Happy Zoo Year! New 'Zootopia' trailer released
Disney Animation has officially released a new trailer for one of the most anticipated furry films of 2016 (or ever)!
The nearly 3 minute preview reveals much more about the Zootopia universe and its inhabitants than has been shared before, drawing from a rich diversity of species for clever puns and laughs. (The wolf segment at 1:45 is worth a playback alone.) There is also a stronger hint as to the plot details, which includes a shrewdly run polar bear crime mob.
Plenty to take in here, so enjoy! This could be as much preview content as we can expect from Disney before the big premiere (March 4th).
About the author
InkyCrow — read stories — contact (login required)a Corvus Brachyrhynchos, interested in movies, birds and nachos
Greymuzzled artist with involvement in the fandom dating back to the 80's/90's. Appearances in miscellaneous print publications during this time, including member/contributor to the "funny animal" fanzine Rowrbrazzle for several years. These days can be found on portions of the web (DeviantArt mostly)
Comments
I am really excited for this. I wasn't too impressed at first but each trailer that's been released has looked more and more promising.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Wait this was just released? How'd I see this yesterday morning then?...
Either way, my friend told my he was getting a real Shark Tale vibe from this and I can't really disagree. The Godfather joke is a bit tired, big and small puns work for tiny children who have never seen a movie before.
They made the wolves interesting but this isn't a movie about them and that sucks. XP
Hmmm...I don't know, I can't come as hard down on this one just cause there's nothing new to say.
The shakira song still sucks though. Immensely.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
We've noticed you don't have anything new to say, Cassidy. We've noticed.
Actually, though, I'm going to help you out here; there is something actually really disturbing about the first teaser trailer that I noticed last summer, but never pointed out, because, well, I didn't want to. But you want to. I'll give you a hint; think of big news stories of 2014 (not furry news; just news news).
Hey I had stuff to say about the Shakira song, at least give me that. XP
Or even the Godfather joke? Not even that? XP
2014? I think you mean 2015, unless you're actually saying Disney intentionally did something with the previous year's news but I don't think so...
I mean, if I was gonna stretch I'd say something about the police stuff but I honestly am not sure. Species profiling? If you had a problem why didn't you point it out? That would've been an interesting discussion rather than just not saying it. XP
Either way I'm not sure I got what you're saying.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
I mean, if I was gonna stretch I'd say something about the police stuff but I honestly am not sure.
You're on the right track ...
Species profiling?
... but getting cooler. That's always been there, but actually a positive, given how the movie is obviously is addressing those elements thematically (and is obviously also presenting the idea of stereotyping as a negative). Let's say the story told in the original trailer (and only, as far as I know, present in said original trailer; hopefully not present in the actual movie) is problematic, and for reasons that undermine the actual movie's (apparent) position.
And I'm not accusing Disney of doing something intentional; in fact, that's part of the problem. And the major events happened in 2014, though the ramifications are lasting.
Would that first trailer be the Sloth one by chance? Cause I've always had a dislike for it, going against what the movie is trying to setup by smashing it's own rules. I've said it doesn't make sense that sloths are all the employees at the DMV, while the police force is a variety of typically well built animals and not just, bulls per say. I think it would've been funnier if the DMV was full of slow animals and not just one species cause that goes against the film. At least to me. XP
I'm still not sure I'm clear on any implications from 2014 news stories. Enlighten me, as you so often love doing, I'm ready. ;3
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
I will reveal the answer, but first, I'm going to do what I do best.
See, this is the problem with what you're doing; yes, there are dated pop culture reference. Yes, the plot is well-worn. But any idiot can point that out; you can recognize a story when you see one. Congratulations, you didn't pass junior high English class for nothing. You can spot a Godfather reference; you don't even have to have seen The Godfather to do that. All that you've proven is that you ... live in America, basically.
You want to be insightful, but it's like Rakuen pointing out Mad Max: Fury Road's plot is simple; he's absolutely right, Mad Max: Fury Road's plot is simple. So? How is being simple detrimental to Mad Max: Fury Road's plot, or, perhaps a better question, how would a complicated plot enhance Mad Max: Fury Road? Actually, the issue of plot is kind of beside the point; the pleasures of Mad Max: Fury Road are primarily visual, which has fuck-all to do with plot, anyway. (Also, Rakuen needs to be more specific on which Matrix sequel action scene is the "retarded" one, because there are options. Also, also, not say "retarded.")
But, anyway, unlike Mad Max: Fury Road's plot, I'm rambling. What I'm getting at is if you want to be insightful, you can't point out what everyone already knows. Now, it can sometimes feel like that's what insight is; a good insight feels like it's pointing out something obvious (and occasionally, it actually is), but "feeling like something" and "being something" are not the same thing. If that were true, the species would go extinct because we'd all be too busy masturbating instead of actually fucking. I think you've said somewhere else you were asexual (correct me if I'm wrong), so sorry if that was a slightly off example. Well, slightly off-er than intended.
To be insightful, you need to point out something new. That's why I harp on you that we don't care about your posts. It's not that you're wrong, per se, or that we don't care about the idea of criticism, per se; it's that, for the most part, your criticisms are things anyone, as I pointed out earlier, who's made it past the seventh grade is already aware of, and most of us had literally decided, before you pointed them out, "eh, don't care." Your "I want to have a real discussion" comments don't help, because, actually, that's not the real discussion. "I recognize this plot!" "Yep. Can we move on now?" "But I want to have a real discussion ..." "Okay, great!" "... about this plot nobody cares about!" "D'oh!"
Once again, plot isn't what this movie is "about;" it's about, like Mad Max: Fury Road, the visuals. And, by the way, most of us feel one way about the visuals. Compare Nick Wilde to, obvious example, the fox from Disney's last CGI anthropomorphic world movie. And it's not just that CGI animation has greatly improved since Chicken Little came out; the character design is atrocious in that clip. There is literally a joke in that clip about one of the characters being, like, really, really, ugly, but it doesn't work, because they are all really, really, REALLY fucking ugly. And if bad animal puns and pop culture references bother you, Jesus Christ, are you in the wrong fandom. Everyone does it; yes, that includes Fantastic Mr. Fox. Maybe especially Fantastic Mr. Fox.
Now, if you aren't into Zootopia's visuals that's ... completely fair, and you are both entitled to your opinion and your right to express it. Just remember, we are also entitled to our opinions, and our right to express those opinions. Usually, we try not to express them as "Go fuck yourself, Cassidy." But sometimes ...
And, once again, try and find an actually insightful way to say it next time, because while you do an admirable job of mixing up the words, sentences usually aren't about the visuals, so once you've gotten the message across, you don't have to say it every freaking article (and, yes, the actual articles do repeat themselves, but that's news styles; you write assuming that every article is the first article someone has read on a topic, so you repeat the important information every, freaking time, which is boring but necessary, so that's why we do that.)
But, speaking of messages, now we're finally getting to What's Wrong With That First Trailer, YOU GUYS. First of all, it's this trailer; not the sloth one, so, you know, now we're clear on that. But, messages.
What, thematically, is Zootopia about? Not what is it about visually ("awesome anthropomorphic animals", if that's isn't established) or story-wise (which we have already established is about "NOBODY FUCKING CARES"), but what is the, well, "message" of the movie. What are the filmmakers trying to say with their movie? To bring it full circle, what "insight" into the real world can we get from the world of Zootopia.
Luckily for us, the movie does wear its message on its sleeves; I'm not actually being insightful when I point out that the movie is using the differences between animals to symbolize differences between people, and making points about casual racism and sexism and stereotyping in general (this article's headline is the greatest thing ever, by the way) and how they are, well, bad. Yeah, once again, it's been done, and probably better, and, once again, it actually isn't that insightful. "Racism is bad" is, on one hand, hardly new as themes go, but, seeing as how racism is basically the current poll leader for presidential candidate of the Republican party's entire platform, well, it's a bit timely, right now.
Which makes the fact that the climax of that first trailer is an armed police officer heroically shooting an unarmed civilian in what the trailer's narration itself points out is for racially inspired reasons a bit awkward, especially given that the most recent racial tensions in America involved, well, the shooting of unarmed civilians by police officers. You can point out a. Nick was the aggressor (as well as a dick), and could even be accused of some sort of "assault of an officer" charge, and was resisting arrest, b. the "races" here are at best symbolic or even just implied and c. the shooting is clearly non-fatal. But the truth is, we are invited to laugh at something that, to a certain extent by design, looks a lot like something real bad.
Which is not to say this was an intentional parody or even reference to the multiple deaths of black men at the hands of white police officers, while the memories of the events were still fresh in people's minds; but, lack of intention doesn't mean this isn't problematic, especially if the theme of the movie being advertised is "racism is bad." First of all, somebody should have noticed at some point, "oh, crap, this looks bad." That goes double when the entire point, thematically, of the movie should make everyone involved that much more sensitive to issues of race and power these events put in the spotlight.
The fact that, apparently, nobody noticed this (I Googled to make sure, but admittedly my Google-fu is weak) is, well, kind of weird. I mean, it's just a teaser trailer, but I'm surprised there weren't any thinkpieces anywhere. Probably nobody (outside of furry) gave a crap about this trailer, and just kind of glazed over it, and also who writes thinkpieces about teaser trailers for movies almost a year out, anyway? But, you know, there's a genuine concern.
Which is what I'm talking about; you've spent all this time complaining about this movie, but it's all been shallow, surface shit. While there is an actual, disturbing problem, possibly, dare I say, a moral failing, staring you right in the face that you missed, and had to have pointed out to you. (It did bother me, but it's a teaser trailer that very clearly is not clips from the finished movie, so I'm blaming it on Disney's advertising arm, and have basically forgiven them for it; but, it is one thing I will be watching them on.)
But the lesson here is not "the Zootopia teaser trailer is racist." The fault in that trailer isn't even really that it's racist; its sloppy and careless and they didn't pay attention and let something like that through. And that's your problem, Cassidy. The lesson is, if you're going to be a negative Nelly, be a negative Nelly. 'Cause right now you're half-assing it. If you're going to be an ass, be a full-ass. Try harder. Dig deeper. Think.
Oh, and Cassidy? Love the new icon, by the way.
There was a fist fighting scene between Neo and multiple Agent Smith copies that drags for way, way longer than it should have.
The simple plot is just a way of saying that there is nothing of substance. If you've seen 10 minutes of Fury Road then you've seen everything there is to see. There's literally nothing else. It's fighting while driving. Whoopee?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Okay, good choice in the Matrix fighting scene.
I think the best example of how complex the message of the relatively simple chase plot of Mad Max: Fury Road is the 100+ comments from angry "men's right advocate" types complaining about the "social justice" movie winning a critics' award, while a movie about a lesbian love affair that is consciously designed with progressive social criticism in mind only garnered around 30 comments on the same site (most relatively polite) when it won a similarly prestigious critics' award a few days later.
The fact that this quote feels like it should be about Carol, but is in fact about the action movie with the flame-throwing guitar, is pretty amazing.
And as far as the advantages the simple plot give Mad Max: Fury Road is that it allows the minimum of exposition the movie gets away with; Max just saying something as simple as his name to Furiosa, despite the fact that the audience already knows it because it's the title of the movie, is the emotional climax of his character arc. Furiosa isn't much more talkative. I don't think I want to watch those two characters spout their awkward plan for the heist-like take over of Immortan Joe's stronghold.
In other words, the plot is serving the characters; the characters are not serving the plot.
I don't see it as having anything to do with feminism. Maybe it's just me but because there's a woman in an important position doesn't seem odd to me. Yeah, the wives were being kept as slaves but there is a logical motivation for that. To me, Furiosa is just a character that was good at what she did. That she happened to be a woman is not plot relevant. (Also South African actress, yay.)
Perhaps unnecessary talking would've been worse. I know movies with very little dialogue that tell the story in other ways but that doesn't change that the rest is repetitive. They drive around, fighting other cars then they drive the other way, fighting the same cars as before. Most of the action is extraneous and offers nothing. You could cut the movie to half it's length, maybe less, and it would be no worse for it. In fact, it would probably be better.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Well, the other problem is that the set pieces may be repetitive (and that's granting you their repetitive; there is a gradual escalation, and they very much are not fighting the same cars if only because all the cars they defeat get blown up), but you're also missing how well shot and edited together those set pieces are.
There are a lot of really beautiful scenes; a short shot featuring a couple of flares going off in red and black smoke over the desert may not advance the plot further along, and could be cut without meaningful changing anything, but oh my God, that is jaw-droppingly gorgeous cinematography. Of course, beauty is subjective, so that one we're at a standstill.
There's also a lot of really great, really subtle character-building; one of my favorite scenes is actually Max washing blood off his face with human milk. The performance is subtle, but there's a moment where you can tell he's a bit grossed out when he learns what it is, but then the logical part of his brain kicks in and he's like, you know what, fuck it, and he keeps going.
Also, that scene he remembered to get Nux a boot; that's great. Just a little thing. No awkward dialogue; he just hands Nux the boot. Nobody makes a big deal out of it; he just remembered, in the middle of killing three guys, hey, that kid who just helped us is missing a boot. I should get him one. And he does. And Nux is part of the team now. Boom. Seconds, and its over. A fairly complex set of character choices made, and its all conveyed quickly, efficiently and entirely visually.
That's just one scene; the movie is full of those sort of things. The basic structure may be simple, but what's going on visually is much more complex. It's just efficient.
Oh god, this. Never happened. One or two very fringe clickbait merchants (not activists) put out some blog filler. Some bigger blogs on the flipside of the same coin ran with the gender war non-story. Under that are reasonable suspicions about astroturfing to controversy-market the movie. Nobody actually cared about the supposed controversy.
There's a modest but nifty Furry tangent. Zootopia is totally pandering to the "weird furries" power to turn heads, while keeping family friendly deniability about it. They'll love people wondering about it while keeping engagement with furries strictly controlled.
I thought MM:FR was just OK. The design and stuff was cool but the characters made me feel very little. Movies shouldn't feel like watching video games.
Yeah, I don't know if George Miller set out to consciously make a feminist movie or not, but the people behind Carol almost certainly did. The fact that Mad Max hit MRA types harder ... probably just tells you that wide release action movies get seen more than limited release period lesbian romances, actually. (Also, I'm surprised at the lack of Mad Max: Social Justice Warrior jokes; too obvious?)
But, anyway, I think, whether by design or not, at this point Miller did create a feminist movie, even if he consciously didn't want to make one. I mean, Rakuen's "To me, Furiosa is just a character that was good at what she did. That she happened to be a woman is not plot relevant." comment is feminism fucking defined.
And, actually, you know what, that you two wouldn't get this movie is, actually, yeah, that makes sense. Definitely neither of you two's styles.
I enjoy Miller's movies before this one. My reaction was that the gender-war subtext felt very contrived, and it sucked enjoyment out of watching characters act, not represent symbols.
It wasn't even his first tough female character in an action movie in the same franchise. Most people forgot about Thunderdome. For a good "feminist action movie" lacking the contrivance I'd say Aliens.
Speaking of contrivance, I don't think "controversy" hit anyone hard any more than the "war on christmas" and other made-up media filler no real people care about. Let me explain...
There was a lot of noise on Gawker media type blogs, predictably, since their business is to publicize reactions to fake issues they made up themselves, bootstrapping non-issues into "news".
The reactions didn't come from real groups, but from a handful of pickup-artist scammers making clickbait. Those aren't MRA (which strongly includes the equivalent of "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle".)
Basically it's two fake "sides" enflamed by manipulators behind the scenes intentionally spreading "controversy" to market the movie.
No conspiracy when there's instruction manuals for that kind of "news" manipulation - expect lots of it with an election year.
See, I don't know why you keep using the word the word "controversy." It's only controversial to terrible people; otherwise it's like "oh, that great action movie with spectacular visuals also has a progressive political undertow? Well, now I like it even more!"
Also, Miller's last two movies were Happy Feet and Happy Feet 2, movies about accepting differences and how global warming is bad. Is it really that difficult to believe the guy who directs "bleeding heart liberal" movies directed a "bleeding heart liberal" movie?
That's part of "protest" and "complaining". It's in quotes because those complaints weren't genuine, about the movie with shallow character and contrived subtext.
Speaking of not complicated, wow so progressive politics = good and all others = terrible... but there's this crybully thing a lot of liberal people are embarrassed about. (It's also interesting that Bernie is more feminist and progressive than Hillary but it still makes phony gender debate.) I don't vote by body parts or pick movies by politics.
The original post is a trailer. The marketing is more interesting than the story at the moment. Keep an eye out for the way manipulators plant the stuff they want you to talk about. Like controversy-marketing. There's that word.
Look, Patch, your gender politics are public record. I don't know if you're trying to fool me, or trying to fool you, but I'm dropping the act. I've known from your first post on the subject your objection to Mad Max: Fury Road was its gender politics; the fact that Rakuen Growlithe name checked the most famous victim of Gamergate is just extra bonus points (at least now I know what his objection to [a][s] is).
If you don't want to admit that you did pick your opinion on this movie by politics, well, that's your little red wagon; but don't tell me it isn't a rejection of your gender politics, Patch, because it is.
My objection to [a][s]? I'm a big fan of [a][s] and what it's trying to do for the furry community.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Wow, I'm astonished that you linked my callout post at one dishonest attack against me (and 80% of furry fans), rather than linking that cheap out-of-context attack itself. That beat very poor expectations after your treatment of Rakuen down there. Have a kudos for at least having a little character this time about the tangent you raised in a post about a different movie.
If we're being charitable, let's assume you had no idea about the assumptions put into you by nasty manipulators who wanted us to take sides in a fake and mendacious gender debate, instead of being socially liberal egalitarians like I am.
Mad Max was the first movie I ever wanted to record for myself (as a big fan of dystopian sci fi) and watched many times on a lovingly worn-out VHS. I had no objection whatsoever to Miller's intentions in his long after sequel (but fans are never allowed to be unenthused about revisiting old franchises, right?). I was excited by the hype before I saw it.
The movie simply did not affect me. Hype = overblown. I found the characters to be uninspired and uninspiring and the story to be flat and unsuspensful, a long, dull chase. (Is that unimpressed reviewer a hateful enemy too?)
The "controversy" you raised comes from outside, and that's the metatextual contrivance. I don't like to be hit over the head that way by artless assholes with dishonest agendas, and it's not Miller doing it. It's the same commercial scammers (who aren't actually liberal, but puritanical if politics are in their business.) They make "victims" and haters out of thin air and make you do it to me.
Chill out? There's going to be a lot more of this in an election year.
Judge how much I pick movies by politics with how much I'm not enthusiastic about Zootopia.
-Shrugs- Well, that's hardly the way feminism is usually promoted. If you read some of what is written and said by feminists (I recall Anita Sarkeesian's videos being particularly guilty) they more consider any time that females are not on top to be sexist. That is not the same as equality.
She made a whole thing about damsels in distress and what not as being a sign of sexism. Leaving aside all the other flaws with her reasoning, I just see it as one part of a character in distress. Sometimes females are killed or captured to move the plot, e.g. Leia in Episode IV or the Empress in Dishonoured. Sometimes males are killed or captured to move the plot, e.g Han in Episodes V and VI or Obi Wan in Episode IV. It's stupid to treat that differently because the character happens to be male or female.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Well, to swerve this wonderful little side discussion on the wonderful world of Rakuen unexpectedly back on topic, maybe you should avoid Zootopia. You know, a movie that was originally pitched with Nick as the protagonist, but was consciously changed to Judy as the co-lead and point of view character. Who the directors have described as "Furiosa-like" in interviews. This just isn't going to be your movie, I don't think.
You'll think of some reason you don't like it, but, spoiler, you won't like it. And we'll all know why.
o.0 I won't pretend to understand you there.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
He's baiting you with insults out of insecurity about nobody reading his thoughts about movies. Never mind how polite you are to him.
At the risk of saying something as dumb as "Rakuen started it," well, Rakuen started it.
Don't you know who we are; we're Rakuen Growlithe and crossaffliction. Passive aggressively sniping at each other is something we do. Even in the original post he admits this isn't the first time, and when next year's list comes out, he ... probably won't, actually, because 2016's list should actually be pretty furry heavy (or really, really disappointing).
But since we're going back to the beginning, let's go back to the beginning; this thing subthread started when CassidyTheCivet passively aggressively sniped about Zootopia, and I decided to be "patronizing daddy" crossaffliction instead of "passive aggressive sniper" crossaffliction and make some extemporaneous lecture about what actually consists of insightful criticism (which, actually, after the original passive aggression, seemed to go over pretty well, and everyone was discussing Oscar chances and movies and, you know, what not; it was pretty fun, and even semi-on topic).
I took the chance to retort Rakuen's original comment, as an example of not very insightful criticism, because of course I did. Then, we had a fairly decent discussion about the pros and cons of Mad Max: Fury Road, and the whole "it's also a feminist movie, and that's neat" was only a sidebar in my defense of the movie (and really mostly because the Carol/Mad Max: Fury Road thing is actually pretty funny). Yeah, it was totally, totally off topic, but Jesus Christ, it's a comment section.
Now, obviously, the "it's also a feminist movie, and that's neat" defense was a mistake, because, in hindsight, obviously Rakuen doesn't give a shit. Also, it brought you here; please note you instantly zeroed in on the feminist angle and weren't part of the conversation before, and the thread has kind of decayed from here, because, seriously, we were pretty chill about this whole thing until you showed up.
I mean, Rakuen seems more upset I implied he doesn't like [a][s] (I think he said somewhere he still prefer Flayrah, which kind of baffled me because of, well, me) than anything else that's happened here.
But you, well ... in the entire near decade and a half history of Flayrah, only two comment section fights have gotten so bad they were apologized for in actual published stories. Both involved you. Admittedly, one of those cases was a guy apologizing to you, but, for a a guy who's idealized fantasy version of himself wears a t-shirt saying "Free Hugs," you sure do get in some nasty fights.
That was instantly zeroing in on the dishonesty angle. Who cares if people pick stories that preach to them or what its about, if it's really what it appears.
Sure I enjoy peeling back the surface for hidden layers and third sides and don't shut up if you only want to hear the official version, and I'm not sorry :) if it provokes you to snipe, be happy that most of it's out of your fur on my own blog. btw you can freely say what you like there too.
It's only silly fan news, but that's where criticism of media can happen without mandate, so dont be afraid to examine what you're told to believe.
Well, I'm sorry, I don't think it's dishonest to consider Mad Max: Fury Road a feminist movie; also, even it was dishonest, it's a lie that's going to get the darn movie nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars (so I've got an admittedly dark horse in the race, which is nice), so I'd probably still be okay with it.
No man, it was the "protest" that wasn't real. That was clickbait with scams on either side of a fake debate.
I was a little annoyed about one time i paid tens of thousands to support something that turned into a soapbox for sarkeesian, and another time i was amused that Milo Yiannopoulos apologized to me for shit talking furries. Most of the time I dont want to waste my time on it.
Should I have been upset? I disagreed with you and then you started writing things which I seriously do not understand. I wasn't kidding. I have no idea what you were trying to say.
You do know that preferring one thing doesn't mean disliking the other one? Also I don't associate Flayrah with you. It is supposed to be, like GreenReaper has said, bigger than any particular person.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
At the risk of reopening old wounds, this is seriously everything I've tried to say in this thread about movies, up to and including the part where Cassidy thought Mad Max looked like a Michael Bay movie.
I'm not sure "I could tell exactly what was going on at all times" should really be considered high praise. At best that makes it sound like the best choice out of some low quality offerings. And while "minimal use of CGI and most of those stunts you see were real" is perhaps a technical achievement it doesn't make a movie good. That's like saying hand animation is always superior to CG animation because it's real drawing. But if you like it, you like it.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Did you perhaps miss the studio blackbagging and dragging Eve Ensler to the premiere?
The studio was (literally) banking on this response after asking her endorsement!
Thanks, Return of Koksuckers! Falling for your own "neg hit" tactics. How low.
Ha! I live in Canada! *mic drop*
Yeah yeah, as usual you make good points, yes I am asexual, visuals ARE important which is a big reason I love Fantastic Mr. Fox which in my opinion has more subtly integrated references which go towards constructing a unique whole instead of 'hey I recognize that thing!' or just pointing it out in the movie. It all becomes the story in a unique way rather than just being on a billboard in the background or something.
For the visuals, I'm not sure. People seem to just dismiss it as 'cute' which is fine, but that can't be all there is. Nick Wilde comes across as a mix of Robin Hood and Dodger from Oliver and Co. At least with those sarcastic eyes. XP
Ah, I actually noticed the cop thing before but I didn't give it much thought, as said. Nobody did. I just...I'm not sure why I subconsciously decided not to include that, maybe since I live in Canada it wasn't exactly in my face in the media all the time. Or maybe it plays on what I said earlier in that nobody cares about Zootopias existence. I don't know a single non furry or animation fan that's said 'yeah I wanna see this' over films like Kung Fu Panda 3 and whatever. One of the animation critics I follow on youtube described Zootopia with one sentence of very little enthusiasm, and I think this is how I'm going to describe Zootopia from now on without being overbearingly repetitive and cynical anymore:
"Might get a laugh or two."
I'd say I'd wait to see the movie to keep going on about this, but I don't think I'll be seeing it when it comes out. Just cause I know what game Disney is playing, and I've heard from the Director first hand that Disney insisted the movie have animals so they could sell more toys more easily to kids (I doubt you'll find a citation for this since it was an interview my friend did over skype). XP
Not really trying to be an ass but I won't go on much longer, after all, the movie is gonna be released soon and we'll find out how it really is!
Or I'll just base my opinion on what other people think since I won't see it. :V
Either way, I'm tired of this, and I guess that'll be it for this discussion. You're right, I'm getting repetitive, there isn't much new I can say.
New Years Resolution? Construct more unique opinions on stuff. X3
And thanks. I thought my old one was too dark (even though I drew it but I digress...)
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Jeez, I remember one thing, forget another (that I actually posted a joke about). Well, anyway, I want to keep discussing, so I'm just going to ignore you and prattle on, okay?
I think you're right that, yeah, outside the furry fandom, it's like, yeah, whatever (and being "the trailer we didn't hate for existing in front of Star Wars" may be its high pop-cultural water mark). It's coming out in a surprisingly aggressive time, box office wise (Captain America: Civil War, a.k.a. The Avengers 2.1 comes out like a week before or a week after), so it could flop, ultimate quality of the actual movie having nothing to do with it. It's also, just looking at the positioning, looking fairly aggressive for animated movies with a "prestige" tang; it may not even be nominated for the Best Animated Feature Oscar. If it hits, it'll be a bit of a sleeper hit.
On the other hand, I think it looks better from a non-furry perspective; actual furries make better furry art. If a furry came up with those character designs, and posted them on their FA account (always granted FA was up, haha) they'd get a few appreciative "keep trying, your almost there" comments, and that would be about it. But, it's not furries doing this; they don't have nearly three decades of ripping each other off, so as a mainstream movie, it's pretty wild. Most "mainstream" animated characters are either highly stylized (Rango and Kung Fu Panda on the good side; Chicken Little on the bad) or just seem to miss something. And, as I pointed out, that's because, basically, drawing humanoid foxes is, almost literally, all furry artist do. Disney's been drawing humans and snowmen and fat robots and shit recently; they're out of practice drawing anthro foxes. Basically, Zootopia does look like something a furry would make; nothing by a non-furry has looked this almost furry since, I'd say, Star Fox Adventures.
Also, just to be really, really clear, I'm not upset Judy is a police officer; I believe a lot of police officers genuinely have the best intentions at heart, and the most of the rest are also human beings trying to do a tough job. I'm upset the teaser trailer version of Judy is going around shooting unarmed foxes; that's not right.
And its not so much about "unique" opinions; it's about knowing which ones are, which ones aren't, and why. So that when you have an unpopular opinion, you are better able to back it up, and also, you know, not annoy everyone.
Go right ahead.
I haven't seen Star Wars (was never really exposed to it as a kid), but I saw the Peanuts movie and they didn't play the Zootopia trailer which surprised me. But it makes sense seeing as Star Wars is now a Disney property. And you mention some good points, though I don't know if parents would take their kids to Captain America over an animated Disney flick. And there's SO MANY animated movies coming out next year, WOW. I feel like if Moana falls in the time frame for accepting the nominations, it'll definitely steal the spot from Zootopia cause I think it's a law that a Disney film has to be nominated each year. XP
A sleeper hit like Fantastic Mr. Fox maybe? :3
Funny you mention Star Fox. I keep insisting to my friends that Dreamworks should do a Star Fox film, imagine the ass it'd kick!
And yeah you mention the stylization, that's also because of it being computer animated. I wonder if parents will get burned out with all those films. I know my parents and my 9 year old sister won't see each one so I wonder how it'll be for other families.
Police Officers aren't 'bad', it's just a shame the bad ones get national press. If a film blatantly made the police the bad guy instead of making some forced gender issue (Since I can't relate species to humans, maybe race counts...that's a bit of a tough thing to say...race is species...bleh) then that'd be an issue. As it is I don't know if any red flags will go up over it. I think people will be fine with it, especially that fat cheetah. I've never seen a so blatant comic relief! I can just see the plushes already. x3
I didn't think I annoyed everyone, I thought I offered a different view since literally everyone I knew was afraid to say anything other than positive things in afraid of the circle jerking Disney fanboy furries mauling them to pieces.
Since you're so keen and knowledgeable about this stuff, maybe you'd like to know that I'm developing a furry film right now. I can't say animated because even though I have stories and characters and whatever, I haven't exactly picked a medium. Could be animated, most likely will be, but I don't want to default say CGI. It's just an idea at this point. But it's being worked on. Maybe you'd offer some opinion on that! What do you say?
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
"I saw the Peanuts movie and they didn't play the Zootopia trailer which surprised me."
That makes me want to briefly discuss trailers before movies.
I saw the new 007 film (Spectre) a few days before Christmas day.
The official start time was 7pm. And from 7 to about 7:10 they showed advertising for things that were NOT movies.
And then they only one movie trailer before showing the feature film.
Made me wonder if the budgets for showing movie trailers in movie theaters has shrunk.
Or maybe less advertisers want to show their trailers for a movie that was released a month and a half ago.
I have a friend who works in the cinema and he said there's fifteen minutes of trailers before movies. So...taadaa.
So no interest in my anthro film? X3
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
I moved this year from basically rural Oklahoma, where I had a 40 mile round trip to see movies, to a slightly more suburban Oklahoma (but, you know, still Oklahoma), with a short drive pretty much down the street to the theater. And, oh my God, I miss the 40 mile round trip.
The prices were reasonable; candy was higher than, say, the local convenience store, a coke was about casual dine-in price point, and it was, if not actually affordable, at least "hey, I'm at the movies so I'm already spending money I probably don't need to, what the hell"-able. And they only showed two trailers, not matter what, before a movie. And no non-movie ads.
Now, it's fifteen bucks for a coke and a popcorn and Jesus Christ the trailer after trailer after ad before ad.
And I understand all of it; the movie distribution companies screw the theaters out of most of the profits from ticket sales, so concessions is their primary profit, followed by advertisements (even the semi-rural theater featured local ads on the screen until showtime; when I say no ads were shown, I mean like actual commercials). That, and not as many people go to the movies anymore, so profits are thin.
I'd bet the late showing had something to do with it; they're probably contractually obligated to run nearly 10 movie trailers on fresh out of the gate movies (I rarely see movies opening night or even weekend, but I'm usually there first week). Then, as more weeks go by, they cut back the number until a month later you've got just the one, and they fill in the space with other ads.
Rural chains, like the one my old theater were a part of, probably get away with more because they probably aren't that profitable to begin with, even by the slim profit margins of modern movie theaters, and was probably at least partially funded by outside sources; basically, profits from somewhere else were funneled into the theater by what amounts to a rich patron.
Also, I don't think Zootopia's slot trailer was "released" until after The Peanuts Movie debuted; it was probably originally attached to The Good Dinosaur. Seeing as how that movie flopped, becoming reattached to Star Wars was the first time it was seen by a lot of people outside of us Internet obsessives.
Actually, unless you're counting Pixar as Disney (which is, admittedly, fair), Disney has only recently done any good in the Best Animated Feature category; they are on a two for two streak winning the category with Frozen and Big Hero 6 (though they should've had the streak starting at Wreck-It Ralph, which got upset by Brave, and not including Big Hero 6, which upset How To Train Your Dragon 2 as well as the completely snubbed LEGO Movie), but DreamWorks has the most actual nominees (10 or 11, depending on whether you spot them Wallace & Gromit) and is tied with Disney for wins at two (again, if you spot them Wallace & Gromit), while Pixar has the most wins by a wide margin, with seven, and also has had more nominees, at 9.
Since the category began, five Disney movies have not been nominated. They are in third overall, with 2 wins and 8 nominees, and they were the first production company to gain two nominees in one year, so its not even remotely out of the realm of possibility that both Zootopia and Moana are nominated, though simply going by release dates, yeah, Moana looks like the prestige play.
I would pay good money to see a Star Fox movie, or even better yet, make one myself.
Which brings us to your furry movie idea; personally, I don't know why you wouldn't do it in animation, unless this is not actually a "furry world" movie like, say, obvious example, Zootopia, and it only features furries in supporting roles. I guess Bitter Lake proved you can do a live action, fursuit-based movie; it probably didn't prove that you should however. But talking about that is getting the cart way ahead of the horse; do you have a screenplay that you're working on, or what? Because that's where I'd start; also, give me an idea what the story is, would help.
Also, of course I already have my own screenplay that I've been meaning to rejigger (it needs rejiggered) that's basically a slasher set in a furry world called Two-Legged Animals. I should probably get around to that aforementioned rejiggering this year.
I'm not well versed in theater profit margins but I can somewhat relate. I don't quite live in such a far off place from the hub of all local entertainment but I'm definitely a ways away. We have those small local theaters with local ads, they don't even run trailers! Then of course there's the big chains, but those are to be expected. XP
Here in Canada where our dollar is in the toilet, the price is about $20 for a Medium Popcorn, Drink, and a candy thing. Which would be about...I guess $8? Still expensive especially with the ticket price, but that's just how it is. I'm not sure a revolution in theaters is coming any time soon. XP
Curiously, they DID show the Zootopia teaser when I saw Inside Out in the summer.
I'd definitely put Pixar as Disney. But I think you're maybe forgetting Finding Dory, Disney's THIRD movie (though second in the year, but third once Zootopia and Moana are mentioned) which I think may get a nomination also, unless it blows like Cars 2. Lego Movie got absolutely snubbed though, but too little too late now.
Heh well I'd definitely be on board with a Star Fox movie. I'm kinda baffled that Dreamworks is making a movie about fucking Troll dolls this year, like...wow. And they wonder why they aren't making any money. A Star Fox movie would be a home run for Nintendo and whichever studio took it on. OR they can make this and I'd watch it anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OGAs8FGzx4
Well it'd be animation without a doubt but I'm not set on what kind. It'll probably end up in CG, but I'd need to see some concept art or something of the characters in the different mediums before I decide.
A slasher set in the furry world? Heh, now I'm really curious if you wanna hear my symbolic kids film with heavy handed imagery. x3
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
I don't think that's the Canadian dollar as much as it is the theater doing what theaters do. Charging an arm and a leg for concessions.
Though about the Canadian dollar I was surprised to see it is sinking. Still at a solid 1.33 to US 1. But last I had looked it was 1 to 1. Lots can change in 2 years.
A lot of stores in the US are charging almost 50c on the dollar. xP
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
On the one hand on for Finding Dory's Oscar chances, Toy Story 3 was the only Pixar sequel to be nominated in the category since it began (and it was the only Toy Story movie to come out when the category was active); Cars 2 and Monsters University have the dubious distinction of being not only the only Pixar movies not nominated for Best Animated Feature, they both are the only Pixar movies to not be nominated for anything at the Oscars, period. And though Cars 2 is rock bottom of their output, it's not like Monsters University was worse than, say, Brave. So, Pixar sequels aren't as secure as Pixar originals.
Of course, it could possibly suck so hard, or rock so hard, it doesn't really matter.
Also, I think DreamWorks is contractually obligated to do the Trolls movie; they had to downsize their production output last year, and all the movies that got cut were mostly originals. Because they're doing so horrifically financially, they basically have only movies like Trolls based on other company's property (which they are probably, as I said, contractually obligated to do) and sequels (the theoretically safest way to turn a profit).
Admittedly, Pixar is also going mostly sequels (I think Coco is their only remaining original movie this decade in 2017), as well as Disney (and Disney the company is de-emphasizing Disney the animation studio, because when you have Marvel and Star Wars, well, it is a business).
Yeah, I'd like to hear a pitch.
Hmm. That sure leaves a lot to wonder eh? I mean, with so many films coming out this year, it could be very possible but maybe unlikely that Disney won't get a nomination. Though at least one nomination basically certain, I'm thinking...like 50% for Moana, 33% for Zootopia and 17% for Finding Dory.
Monsters University and Brave weren't great in my opinion.
Yeah I figured as much with Trolls. As much as I love DreamWorks, I do have to say that I wouldn't mind if it bombed. We don't need another Smurfs, but I also want DreamWorks to make money so I'm torn. XP
Coco is basically a rip off of Book Of Life at this point right? Another Day of The Dead thing coming out so soon? Puh-lease. XP
I don't know if it's like, a good thing to publicly post a movie idea and stuff. I can private message you if you'd want. I'm not sure how those laws work with intellectual property rights.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Sure, you can PM me; at this point, I'm like if someone wants to steal "furry slasher" as an idea, I'll get a furry slasher, and not have to do the work myself. Also, I'm not really worried about it. I'm old and cynical about my own dreams, but if you're more comfortable with private messages, that's fine.
I'm thinking Kubo with the Two Strings (or whatever that movie was called) from Laika (they only have four nominations, which is behind the big three, but, then they only have four movies ever made; that, and the Academy animation branch apparently has hard on for stop-motion) is actually the safest bet. The Little Prince also sounds like a safe bet (though I'll have to watch that; it's early foreign release date this year may have dq'ed it for next year, even if it is its US debut).
All three Disney movies (or, as I prefer, both Disney movies and the Pixar movie) are safe choices, though it feels like at least one won't make it; on paper, sight unseen, Zootopia seems the weakest (Finding Dory is a sequel, but it is the first sequel to a Pixar film that won the award to come out; Cars and Monsters, Inc. both lost, plus it's director, Andrew Stanton, is one of Pixar's big guns, though his last movie, John Carter, was a laughable flop), but it needs to be reiterated that this is sight unseen, on paper. It could shake up all three are duds, all three are masterpieces that can't be ignored, or any combination of possibilities.
On DreamWorks side, Kung Fu Panda 3 has some issues (not least of which is that super early release date); being a sequel may have had more to do with How To Train Your Dragon 2's surprise upset loss than Big Hero 6 being a Disney movie (or it even could have been just the later release date meant more Academy voters vaguely remembered it in the category they kind of regret allowing in to begin with; depressing, but a possibility). Also, they've recast at least two actors (one fairly late in the game), had that ridiculous run around the release schedule, and added a second director, which doesn't exactly say "confidence in our product" to me. On the plus side, DreamWorks will campaign (or at least they did when they weren't broke); DreamWorks aggressively FYCing The Croods while Pixar complacently "eh, we're Pixar"ing Monsters University may have been the real reason that movie wasn't nominated.
Of course, the Academy animation branch likes to nominate foreign movies only Internet obsessives have heard of (and even Internet obsessives haven't seen), so you always have to factor those in. That's one of the things I'm worried about in my predictions for this year; I don't have any, and there's usually two. (By the way, that's Anomalisa, The Good Dinosaur, Inside Out, The Peanuts Movie and Shaun the Sheep Movie; Anomalisa and Shaun the Sheep Movie kinda take those spots, but both are English language movies, one is an American production, and one had a wide release in America).
Day of the Dead is kind of becoming a thing; even James Bond is doing it. I'd say its Mexico becoming both a much bigger market and source of filmmakers, and Mexican American immigrants becoming more ingrained in US culture. Mexican directors have won the last two Best Director Oscars. There was that weird Mexican egg movie that snuck onto the top ten box office list back in September or August or whatever; I also think of My Little Pony punning on quinceañera way back in 2010, and not explaining it at all, just expecting most audience members would understand this piece of Mexican culture.
You Canadians better watch out; Mexico is becoming the new Canada.
Heh that's true. I wonder how a furry slasher would play out, probably not like You're Next which is the closest to a furry slasher out there, and even that's a stretch.
Did Laika really get all four nominations? Even for Pirates (which I thought was mediocre at best)? I mean, since I'm actually going through the process of making a film right now it kinda baffles me when I see some lazier films getting praise.
The Little Prince is one I'm watching out for, for sure.
All three being flops? That would definitely be something, but I think Disney has enough fans to get all three above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Let me just go on for a second here; recasting Rebel Wilson was a mistake. Jack Black isn't the skinniest guy around but he's charming and witty for his size. Rebel Wilson is not the skinniest person around and when I saw her cast as Po's love interest I was legit excited. I felt the two could work off each other brilliantly and get a lot of good size jokes in there cause hey, they're both pandas. But the recasting of some bland skinny white girl just made me think that she'll some object of his desire, maybe a damsel, absolutely no wittyness that Rebel would've had. That's definitely an assumption on my part but I know that Rebel would've been an amazing Panda. ;3
If Anomalisa and Shaun The Sheep don't do well, I'd be so disappointed. Good Dinosaur was horrible, Inside Out was average, and Peanuts...well I hated Peanuts. But Shaun was incredible and the buzz for Anomalisa makes me super hyped to see it knowing the past work from the director. I just know deep down that the academy is gonna give it to Inside Out...
I did notice the mexican directors winning recently. And funny you mention us Canadians having to watch out cause guess what? I'm half Mexican; my mother is right from Mazatlan/Tijuana and my dad is Italian so I'm a one and half first generation Canadian. X3
I sent the message; let me know what you think.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Don't worry, I got the message and will reply, but I want to give myself time to have a actually well thought out response (also I got busy yesterday).
Just by the by, since we got off topic about that a little ways up the thread, but watch Rango and Mad Max: Fury Road back to back some time; they are basically the same movie, down to the gag reveal shot of the electric guitar.
I also have no idea how to check messages on this site. XP
Well I haven't seen Mad Max so I'll take your word it.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
That second part wasn't really directed at you specifically, but more for just anyone reading (God bless them); though, uh, yeah, you should see Mad Max.
I kinda saw the trailers and stuff and figured it was kind of a Michael Bay fever dream with explosions and cars. XP
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Well, it kind of actually is; but, like, Michael Bay saw this movie and had to be put on suicide watch because he realized he been doing it wrong the entire time.
Huh. Well I don't know, maybe if I saw with a friend or something. Dunno if I'd watch it on my own.
So how's that message coming? XP
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
I learned that the narrator will be a kangaroo narrator voiced by Dan Aykroyd.
That's just Panda-ering!
I think someone on Wikipedia is pulling your leg since I can't get any conformation about it anywhere else.
Indeed, I would be skeptical on that as well, as I notice all others on the list have a source marking but that one doesn't.
Usually movie "Narrators" aren't seen, so how would know what the species is, or why would it be relevant?
Since this is becoming the "off topic" board of Flayrah at the moment, I would like to talk about, you know, Zootopia for a little bit (if not actually the trailer). I'm talking about InkyCrow's newest Newsbyte, which means that our Twitter feed features Nick Wilde's blurred dick (again).
To be clear, I did it the first time, and if Cartoon Brew is okay with barely concealed canine cock, who are we to complain? (So you're not in trouble, InkyCrow!) But, anyway, I think the best part of that article is that it goes out of its way to give credit to the original artist!
Yes, I knew the petition story was reported before, but when Cartoon Brew reports it I feel like its hit a level of mainstream coverage. (Animation World Network wouldn't touch something like this.) Plus, a story like this tends to bring out opinions from non-furs on such material, which might be of interest to some (like me). At least the article's author did not single this out solely as a "furry" problem, but for being under a larger "Rule 34" umbrella.
Bold of them to run that image on their site like that. (I did have a moment of hesitation before sending that Newsbyte out because of it.) Glad I'm in the clear. :)
In more SFW Zootopia news (again) the Japanese trailer has some new footage.
Hmm...what to make of it...
Well with the face time stuff they're definitely pushing for a modern feel. Seems almost like Big Hero 6 with animals, heh. I am very drawn to every other character other than the main's which is funny, the snow leopard news anchor, the wolf guards, etc.
The shakira song still sounds absolutely horrible. Maybe they'll include Animal City just to throw us off. Can you imagine in the middle of the movie it just starts blasting? "It's an animal city, it's a cannibal world, so be obedient don't argue, some are willing to fight you!"
That would save the movie for me. :3
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
It says "rakuen" in it. I take that as a sign I'll like the movie.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I started to watch it, then stopped early in. I'm now starting to feel between the US and Japanese trailers (plus the Sloth trailer) its all showing a bit much. I need some surprises for the theatrical release. Apparently, I was wrong in my prediction that the New Year's trailer would be the cap on preview footage.
Spoilers don't bother me; I watched the Half in the Bag review of The Force Awakens before I saw the movie, because I was honestly more excited about watching Mike Stoklasa review a new Star Wars movie then I was about a new Star Wars movie (even if it wasn't in character as Mr. Plinkett), so I basically knew the death (I can't believe they managed to bring back Jar Jar so well I actually cried when they killed him off!) and who the father was (R2D2 is BB88's father, and its heavily implied C3PO is the mother!). Also, Cracked tells me spoiled movies are more enjoyable, because brain science, anyway (and, speaking of Cracked and spoilers seriously, Cracked columnist's novel John Dies at the End has just the best title ever).
It's not so much spoilers per se, it's more like giving away too much of a movie's plot points... and also seemingly showing every character that appears in the film. The last thing I want when watching a new movie is a repeating feeling of deja vu.
I feel about this the same way we agreed that the trailer for The Final Girls showed too much (from the Best of 2015 list).
I've preordered the "Zootopia Junior Novelization" that will be released by Amazon.com on January 19. Has anyone else speculating about the plot of the movie? This should reveal it in detail.
Fred Patten
I can send my plot guesses to you if you'd like.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Thanks, but I should get the novelization with all the plot details in about three weeks, so I don't feel a need for any guesses before then. If there is anything that you (or anyone) want that's missing, you can suggest it for inclusion in a sequel. I assume that the Disney creators and marketing staff will be scanning the discussion websites for any ideas that they can use in a second "Zootopia" movie, and that "Zootopia" will be such a box-office success that there will be a second or more movies (sequels with Nick & Judy or completely new stories since the animal city is so large), either theatrical or direct-to-video. And a TV series.
Fred Patten
Only two more days until Amazon.com releases the "Zootopia Junior Novelization" and we'll find out the full details of the movie's story.
Fred Patten
Guess I should get my guess in now then:
We follow the story of Nick Wilde and Judy Hops as they try and crack a case to a mysterious circumstance where animals are "Going Wild/Feral".
As they grow closer in relations, while prey and predator are treated as different classes in society and dealing with the social fall out would be bad enough, it becomes concern that those causing animals to go feral could target Nick as well, and if he were to do so, then it could mean Judy would be in danger. So at some point in the movie they do that whole. "Breaking up with you for your safety" bit.
In the end though they get back together to bring down the antagonist, who would probably be a predator who embraces prey being beneath them, etc. etc.
That's pretty broad of course, but I'm going with that.
Well I think you're missing the whole, part where Judy risks her job to prove herself but fails and is taken off the force. But then Nick gives her a motivational speech and they decide actually they can do it if they work together because they're the only ones that can save the city in time. Then once they do she gets her job back, is treated as a hero and all the obstacles she faced as a rabbit dissolve and we get a montage of all different animals joining the police.
Also I don't think there's any predator/prey aspect. If you watch the trailer you will see plenty of prey in the police and all levels of society. Judy's problem is she is a tiny rabbit. She doesn't have the physical strength or size (unlike a rhino or buffalo or other big animal) to arrest whoever could be a culprit.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
You're both missing the part where the case that brings them together is actually a "routine" "missing mammal" case according to Disney, from the beginning; they basically just stumble on the whole "feral" thing accidentally when the missing otter, apparently, tries to eat a jaguar in the trailer.
You know if my prediction ends up being right I'm never gonna let it go Crossie!
I just read the first review on it, and I not only stand by my original prediction, I'd dare almost call it a spoiler at this point.
I've cheated by getting the "Zootopia Junior Novelization" about three weeks ago, so I know what the movie's plot is. I won't give away any spoilers now; I'm sure that there will be lots of dissections of all aspects of the movie as soon as it's released in less than a month.
Fred Patten
Okay, first of all, I really, really, really don't get everybody trying to predict "the plot" of this movie; here, reddit, everywhere. For three reasons; one, who cares to begin with, see argument with Cassidy earlier, and two, like I've pointed out before, it's not like they've hidden the plot. This isn't like when I guessed Brave was about a werebear, because they were doing there best to hide the fact that Brave's story was about a werebear for some reason. Here, they've been pretty open from the beginning; the plot is the fox and bunny must solve a missing person case, and the investigation reveals a bigger conspiracy. Pretty standard. And three, it's a mystery, yet nobody's actually predicting the solution to the mystery, i.e., the only interesting plot point to guess, and have mostly just thrown random plotwheel turns at the wall smugly knowing something has got to stick.
Second of all, I actually don't even think your random plotwheel turn is correct, Sonious. Doesn't fit the characters. Judy is the lead protagonist, and has heroic character traits; Nick is the supporting protagonist, and has cowardly traits. If Nick got in trouble, Judy would try and protect him, while Nick would cling to whoever could help him. Also, screenplay structure. I actually think it's almost the opposite; Nick is attacked, but Judy saves him at about the midpoint action scene of the movie, about the same time the two for the first time actually meet any feral creatures. I think this is about the end of the two days time limit, and Judy is kicked off the force, but Nick, now on Judy's side, convinces her to continue the case; in other words, the exact opposite of forcing her away. The case is the a-plot, Nick and Judy's relationship/possible romance is the b-plot. The b-plot converges with the a-plot, giving the a-plot protagonist the much needed boost to do the thing that needs to be done; in this case, solve the case.
Third of all, you kind of guessed at the solving of the mystery, but seeing as how you didn't name a character, and we know all the characters/suspects already; unless you're suggesting Disney has completely left out a major, major character in every preview and all the (very numerous) merchandising, the criminal mastermind has already been revealed.
And, once again, I don't find your solution satisfactory, this time for thematic reasons. If the theme of the movie is about stereotypes and how people deal with them, and predatory animals are feared and hated because of the "feral" outbreak, it doesn't make sense to have the villain be a predator ... who totally deserves to be feared and hated. In technical terms, we call that "thematically shitty." And the few reviews in have praised the movie for its thematic elements.
No, my prediction for the villain is ... Assistant Mayor Bellwether, for these reasons.
First, she has a motive; a panic would look bad for Mayor Lionheart, perhaps leading to his resignation or removal from office. And she'd be next in line. Also, Lionheart is kind of a dick to her, so it's also kind of personal.
Second, she has the means; she's in a position of power, so she could easily control some kind of biological agent or whatever (or at least more easily than anyone else).
Third, the Agatha Christie rule; it's always the least obvious character. She's shy, nice, helpful and usually behind the scenes. She can't possibly be the villain. So she obviously is.
And, finally, it makes sense thematically. She's an animal nobody would suspect of being a villain, which ties in with the theme of stereotyping. Heck, she's an animal that classically symbolizes innocence. The subversion of that animal stereotype is just to great to pass up.
So, anyway, we'll see come March.
Nope, that's probably accurate. I've only seen like 3 trailers and read one review, so I haven't been doing profiles of each major character. Which is why at least guessing the reversion of predators to the predator state, back in mid-January mind you, was a major pick. The villain being a predator though, I didn't recall making until I re-read it, and it may not be accurate.
But given the over indulgence of this Agatha Christie's rule in recent cinema (I guess its gotten so bad it has a name now?) particularly in Frozen, I'd say your assessment is accurate on the A-plot side of things. I'm not going to make any counter-guesses, as I don't think I have as a deep profile of the characters at all. In fact I had to google the character in question and found the one scene where she is helping Nick and Judy in the computer room. There is defiantly the "killing with kindness, but with passive resentment" tones there.
I'm still hesitant to believe that the b-plot goes without a hitch though, if Nick is a coward, as you say, do you think he's going to want to hang around someone he cares for if there is a risk to her for doing so? If that kind of conflict isn't addressed given the circumstances of the A-plot, I think it'd be a shame.
I gave the Agatha Christie rule the name the Agatha Christie rule, like, right now; yeah, I read TV Tropes now and then like everyone, but I can make up my own stuff. But, basically, Christie would write a mystery, then, for the reveal, would go back, re-read it, and find the one character who made least sense as the culprit, and make that the villain. And that's how Christie wrote mysteries, or at least some of them. So, literally, I called it the Agatha Christie rule, because it's Agatha Christie's rule.
As far as the b-plot, well, I don't think you're wrong at the rocky road to its climax (whatever that may be); I mean, well, duh. I just think you're timing is off. I think Nick is going to spend the first half of the movie in a passive aggressive, antagonistic relationship with Judy, slowly warming up to her. The second half will be too busy wrapping up the a plot to have an entire "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl" arc by itself. Especially when the boy isn't even the protagonist.
Also, "breakup and reconciliation" is a sequel plot, not a first movie plot, and the "I can only protect you by sending you away" plot point is a superhero thing, not a crime/detective/buddy cop movie thing. That's what's really bothering me about all this guessing-the-plot rigmarole; lots of the guesses are just so unaware of what genre we're even working with. Have any of you guys, like, even watched a buddy cop movie? A crime movie? Read a detective story? I kind of feel right now like Jamie Kennedy in Scream; "If the cops had just watched Prom Night, they'd have already caught the killer!"
Of course, I could be completely wrong, which would make me Jamie Kennedy from Scream 2, I guess.
As far as the whole feral conspiracy unveiling, well, I didn't know that's the guess you were bragging about. It's been pretty much established at this point that, yes, that guess is totally correct; it obviously wasn't back in early January, because the trailer was the first glimpse of the "ferals" we had (I think it might have been the Japanese or possibly British trailer that made it more explicit, which, being neither Japanese nor British, you were completely entitled to ignore).
DreamWorks eyebrows. That is all.
I'm a different furry with different opinions.
Debut Album out now go stream it plz
https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/cassidycivet/double-take
Okay, what?
But, actually, if you're going to get Jason Bateman to play a con
manfox and NOT use a smug expression, that's just miscasting.On top of this, scrolling up at the article I see the sheep standing right beside the two main protagonists in the thumbnail. The mayor is nowhere in sight.
This is highly suspect. Especially given any other character they could have thrown next to the protagonists. They clearly have a role that is close to the importance of the protagonists.
Think you have got it.
Then again "Flash" is also standing next to them... now there would be a funny twist, just no motive.
"You.... found.... me.... our.... Judy.... now.... prepare.... yourself...."
Without TRYING to give away whodunit (since I've already read the "Zootopia Junior Novelization"), may I point out that Disney has really fallen in love with the Agatha Christie rule in recent cinema, as Sonious says. Whodunit in "Frozen"? The Nicest Guy in the Movie who's also the heroine's fiancée. Whodunit in "Big Hero 6"? The Father-figure university professor who stands for honesty. Keep this in mind if you really want to puzzle out whodunit in "Zootopia" before the movie comes out. (Well, I will say that whodunit doesn't turn out to be Judy Hopps' parents. They'd REALLY be the least-likely suspects.)
Fred Patten
To really digress, let’s name our favorite Least Likely Suspects in murder mystery movies whether they’re anthro or not. I’ll pick wholesome (and at the time cutely young and naïve) Jimmy Stewart, who turns out to be the thoroughly-unconvincing Mad Killer in “After the Thin Man” (1936).
Fred Patten
Not a movie, but kind of germane to Flayrah (and an all time favorite); Poe's "Murders in the Rue Morgue". Bonus points for being what is widely considered the first detective story ever. They hadn't even invented the whole "introduce the suspects before you solve the case" thing yet, and the reveal of the murderer still manages to be "well, didn't see that coming", but in a way that plays fair with the clues given. Also, its completely terrifying. (I'm pretty sure there have been a few movie adaptations, but I've only ever read the short story.)
As for movies, actually, Scream's reveal of the murderer is pretty good, partially because the reveal that there are actually two murderers, one who seemed way too goofy to be the killer, and the other one apparently being one of the victims already killed off.
Also, it's actually really hard, if not impossible to pull off a slasher/thriller/And Then There Were None killer surprise reveal in a furry story, if you think about it. "Uh, nice mask and all, but we can see your tail. And you've already killed off the other fox."
This article from the first day of 2016 already has enough comments to surpass all but three of 2015's most commented articles. Admittedly, it's mostly just four or five of the same people repeating each other, with a lot of off topic nonsense thrown in (even a bit of chatter about how much off topic nonsense there is).
Also, yes, I totally made this a separate comment in order to further artificially inflate the comment count.
Post new comment