look/act like humans". Talking animal movies are nothing new or unusual; you don't need to explain it to people. The movie could easily stand alone without an explanation. But yet, right away in their opening trailer, they go and define anthropomorphism to the masses like some kind of furry manifesto. Of course they're not going to come right out and say they're targeting the movie to furries, but their intentions are pretty obvious. And also wonderfully ambiguous. 

Probably because it describes the whole concept of the movie in an interesting, memorable way? Like I think people are seriously forgetting this is a kids movie, so a lot if younger kids couldn't spell it, much less know what it means.

The problem is furfags are seemingly desperate for some kind of recognition, and are willing to make all these increasingly dubious connections to convince themselves Disney-senpai noticed them.

I mean normally I wouldn't care, but the idea that "OMG THEY MAKE A FURRYZ MOVIE GUIZE!!!" has become so goddamn obnoxious and stupid that I can't stand it.

[Endless/Nameless]

2 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Probably because it describes the whole concept of the movie in an interesting, memorable way? Like I think people are seriously forgetting this is a kids movie, so a lot if younger kids couldn't spell it, much less know what it means.

That why I found it odd they went that route with the marketing; why bother with big words and concepts like that for a children's movie?? But I'm with ya on the rest of it. 

[Chrysocyon]

First showing in my town starts tonight, I don't care what anyone says I'm going to go see it like the furry trash I am. c:

[Strongbob]

Going to the Thursday night premier would be a great way to find out who the closet furries in your community are.  Could be quite interesting and revealing.

[PastryOfApathy]

2 hours ago, Endless/Nameless said:

That why I found it odd they went that route with the marketing; why bother with big words and concepts like that for a children's movie?? But I'm with ya on the rest of it. 

Kids can understand "big words" if you explain what they mean...exactly like they did. That and "talking animal people" isn't some kind of amazingly complex concept to begin with. Shit's been a staple of children's media for about 10 forevers or so, I think 4-year-olds have gotten it by now.

Edited March 3, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Troj]

All words are "big words" or "new words" at some point. Children are biologically programmed to learn, so we should nurture and feed that.

[Xaende]

6 hours ago, Troj said:

Submitted for your approval:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook#.deWG5YMQX

Also, what's the deal with this chick? She's clearly obsessed with furries, despite not seeming to "get" the fandom, and seemingly not considering herself a furry.

"But in reality, Disney purposely is being a knot-tease."

 

Nope. Totally knot a fur. :V

[Endless/Nameless]

2 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

Kids can understand "big words" if you explain what they mean...exactly like they did. That and "talking animal people" isn't some kind of amazingly complex concept to begin with. Shit's been a staple of children's media for about 10 forevers or so, I think 4-year-olds have gotten it by now.

Of course they can understand it, but I found it odd that they'd bother when--like you and I have both said now--the concept of talking animals is nothing new. There really wasn't any need to emphasize/explain it unless they're trying to make a point. Not that it all matters much, but it's interesting to observe. 

[diretractor]

10 hours ago, Strongbob said:

But to head off the inevitable 'furries ruin everything' show, they preemptively reach out to the community and demand pictures.  Essentially they are  saying "Hey, enjoy the furry movie, WE ARE WATCHING YOU."  This is brilliant.  

That makes sense. I haven't thought of doing that.

I have seen the rhetoric from inside the furry fandom that what they do doesn't hurt anybody because it all stays within their community and is only visible by people who want to see it. That of course isn't true, people do see what furries are up to, but if people inside the furry fandom think that way then it explains the proliferation of that kind of behavior. If Disney is trying to make a point that no, we DO know what you are up to and want you to be on your best behavior, instead of pretending that the furry fandom doesn't exist, then the strategy makes sense. Provide a positive and more socially acceptable outlet that overlaps with many furries' desire to be recognized and accepted.

We are going to be looking into this. Seriously Strongbob, thanks for pointing that out. That might change our PR strategy if it seems to work for Disney.

I'm heading out to the IMAX in half an hour, and I will be counting tails.

[Strongbob]

1 hour ago, diretractor said:

We are going to be looking into this. Seriously Strongbob, thanks for pointing that out. That might change our PR strategy if it seems to work for Disney.

I'm heading out to the IMAX in half an hour, and I will be counting tails.

 

I mostly just pulled that out of my tail hole, but maybe it really is true, and it could be a pretty good strategy for the fandom in general.  There is a chance that this movie will pull us out of the rock that we've been collectively hiding under.  If we are forced to self police ourselves out of fear making the national news for all the wrong reasons, it could be a very good thing.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but wouldn't it be weird if someone at Disney is using this moving to bring the furry fandom into the main stream and making us grow up?

[PastryOfApathy]

1 hour ago, Strongbob said:

I mostly just pulled that out of my tail hole, but maybe it really is true, and it could be a pretty good strategy for the fandom in general.  There is a chance that this movie will pull us out of the rock that we've been collectively hiding under.  If we are forced to self police ourselves out of fear making the national news for all the wrong reasons, it could be a very good thing.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but wouldn't it be weird if someone at Disney is using this moving to bring the furry fandom into the main stream and making us grow up?

I lol'd

[Chrysocyon]

I just got back from the late night premiere.  I can unashamedly say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[diretractor]

3 hours ago, Strongbob said:

I mostly just pulled that out of my tail hole, but maybe it really is true, and it could be a pretty good strategy for the fandom in general.  There is a chance that this movie will pull us out of the rock that we've been collectively hiding under.  If we are forced to self police ourselves out of fear making the national news for all the wrong reasons, it could be a very good thing.  I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but wouldn't it be weird if someone at Disney is using this moving to bring the furry fandom into the main stream and making us grow up?

It might be a stretch, but in a way I wouldn't be surprised. Because again, the reputation within the furry fandom is affecting people outside of it, people in the animation industry, and to some extent other industries such as video games as well. I recall a case where a video game released DLC that replaced the anthropomorphic cast with human versions of those characters because the character design was a turn-off. I know people who wouldn't play Dust: An Elysian Tail because of its characters despite how great the game was. Yes, it most definitely is hurting us. It's probably hurting Disney too. I've been in discussions with people about how to take anthropomorphism back from the furry fandom, so it's on our minds.

OK, so about the movie. I went to an Edwards IMAX theater, 7:30pm showing, and there was only 15 people in the audience. Is that normal for a first showing? I'm in a populated suburb within commuting distance of Burbank. I don't go to first showings because I hate crowded theaters, but work paid for it and we were curious to see what kind of people went to go see it. Yes, I do mean tail counting. Is 15 people for a first showing normal? I wonder if people were afraid to go to the first viewing (or didn't want to pay the $20 ticket price, yikes).

Incidentally, the tail count was 1. The dude's fox tail got caught in the chair while he was trying to get out of it. It was kind of amusing. 1 tail out of 15 seems like a lot statistically.

What was everyone else's experience? (For the record I did enjoy it. I didn't cry like I did in Toy Story 3 or Inside Out, but I did enjoy it and I enjoyed the theme of the story.)

Edited March 4, 2016 by diretractor

[Toshabi]

10/10, best animated film in a long while.

[Kellie Gator]

So I saw it last night with a huge fucking crowd of furfags.

I wasn't surprised by how the movie explored racism, but I was surprised by how well and realistically they did so.

ALSO, important to note, they said at the con I'm in that a representative of Disney encouraged us to take selfies in fursuits with the hashtags #ZooU and #Zootopia.

In other words, they, or at least this representative, knows we exist and are totally cool with it.

[Troj]

The really odd and befuddling thing for me is how passionate some furries have gotten about whether or not Disney would intentionally market or cater to furries, as if this is some life-or-death issue, and as if most of us have anything even remotely approaching firsthand knowledge of Disney's actual inner workings.

By the way some people have reacted to the very suggestion that Disney might be winking at furries, you'd think they were debating anti-vaxxers or moon-landing-deniers. What the hell is up with that?

 

[Strongbob]

37 minutes ago, Troj said:

The really odd and befuddling thing for me is how passionate some furries have gotten about whether or not Disney would intentionally market or cater to furries, as if this is some life-or-death issue, and as if most of us have anything even remotely approaching firsthand knowledge of Disney's actual inner workings.

By the way some people have reacted to the very suggestion that Disney might be winking at furries, you'd think they were debating anti-vaxxers or moon-landing-deniers. What the hell is up with that?

 

 

It's true, it really is interesting how we latch onto these ideas and debate them.  Disney would never admit it one way or the other and it really doesn't matter that much.  The impact (or lack there of) from Zootopia on the community is far more important than the intention.  We spend a lot of time debating why something is rather than what it means for the future, which is actually pretty stupid.  Before I finish my psudo-philosophical rambling I'll leave you with one more treat, everyone tries to debate these things as if they are black and white issues, like this movie must either be furry related or not.  In reality, it doesn't need to be either, or it could be both.  Stop trying to put everything in a neat little box, nothing in life fits into a conveniently shaped box.   

 

 

[Kellie Gator]

14 minutes ago, Strongbob said:

 

It's true, it really is interesting how we latch onto these ideas and debate them.  Disney would never admit it one way or the other and it really doesn't matter that much.

 

Are you sure? I mean, it seems like they did when that one representative encouraged the #ZooU hashtag when we went to see the movie.

My point is, they most certainly acknowledge our existence. What they think is a completely different question, though, although I suppose they're more okay with furries than Tony the Tiger, rofl.

[Vae]

Can someone convince me to see this movie for reasons other than "IT HAS FURRIES!!!`"? (An angle I don't particularly give a shit about, myself.)

The crime drama aspect seems interesting. How was that played out?
How was racism played with?
Idgaf about spoilers, particularly. The movie looks good from trailers, visually, but I'd need more hook to it than just "BUT THE FANDUMB U GAIZ!!! HOT RABBITS AND FOXERSZ."

[willow]

12 minutes ago, Vae said:

Can someone convince me to see this movie for reasons other than "IT HAS FURRIES!!!`"? (An angle I don't particularly give a shit about, myself.)

Clawhauser :v

[yell0wf0x]

24 minutes ago, Vae said:

Can someone convince me to see this movie for reasons other than "IT HAS FURRIES!!!`"? (An angle I don't particularly give a shit about, myself.)

The crime drama aspect seems interesting. How was that played out?
How was racism played with?
Idgaf about spoilers, particularly. The movie looks good from trailers, visually, but I'd need more hook to it than just "BUT THE FANDUMB U GAIZ!!! HOT RABBITS AND FOXERSZ."

Without giving out too much spoilers (since the movie is actually best enjoyed without knowing anything aside from the trailers and clips), the story is actually pretty well thought out. The world building is pretty strong although honestly, you wish you could've seen more of the whole place. The movie handled the subject of race and stereotyping quite well in my opinion. it's funny and witty and clever and realistically down to earth. It doesn't have the emotion that Pixar is known for but it works. The characters are relatable and the voice acting is top notch. Idris Elba is awesome at his role of I say so myself. It's a fun movie that adults will actually relate to and enjoy themselves. 

 

And don't listen to all those rabbits and foxes are hot crap. Clawhauser and bogo are more than enough! Also lion heart! And mchorn! And Machias! And Raymond and Kevin! And gideon grey!

[diretractor]

44 minutes ago, Vae said:

The crime drama aspect seems interesting. How was that played out?
How was racism played with?

To be brief, I felt that the crime drama aspect was good but not fantastic. There's some technical issues I had with how key aspects of the plot physically wouldn't work (you know, Mythbusters type stuff) that pulled me out a few times. There was one really good turn in the story about 2/3 of the way into the film that I appreciated, that had me cringing for about 2 minutes (not in a gross way, but in a oh my god you just fucked up sort of way). Character motivations were well communicated but I felt the way the character development could have been refined just a little bit. That's the reason I felt it didn't have the emotional punch that other films had. It was good but they almost nailed it.

The racism theme of it though, I felt they did a really good job with it. It's a very good allegory of racism today and why people do racist things. I think that is the reason why it has a 100% Tomatometer rating on it. The theme was done that well and is THAT relevant.

Plot and character aside, I still enjoyed it being the snob that I am.

Edit: Oh, and the character design is oozing with appeal. If you are an artist you need to study this film.

Edited March 4, 2016 by diretractor

[Toshabi]

All the porn of the fox fucking the rabbit turned out to be true btw. Pretty sure they did that end credits.

[DrGravitas]

6 hours ago, diretractor said:

Edit: Oh, and the character design is oozing with appeal. If you are an artist you need to study this film.

THISTHISTHIS THIS!

 

Visually speaking the movie was spectacular and filled with wonderful details.

The story was competent, had some humor and heart. The 'message' was well communicated in a way that I think can be fitted to similar themes beyond just racism. The music was nice, too. It was not without its cliches and predictable moments, but otherwise it was good fun.

Edited March 4, 2016 by DrGravitas
I have Found a word for it!

[Endless/Nameless]

15 hours ago, diretractor said:

The dude's fox tail got caught in the chair while he was trying to get out of it.

haha nice 

 

As far as this whole Disney/furries debate, here's what it boils down to: There's really no denying that they're playing the furry angle. Disney is obviously aware of us, and wants us in the seats. But anything more than that is simply amusing conjecture that should be taken with a grain of salt. 

In other news, I'm getting excited to see it.  

[Toshabi]

Furries need to stop thinking that everything made with animals/anthros is solely revolved around them. 

Cant you just enjoy something without having to tie that to it all, kiddos?

[Chrysocyon]

1 hour ago, DrGravitas said:

THISTHISTHIS THIS!

Visually speaking the movie was spectacular and filled with wonderful details.

Oh yes, there were so many moments when everything just looked so life-like, as if it was stop-motion clay animation or something.  I stared at random details and textures through the whole movie, lol. And the faces and expressions were all so adorable and great.  It's really one of the most visually impressive 3D cartoons I've seen.

[diretractor]

2 hours ago, Toshabi said:

Furries need to stop thinking that everything made with animals/anthros is solely revolved around them.

I don't see that as the case. However, I do see that the furry fandom is freaking out because a decently-sized studio is acknowledging that the furry fandom exists, as opposed to just ignoring it and hoping it goes away, which historically has been the way pretty much all companies and independent non-furry artists have been dealing with it because the poor reputation of associating even just a little bit with the furry fandom, or even looking like it came out of the furry fandom, ends up hurting the perception of their work. Again, the usual strategy is to just ignore that furries exists, so any shift in that behavior would be considered groundbreaking.

Not to toot my own horn, but remember how I said that the only universally justified reason to have animals characters in a movie is to discuss racism without being as heavy handed about it? Zootopia is Exhibit A. That movie is the type of thing that plants the seeds of racial acceptance in younger generations. The trick is making a story where the existence of animal characters is justified without it being about race.

Aside from the fantastic character design across the board (except for Gazelle, I'm not a fan. Apparently Shakira influenced the design to make the character more curvy.) I was very impressed with how well their rigging and animation team handled having the lips of the long-muzzled characters go all the way back to the cheek bone. Rigging and animating long lips like that is hard as balls to do, which is why many 3D character designs don't do that (and to some extent a lot of 2D designs). There's a number of character designs I've seen in the past that had great conceptual art, but the mouth got lost in translation because of rigging and modeling.

[PastryOfApathy]

Saw the movie today since it just came out. No furries spotted so thank god for that one. Lots of kids though which is nice to see since it's a kids movie and not some creepy furry porno.

Generally liked it, although I thought it was gonna be more buddy cop-y than it really was. Only problems I had with it is that it lays the whole "this is an analogy for racism" thing so goddamn thick. I mean I know it's a kids movie and all but goddamn, that shit got old pretty quick.

It was fun though, I'd watch it again on cable.

EDIT: Also there was a Breaking Bad reference of all fucking things which was funny. Mostly because in the back of my head I was calling it (there's a lot of little details that make it seem like it's 100% gonna happen), but didn't think they'd seriously do it. Even if it's only like one 2-second throwaway line.

I dunno if you noticed but I really like that show.

Edited March 5, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[diretractor]

One of the problems I had with it was the parent's attitude towards foxes (not a spoiler, it's in the first 5 minutes of the film). That was laid on pretty thick and wasn't as believable as the explanations given to every other character had for hating a certain species.

[PastryOfApathy]

10 minutes ago, diretractor said:

One of the problems I had with it was the parent's attitude towards foxes (not a spoiler, it's in the first 5 minutes of the film). That was laid on pretty thick and wasn't as believable as the explanations given to every other character had for hating a certain species.

I thought it was fine. No different than bitchy upper-class parents who dissuade their daughter from going out with one of those..."urbans".

[diretractor]

Yes, but there's always some reason behind those feelings, some core wound that either they had or someone close to them had that made them think that way. It's deep and often buried, but it's there. Discrimination is powered by fear and the availability heuristic.

Those core wounds were communicated very well with Judy and Nick, but not so much with Judy's parents who seemed to have the most extreme views against a certain species.

[PastryOfApathy]

2 minutes ago, diretractor said:

Yes, but there's always some reason behind those feelings, some core wound that either they had or someone close to them had that made them think that way. It's deep and often buried, but it's there. Discrimination is powered by fear and the availability heuristic.

Those core wounds were communicated very well with Judy and Nick, but not so much with Judy's parents who seemed to have the most extreme views against a certain species.

Racism doesn't always stem from some kind of singular experience, hell it usually doesn't. More often than not it's just something you learn growing up, particularly when you're in a community sheltered away from the group you're being taught to discriminate against (i.e upper class suburbs, poverty-stricken ghettos, etc).

Also I like the scene with the animal that does something funny.

[diretractor]

Right, but if it's not through their own personal experience it can be through "someone close to them that made them think that way." Stories are very powerful in that we can internalize the experience, whether real or fictional, of someone else as if we had experienced it ourselves.

[Strongbob]

Just watched the movie with my daughter and it really is a lot of fun.  Not the best movie ever by any means, but it had a lot going for it.  Good story, great animation, good voice acting, and the characters were easy to relate to.  I'll admit to having a permagrin through the entire show.  I'm betting that we are going to see more of the Zootopia world in the future.  A few side notes, I didn't feel like there were many overtly 'furry' themes in the movie.  Yes it was a movie about cute furry animals (don't call the bunny cute) but they were used to make a point about race relations.  The only thing that I did see that could have been shout-out to the community was actually at the end in the credits.  The credits had the Shakira song with fans cheering at the bottom of the screen.  Sitting at the back of the theater it looked like there were a bunch of people in animal costumes cheering in the front row.  Had there been an actual group of people in animal costumes standing in the front of the theater cheering at the screen, they would have fit right into the movie. I think this was completely intentional and I'm sure we are just moments away from seeing pictures of just such activity from the fursuiters.

On another note, the movie no longer has a 100% critical review on Rotten Tomatoes.  One critic took offence to the sexualization of some of the animal characters, lol.          

[Vae]

Racism doesn't really have to stem from personal grievances if it's prevalent enough of an attitude in the society you find yourself in. People take the ideas and attitudes of the people around them.
If you've lived in an area with 0.-something% minority population, you'll notice this.

Also, thanks for the input, guys.

[axelthefox]

On 2/8/2016 at 7:02 PM, diretractor said:

Every theater I frequent, including the Arclight, does not allow masks or anything that covers the face. So no fursuits. I am expecting to see people wearing tails. It would be interesting if they deem those a trip hazard, in which case those would be banned too, but I doubt it.

Yup. Same here as well. consolidated theaters doesn't allow masks at theaters either or anything that cover the face.

[diretractor]

52 minutes ago, Strongbob said:

On another note, the movie no longer has a 100% critical review on Rotten Tomatoes.  One critic took offence to the sexualization of some of the animal characters, lol.          

Who wants to guess that it was Amid Amidi? Kidding (somewhat). That guy is a big furry hater, but that's not the only reason why the animation community hates that guy.

EDIT: OK, it wasn't Amid. I have read through the only 2 rotten reviews of that movie. Kate's concern about the Gazelle character matched my own. Compared to the other appealing character designs, she felt out of place and obviously sexualized.

Another reviewer pointed out something that I also noticed about the underlying theme of the film. (Not a spoiler because both scenes are depicted in the trailers.)

Quote

It's even more confusing when it starts to feel that Zootopia is working against its own message to get easy laughs. One extended sequence is set at the animal equivalent of the DMV, which is staffed entirely by slow-moving sloths. It's a decent-enough idea, until you realize that it's based on a stereotype: This kind of animal has one particular kind of character trait, and every one of them is the same. The same notion pops up when Judy takes advantage of the fact that all wolves start howling when they hear one howl. For a movie built entirely around "don't judge an animal by its species," there's also plenty of "a leopard can't change its spots."

In their defense, I do appreciate how they fairly pointed out why different species hated each other, showing the conflict from both angles instead of just one side, and showing that people's opinions -- to some very small extent -- are understandable. As for the gags, I'd hope that the message is they are trying to show the fun and quirks of different cultures, and that even though they are not universal traits in that culture, it's those kinds of things that add flavor to life. Also note that neither the sloths or the wolves were discriminated against for their howling or their speed (and don't forget the very last scene). Sure, stereotypes for laughs, but they played that issue from all angles I thought, and in mostly good ways.

Edited March 5, 2016 by diretractor

[Rassah]

Omg this movie was awesome!

 

Spoiler,

Kylo Ren kills Han at the end.

[ Please do not spoil movies for others.] - Clove

 

But seriously, loved the movie! Felt a bit awkward though, being a furry, and NOT finding the main characters sexually attractive. Just incredibly adorably cute. I feel like I failed as a furry somehow.

Also, despite loving it, laughing through it, and enjoying the whole thing with a smile, it made me a bit melancholy/depressed in a way. Maybe because I feel I'm not really "trying everything" and not pushing myself to my full potential. But then, I just spent the night before with some really smart and successful people, and I guess I feel like a bit of fail next to them.

[Vallium]

7 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Omg this movie was awesome!

 

Spoiler, [Heavy censoring]

U WOT M8

[Astus]

The movie was very well done, good morals and animation; Disney did a good job

 

Astus movie rating of 7/10

[Vitaly]

+

1. Animation and design;

2. FA now is filled with hot stripper tigers. 

-

1. Almost all funny moments have been shown in trailers; 

2. Plot lacks coherence, especially in the middle part;

3. Movie duration is too long.

In total: 5 treacherous sheeps /10. 

Also, I was looking Zootopia in cinema terminal for ten minutes instead of Zoopolis.

Why did they change it, for fuck's sake.

 

[Guest]

I've seen it with my ma two weeks ago and I'd give it a 7 out of 10. I found the story to be a little simplistic and clichéd. It's not too original. Most of the characters are stereotyped and lack any real depth. The humor is alright I guess, though it never made me roll on the floor. The main character is great as well as the primary secondary character. The visuals were excellent: the colors are vibrant and a couple of scenes had an amazing atmosphere to them. I also liked the original designs, ranging from that of the city itself to smaller touches, like the trains having different compartments fitting animals of different sizes and so on and so forth. And of course, this movie gets a lot of points from me for having anthros as characters. I think it would lose a lot had they used humans instead (so yeah, my opinion is a little biased)

In the end, it's an ejoyable flick with a nice message to it and I'd gladly give it another watch.

 

2 hours ago, Vitaly said:

Also, I was looking Zootopia in cinema terminal for ten minutes instead of Zoopolis.

Why did they change it, for fuck's sake.

At this point it seems like every country's getting their own version of the movie's name: Zootopia in the US, Zootropolis in the EU and now Zoopolis in Russia apparently

Edited March 5, 2016 by Guest