Jump to content
Hero of Legend

Disney's Zootopia (March 2016)

Recommended Posts

Looks like a fun upcoming movie! I liked this fox character ever since popping up from the right side of the screen. Seems mischievous. Actually, this whole show seems mischievous. Looks entertaining, and I am looking forward to see more of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comedy in that trailer did very little for me. It seems the film's big draw is that is animals that act like people, which has been done in tons of cartoons since the birth of the medium, so how Disney seems to think this is a noteworthy gimmick, especially when their own Mickey Mouse lived in suburbia and read the Sunday paper and went on dates and even had his own pet is beyond me.

 

I'll see if the next trailer makes the plot look any more interesting, but based I what I have to go with at the moment, my opinion is an Eh.5/10 from IGN.

 

But that's just me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Like nothing you've seen be-fur"

 

Are you doing this on purpose disney it's okay i love you bby

 

That was a really cool trailer. Got a lot of laughs, and that fox character seems awesome. Gonna be looking forward to this.

 

...also I still need to see BH6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am complete furry trash so naturally i'll go see it

 

Seriously though, the trailer is pretty cute. And the main characters are a fox and a rabbit, which are my two absolute favorite animals. Definitely have hope for this movie! <3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a furry I of course join the rest of us in approving this.

 

...but I also echo the earlier sentiment of "what's the point?" Cartoon/anthropomorphic animals have existed for a century, arguably reaching their peak in the 90s and early 2000s courtesy of Sonic's reign of terror spawning dozens of wannabes.

 

It's a neat concept, but it's by no means novel, so I'm curious what they're bringing to the table here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I dunno why they have to introduce us to the whole concept of anthropomorphism when everyone knows what it is already (animals in cartoons have been around for years) but whatever. It was a cute trailer and I hadn't noticed until Soniman pointed out that all the animals are to scale. That's cool!

 

...but I also echo the earlier sentiment of "what's the point?" Cartoon/anthropomorphic animals have existed for a century, arguably reaching their peak in the 90s and early 2000s courtesy of Sonic's reign of terror spawning dozens of wannabes.

 

It's a neat concept, but it's by no means novel, so I'm curious what they're bringing to the table here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in asking the question of what Zootopia brings to the table when we live in with a Hollywood consumed by remakes, sequels, re-releases and the use of existing stories, fairy tales, and nostalgia properties more than ever before and we simultaneously cease to ask that question for any of those films unless they offend us on some level (even more ironic in saying this is that Zootopia is actually a fully original story in a sea of Disney films that have been based off of other source materials since the company's inception). If anything, it's interesting to see the film use terms that have been popularized by Furries, and honestly outside of Kung Fu Panda I can't think of many recent American animal flicks that actually used them in a way where the characters were essentially people with animal features, versus wild animals with slightly human characteristics to their societies, and even then I can't think of any where the animals are actually modernized and using cell phones and stuff like that. The general idea is old, but a lot of the actual details surrounding it are still fresh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in asking the question of what Zootopia brings to the table when we live in with a Hollywood consumed by remakes, sequels, re-releases and the use of existing stories, fairy tales, and nostalgia properties more than ever before

 

Ehhhhh that logic doesn't really fly for me. It's in the same vein as saying "Don't worry about my bad grades in school, Ma, all of my friends have bad grades!" The uniqueness of the picture, though certainly not making up the entirety of the viewing experience, still ought to be regarded and assessed as an important aspect of the film regardless of whether or not Hollywood at large is also failing in it. The inventive spark is a part of movie magic; if that spark seems dim, then, you mustn't blame others for being disappointed. 

 

Much of the novelty of the things you go on to talk about are only so novel in that they're on screen instead of paper; anthropomorphic animals with human technology and the like (the "humans with muzzles" school of furry work) is abundantly common nowadays everywhere except the movies. It's an idea that people have already seen played out dozens of times before, so it's not hard to see why some people aren't terribly excited for it the fifty-first time.

 

Argh. I hate being the Eeyore of a topic, but I can't let a point slip by so easily. It's the old habitual arguer in me, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a convincing metaphor, because a film being based on an existing idea isn't something that is an objective flaw of film, while a bad grade is much more so because there's a measurable standard to compare work against. As such, the originality of a film doesn't guarantee it will be better than films that are less original. Film is an art, meaning it should be judged by intent and the usage of its respective principles (writing, casting, art style, staging, camera work, etc.) in fulfilling that intent.

Regardless my general point is, if Zootopia is the film that gets people asking what it's bringing to the table simply because it has animals in it (which I again remind people is actually an original property, further undervaluing the metaphor), then I'm wondering where the nature of this scrutiny has been for every other Disney film ever. Why is Zootopia's existence being scrutinized for the mere use of animals (which is such a broad idea that you'd be hardpressed to make an argument it's unoriginal in a negative connotation so much as it's a trope to be used as one pleases) while the last several Disney films got away with either being based on fairy tales outright or for wallowing within existing video game IPs for nostalgia fodder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless my general point is, if Zootopia is the film that gets people asking what it's bringing to the table simply because it has animals in it (which I again remind people is actually an original property, further undervaluing the metaphor), then I'm wondering where the nature of this scrutiny has been for every other Disney film ever. Why is Zootopia's existence being scrutinized for the mere use of animals (which is such a broad idea that you'd be hardpressed to make an argument it's unoriginal in a negative connotation so much as it's a trope to be used as one pleases) while the last several Disney films got away with either being based on fairy tales outright or for wallowing within existing video game IPs for nostalgia fodder?

 

I should then state plainly that I've got a distaste for more than a few Disney films thanks to their unoriginality; it's even a running joke around my part of town. The difference with other films is that they've got at least some unique hook to them; Big Hero 6, though a rather generic superhero plot, at least has Baymax, for instance. Zootopia lacks the at least. I've long given up on the even more formulaic princess films for much the same reason. If there's any more scrutiny for Zootopia, then, it's because I saw potential in it for inventiveness; I give little scrutiny to the princess films because the potential is nearly nonexistent in their case.

 

 

That's not a convincing metaphor, because a film being based on an existing idea isn't something that is an objective flaw of film, while a bad grade is much more so because there's a measurable standard to compare work against. As such, the originality of a film doesn't guarantee it will be better than films that are less original. Film is an art, meaning it should be judged by intent and the usage of its respective principles (writing, casting, art style, staging, camera work, etc.) in fulfilling that intent.

 

I didn't say that being based on an existing work was a flaw, but rather a lack of inventiveness was. The Fox and the Hound is based on a novel, yet is more inventive than Shark Tale, which is not. But that is besides the point. I stated previously that of course inventiveness does not comprise a work, but it is a piece of it.

 

Think of a work of art as a machine, with some eight or so vital gears in it. Each gear is its own (whether it be writing, art, inventiveness, etc.), and together they let the larger machine function. No one is necessarily more important than the other; if we are to choose between having one good gear or six functional ones, of course we shall choose the six, because the important thing is that they work in community. But of course, even if our machine runs better on six gears than one, wouldn't it be better if our machine used all eight gears? In other words, even if our work of art makes better use of its aspects than one that is merely inventive, wouldn't it be better for it to utilize all of its aspects, inventiveness included?

 

Zootopia, all in all, will probably be a passable film if previous Disney films are anything to go by. But it's still one that doesn't make full use of itself, and that's always going to rub some people the wrong way. It bugs me about more than a few Disney movies, in fact.

 

I do hope this helps clear things up a bit. Sorry for being so obtuse last time. :c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not fond of the idea of boiling all art down to a single machine, because that implies the expectation that there is one perfect film that every film should strive to be or else it's inevitably disappointing; it's the same problem I have with your grades analogy. Every work is its own unique machine. Not every machine is equivalent in function or purpose, and it seems irrational to expect that to be. A Tomagotchi isn't an Asus computer, but they both have purposes for their respective audiences that matters to them, thus the expectations that arise from each machine are going to be different and should be judged differently.

But this metaphor is only meaningful on the basis that we actually have two knowable machines, which we don't here. It's impossible to say that Zootopia could be more than what it is without first knowing what it's trying to accomplish as a whole work, and much less without bringing one's own creative solutions to the table in the first place. All we know is that it has talking animals and two wildly different ones will work together to solve a mystery. There's not enough information to say that it isn't utilizing its potential within its own design and is thus already a film not fulfilling its potential. Let's not even bring up audience reactions to test footage that apparently had them laughing up a storm.

Regardless, none of this actually answers the question of why we're having a conversation about.unoriginality in a thread concerning an actual original property by Disney. Is it because it has the aesthetics of an actual Disney film and we're not allowed to use that style anymore or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say that I REALLY hope this film is a smash hit in the box office?

 

I'm gonna go into this film and pick at any flaw I can, but regardless of my criticisms, this film will be one of many to diversify animated works with the tact I hope carries in the future.

 

And not to mention, this has the potential to simultaneously change the industry's perception toward anthropomorphic characters (that "furry stigma" I keep hearing about). Like that alone is worth more than gold, because that will open the doors to greater creativity in the medium.

 

Oh, and it'll bring in a new generation of furry fans. yay, whatever...

 

Still, this and Kung Fu Panda 3, Ratchet and Clank, and Sly Cooper is gonna mark 2016 as a "Year of Furries" if these films do well. We just have to hope they don't get heavily silenced by the competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is it just mammals? :( No anthropomorphic birds or reptiles? That makes me sad.

I'm kind of glad that they're just sticking to mammals. It would make explaining what the carnivores eat a lot less complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.