It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
A_Future_Pilot: In a very VERY long time.

Also I now have a crush on a rabbit.

Dang it.
Seconded, the movie really is bloody fantastic, and Judy is the most adorable thing ever. >.<
Post edited April 18, 2016 by ReynardFox
avatar
Hunter65536: You've started becoming a furry. Stay safe afp that condition has no cure. :P
avatar
A_Future_Pilot: That's what I've heard...I'm scared :P
Hare me out my friend and don't go down that rabbit hole. You might end up becoming like this one.
avatar
Hunter65536: Hare me out my friend
I see what you did there.
"Got a thing for rabbits, hum!?" Jessica Rabbit's performance
avatar
jefequeso: It's pretty good. Quite funny, and I was impressed with how well it handled the whole racism metaphor.
I think they did better than that. I think that they abstracted the story well enough that they never show what they were talking about specifically. For you it may have been racism. For me it may have been the attacks in the name of Islam. For someone else it may have been Communism, immigration or something else. What matters is that it was a metaphor for an idea that infects people, makes them act in a way that makes them a danger for those around them else, and can be used can be used to seize power by dividing society.
That there are so many ways to do so scares me a bit...
Of course, kids can make a literal reading of the story and still be entertained. It is cute in that way.

Since the early Pixar and Dreamworks days I have seen this strategy. Example:
Shreck: "Do you think he is compensating for something?" Kids think "Yeah, because he is short. Haha.", while grownups see it as a penis joke cleverly disguised.
In this way, kids and grown-ups can enjoy the movie together.
Speaking about having a thing for Judy...I just read something really interesting:

"You know, my understanding is that the common definition of a furry is somebody who is attracted to a humanoid with animalistic characteristics and not actual animals. You know, catgirls and such. As long as they're an sapient species on par with humans its not beastiality. Some might say they're humanized animals or human given physical traits of animals but either way they're explicitly not animals.

Frankly I don't consider being a furry an odd thing because it just means being attracted to an intelligent species that is not explicitly human and I think most people would actually qualify for this criteria in some way or another. I mean, how many people here say that they think Tali from Mass Effect is cute? What separates Tali and Judy Hopps? The only fundamental difference is that Judy Hopps is given characteristics of a species we're more familiar with. We're so used to seeing rabbits that we see them as an animal first and intelligent second, whereas we don't have unintelligent Quarians lying around. I dare say that this definition of "furry" is going to be applicable to most people once the application of transhumanism and/or contact with other intelligent species occurs, or at least sometime afterwards and its normalized.

Now there's people who get into fur suits and have fursonas and the like and well, thats definitely completely different, yet also called furries. Its two clearly different phenomenon. One is sexual attraction to non-human and the other is one's presentation, usually. done without sexuality being involved."
I fucking knew. I fucking knew the jews behind disney were scheming to turn the general population into non reproducing degenerates. Sure, you think "I don't want to have sexual intercourse with that bunny, I'm just attracted to her personality" yeah, and in a month you`ll be this [url=https://youtu.be/HNMq8XS4LhE ]guy [/url].

Never go full furry. Become a reptilian now. Evolve humanity.
Attachments:
avatar
Gede: Since the early Pixar and Dreamworks days I have seen this strategy. Example:
Shreck: "Do you think he is compensating for something?" Kids think "Yeah, because he is short. Haha.", while grownups see it as a penis joke cleverly disguised.
In this way, kids and grown-ups can enjoy the movie together.
They have one-upped that considerably in Zootopia.

What most people aren't aware of is that Judy's neighbours are actually a gay married couple. I'm pretty sure that wasn't mentioned specifically in the movie but it's obvious once you think about it.

Could they be just pals who shack up together for practical reasons (sharing rent, etc.)? Nope, since they share the same family name. Check the credits, they are named Bucky Oryx-Antlerson and Pronk Oryx-Antlerson.

Then brothers maybe? Impossible since they are different species. While both are part of the antelope family one of them is a kudu and the other an oryx. That rules out any blood relationship. (I admit I had to look the animals up but their different horns instantly give away that they are not the same species. See picture.)

Two guys who are not blood related but have the same family name and live together, what could they possibly be? And they have a hyphenated family name on top which you typically get through marriage. You do the math.

And when you keep in mind that they are a gay married couple then what they said to Judy ("We're loud. Don't expect us to apologize for it.") suddenly gets whole new levels of meaning. ;-)

I really have to applaud Disney for their courage. A gay married couple in a kids movie would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.
Attachments:
avatar
Geralt_of_Rivia: Two guys who are not blood related but have the same family name and live together, what could they possibly be?
Cousins.
avatar
Gede: "Got a thing for rabbits, hum!?" Jessica Rabbit's performance
avatar
jefequeso: It's pretty good. Quite funny, and I was impressed with how well it handled the whole racism metaphor.
avatar
Gede: I think they did better than that. I think that they abstracted the story well enough that they never show what they were talking about specifically. For you it may have been racism. For me it may have been the attacks in the name of Islam. For someone else it may have been Communism, immigration or something else. What matters is that it was a metaphor for an idea that infects people, makes them act in a way that makes them a danger for those around them else, and can be used can be used to seize power by dividing society.
That there are so many ways to do so scares me a bit...
Of course, kids can make a literal reading of the story and still be entertained. It is cute in that way.

Since the early Pixar and Dreamworks days I have seen this strategy. Example:
Shreck: "Do you think he is compensating for something?" Kids think "Yeah, because he is short. Haha.", while grownups see it as a penis joke cleverly disguised.
In this way, kids and grown-ups can enjoy the movie together.
That's true. Which probably makes it more effective/timeless.
New star wars, hated it. Batman, hated it, mockingjay, hate it, james bond, hate it, avengers, hate it, deadpool, sucks, revenant, average.

But Zootopia is the best movie I'VE EVER SEEN!

...I mean forget Birdman, this is where Hollywood has been going wrong all this time.
Post edited April 19, 2016 by bad_fur_day1
avatar
A_Future_Pilot: Frankly I don't consider being a furry an odd thing because it just means being attracted to an intelligent species that is not explicitly human and I think most people would actually qualify for this criteria in some way or another. I mean, how many people here say that they think Tali from Mass Effect is cute? What separates Tali and Judy Hopps?
I've been saying this for years. Well put.
avatar
Geralt_of_Rivia: I really have to applaud Disney for their courage. A gay married couple in a kids movie would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.
I noticed that about the neighbours too. There is a lot of things in this movie, both blatant and almost imperceptibly subtle, that most animated studios would never have the nerve or confidence to address.
Post edited April 19, 2016 by ReynardFox
avatar
Geralt_of_Rivia: What most people aren't aware of is that Judy's neighbours are actually a gay married couple. I'm pretty sure that wasn't mentioned specifically in the movie but it's obvious once you think about it.
(...)
I really have to applaud Disney for their courage. A gay married couple in a kids movie would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.
Oh, you are right. I noticed it at the time, but then I forgot about it since they were no longer significant to the story. Your picture brings it all back.

avatar
ReynardFox: There is a lot of things in this movie, both blatant and almost imperceptibly subtle, that most animated studios would never have the nerve or confidence to address.
Very subtle indeed, but not in the sense that it is hidden. They just did not make a big deal out of it, because they should not have to. Geralt_of_Rivia already lists enough evidences to validate my supposition.

avatar
jefequeso: Which probably makes it more effective/timeless.
You are so right! Leaving the interpretation open seems to have been more than deliberate, it was an effort to make this movie stand the test of time, and applicable to multiple situations in our evolving society.
I'm sure the ancient human civilizations could relate to this movie too.
Post edited April 19, 2016 by Gede
My thoughts on the movie..

It was ultimately targeted for the early teens (13-14) as a primary demographic, while furies being the secondary.

The CGI is awesome and shows what furies would look and seem like if it was an option.

Most of the jokes and even heavily the direction of the plot was easy to string together what was about to happen at least half the time. The story never deviates far from the plot (which is good and bad).

Regardless, even though it has some cliches and is otherwise really tame, it's worth watching.