movies/tv Is Zootopia meant for furries? Are the animators furries?

[cider float 2,539]

 

https://www.inverse.com/article/8928-disney-prepares-to-cash-in-on-the-furry-demographic-with-zootopia

 

I'm sure many have already seen the trailer for this Walt Disney 3D animated movie coming soon. Anyone felt that it was somewhat catered for furries? I know Walt Disney is supposedly meant to make a lot of furry related cartoons but I've never really seen any in an actual movie. Could it be the animators and/or they are using this movie targeted towards furries?

 

Many may disagree, that they're just making a lighthearted cartoon in a world of animals. But let's look at the main protagonists of the movie.

 

 

Come on a fox as a main character. Isn't one of the most common fursonas out there among furries not the fox? Anyone remember that music video, "What does the fox say?" The fox is no doubt iconic in the furry community. 

 

Still not convinced? What about the other main protagonist?

 

 

Though not as commonly found as a fursona, the bunny rabbit is an endearing iconic anthropomorphic animal in furry culture. 

 

 

[Riganthor 484]

I agree with the people saying that disney is making just a fun animation with animals. They have done such a thing before with robin hood. That a protagonist or that all the characters in a play, animation or wathever are all animals doesn't have to mean it is ment for furries.

[Guest]

I would say no. Foxes and bunnies just happen to be a lot of people's favorite animals and thus it makes the movie more open to people. Take note of how the characters are not sexualized in the slightest. They are completely and fully clothed and lack many defining figures, such as breasts (which is common in furry porn).

 

This isn't a movie made for furries, more like furries are trying to take ownership of it by reading into things that are not there.

[CandyStrike 603]

Part of me has a suspicion the people making the movie are aware of furries, if not furries themselves. I think that because in the teaser trailer they described what anthropomorphic animals are and it sounded like a little lecture from a furry.

 

On the other hand, most furries draw breasts on their rabbits. And that rabbit has no breasts. Most of the animals in the movie have more animal-like bodies then the way most furries tend to draw them. So they don't seem to be catering to most furries.

 

Would like to know what an actual furry thinks.

[cider float 2,539]

I would say no. Foxes and bunnies just happen to be a lot of people's favorite animals and thus it makes the movie more open to people. Take note of how the characters are not sexualized in the slightest. They are completely and fully clothed and lack many defining figures, such as breasts (which is common in furry porn).

 

This isn't a movie made for furries, more like furries are trying to take ownership of it by reading into things that are not there.

Well furries aren't necessarily sexualizing everything.

[Guest]

Well furries aren't necessarily sexualizing everything.

True, but that would be an indicator that they were "trying" for that audience.

 

As it stands there is no real evidence that they are "trying" for that audience because if they were than the original trailer where they explain what anthros are wouldn't be necessary.

[Crypty Scribbles 5,608]

What Zootopia means for furries? It will be most furry film from the age of Robin Hood!

[Crusaders Forever 88]

Well seeing how Disney's Mascot is a Mouse (You know Mickey Mouse) I feel like they are sticking with what they know, and that is animal movies. To me aot of people like animals in one way or another. So Disney is using the love of animals that people already have to give their movies a boost in sales.

 

So the question of if the new movie is more directed towards furries. IMHO it's no.

[Megas 27,919]

You could say anything featuring anthropomorphic animals are meant for furries and are made by furries, but that argument 98% of the time is usually a load of bullshit. It's possible they just like talking animals and wanted to make a movie with them. You don't have to be a furry to like talking animals

[cuteycindyhoney 13,322]

Why not let it be just a really fun movie following the the tradition of Disney's Talespin and Darkwing Duck? There's no need to search for deep pseudo psychological meaning in what looks like  a very good cartoon.

[PiratePony 8,486]

I was going to roll in with commentary of classic Disney's use of anthropomorphic animals in their Tangled CGI animation style (which is beautiful), plus point out that the fox man seems to look a lot like Robin Hood, down to his clothing color scheme, plus it reminds me of good ole' 90s Disney afternoon (which is one reason I love FIW, because I get the same feels), but y'all beat me to the punch.

 

*beats a dead horse*

[Jokuc 8,174]

I'm sorry but that's just overanalyzing things. Kids like animals, animals are funny and it's easier to give each character unique personalities when they're different species. The main characters is a bunny and fox because people like bunnies and foxes. It could be that those animals has are associated with the kind of personalities the creators wanted to use.

 

I would say no. Foxes and bunnies just happen to be a lot of people's favorite animals and thus it makes the movie more open to people. Take note of how the characters are not sexualized in the slightest. They are completely and fully clothed and lack many defining figures, such as breasts (which is common in furry porn).

 

This isn't a movie made for furries, more like furries are trying to take ownership of it by reading into things that are not there.

While I do agree with what you're saying I just want to point out that "furry art" and people who consider themselves "furries" isn't just about porn. It's just the animal-look in general. I'm not really a furry myself but I find it somewhat annoying how people think of porn when someone says "furries". Just like it's annoying how people think about clopping when they hear "bronies". Just because a good amount of people are into it doesn't mean all are.

[Guest]

 

 

While I do agree with what you're saying I just want to point out that "furry art" and people who consider themselves "furries" isn't just about porn. It's just the animal-look in general. I'm not really a furry myself but I find it somewhat annoying how people think of porn when someone says "furries". Just like it's annoying how people think about clopping when they hear "bronies". Just because a good amount of people are into it doesn't mean all are.

 

Sorry, I tried to clear that up in an earlier post. 

[GeekySonic 1,150]

I originally thought that it was just gonna be a cute animal movie, but as CandyStrike pointed out, the teaser sounded like something a furry would dumb down to avoid freaking people out.

 

I'm not exactly a big furry myself, but I personally suspect that some of the creators are furries, or at least targeting furries. I could be wrong.

[Ziggy + Angel + Rain 11,303]

I think this is clearly Disney's thinly veiled attempt to further their secret furry agenda.

 

^ Sarcasm.

 

I'm not saying that it is targeted at furries, and I'm not gonna bother saying that it isn't.  I don't care, and I wouldn't care even if it genuinely, undeniably was.  I still wouldn't care if the movie poster actually read, "The furry film fur furries that furries have been waiting fur fur-ever!"  Don't care.  Doesn't matter.  Unimportant.  Non-issue.

[cider float 2,539]

This trailer just gives off that vibe.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lmhBYB11U

 

"Like nothing you've seen be-fur"

 

Be... "fur?" That statement and the fact that they put a "fur" pun is suspicious.

 

Also it's been a really long time since Disney or any franchise really did a world of anthropomorphic animals with a community that populates the country sort of thing.

What Zootopia means for furries? It will be most furry film from the age of Robin Hood!

What relation does that movie and this have though? Is this Robin Hood modern days? It's a whole different universe. Plus isn't that a really old movie? Lot of furry based media seems to be from really old times.

Edited January 30, 2016 by cider float

[Leave a Whisper 703]

Anyone who believes that is overthinking this. Zootopia is just an animated flick. I mean c'mon, talking animals are a main staple of most of their movies and cartoons and has been since the beginning.

 

Mickey Mouse and the Crew

Goof Troop

Gummy Bears

The Wuzzles

Tale Spin

Robin Hood

Duck Tales

Cinderella

Dumbo

Ratatouille

 

At this point I think it's mandatory.

Edited January 30, 2016 by Leave a Whisper

[Floofie 799]

You could say anything featuring anthropomorphic animals are meant for furries and are made by furries, but that argument 98% of the time is usually a load of bullshit. It's possible they just like talking animals and wanted to make a movie with them. You don't have to be a furry to like talking animals

^^^

 

Just because something has anthropomorphic animals in it does not mean that it's meant for furries.

[Crypty Scribbles 5,608]

 

 

What relation does that movie and this have though? Is this Robin Hood modern days?

 

Nah. It's evolution of Disney.

[cuteycindyhoney 13,322]

This trailer just gives off that vibe.

 

 

"Like nothing you've seen be-fur"

 

Be... "fur?" That statement and the fact that they put a "fur" pun is suspicious.

 

Also it's been a really long time since Disney or any franchise really did a world of anthropomorphic animals with a community that populates the country sort of thing.

What relation does that movie and this have though? Is this Robin Hood modern days? It's a whole different universe. Plus isn't that a really old movie? Lot of furry based media seems to be from really old times.

You forgot to mention "Talespin" "Darkwing Duck" "Ducktales" "Goof Troop" and "Chip and Dale Rescue Rangers". Disney has a very long history of anthropomorphic animals in their cartoons and shows. The "Furry" connection is pretty thin.  

[Flutter's lover <3 8,206]

Take note of how the characters are not sexualized in the slightest. They are completely and fully clothed and lack many defining figures, such as breasts (which is common in furry porn).

 

This isn't a movie made for furries, more like furries are trying to take ownership of it by reading into things that are not there.

 

I actually noticed a couple things relating to this in the 2nd Trailer, that could be considered sexualizing....that being the black panther, laying naked on a random chaise lounge in the middle of a public place "grooming" itself provocatively, along with a Gazelle dancing and singing in a skirt and top later on, with 4 well built up topless tigers watching her. Heck, there's a whole "nudist colony/naturalist club" in the trailer.

 

Black Panther: 1:41

Gazelle:  1:54

 

[Tao 8,327]

Anthro's in cartoons is like having water turn to ice when cold...

[Prince Golden Lotus 166]

Well, there's already been a piece of furry tickle fanart made, so...I don't know.  We'll see...

[ManaMinori 4,146]

Have you never seen Mickey Mouse? Robin Hood? A Goofy Movie?

[cuteycindyhoney 13,322]

The furry conspiracy is thin to non-existent. All I care about is that Officer Judy Hopps is major league tail-kickin' COOL! Plus, she's way too tiny for anyone to be able to cosplay.