Can we talk about this movie without you degenerates talking about how much you want to fuck the animals or your disgusting fetishes?
I think it will be a fun comfy movie.
So do I, but that doesn't mean we should talk about it an a board that's both simultaneously mostly furry yet anti-furry.
It would be better if they had four toes instead of three
It appeals to twats who like to pretend they are as skilled as Men with Tits female characters and it pleases EMASCULATED docile self-neutered Western males. No wonder Western women get moist for ISIS criminals.
>Can we talk about this movie.
>But not about the looks of the characters.
What else is there to talk about, that didn't get talked to the ground with every other "Animals replace people" show/movie?
But fine, here's a quuestion OP:
Do you guys think that the bunny will ever be allowed to handle a real gun in the line of duty? What about a cat, or other keen eared predator?
I mean just think about what it would be like, having to shoot off a gun with that kind of hearing. And just plugging the ears wouldn't be a good solution, because then it also hinders communications between police officers.
What kind of animal do you think could make a decent member of a SWAT unit with this in mind? Don't forget that sometimes they need to be sneaky though, so Rhino is not an automatic win.
>Can we talk about this movie without you degenerates talking about how much you want to fuck the animals
No, but that doesn't mean we can't have a civil discussion about the film intermittently.
What's bothering me is that it's his only facial expression.
Looks like a fun little movie. Hope it will be good.
Where did it all go wrong, that bunny tho, etc.
>I mean just think about what it would be like, having to shoot off a gun with that kind of hearing. And just plugging the ears wouldn't be a good solution, because then it also hinders communications between police officers.
My earpro for when I'm shooting is "active" hearing protection. It allows sounds such as talking to come through below a certain decibel point while blocking out louder noise such as gunfire.
It's an old problem that was solved a long time ago. It's easily solved with standard earpro that also has built in mics and audio drivers that block everything out except for safe sounds that are below the hearing damage threshold and/or coming in through com hardware.
We're all in agreement that the sheep assistant to te mayor is the villian of the story?
And that feline fat fetish fags who think the fat cheetah is anything but disgusting are horrible people, right?
You mean the guy with the five mile smile?
I mean yeah, I don't get why someone would want to fuck him, but come on, he's not disgusting.
Disgusting would be some sweat dripping mouldy skinned guy in a shirt and boxers rolling around Walmart in a scooter.
He's more like an extra hairy Santa.
I know Disney would never bring up the subject with a ten foot pole because today's society is so terrified of deeper truths. But what kind of religion do you think would have sprung up in a world full of intelligent animals?
Would they all adapt a natural, more pagan-like worship of nature? Would one species of animal come up with the concept of God and spread it to the other animals? With the religion try to say that all animals are equal in spirit? Or would it try to establish a hierarchy?
What kind of species would a Jesus-like figure be?
>What kind of animal do you think could make a decent member of a SWAT unit with this in mind?
Wolves because of their natural predatory instincts.
Eurasian Badgers because they are stocky and tough as fuck
Weasels/stoats/pine martens, because in real life they are practically born with martial arts moves and can take on animals a lot bigger than themselves.
Foxes because sneaky sneak and can pinpoint shit behind obstacles with their ears
Read pic related. In it, every animal has their own origin myth, that puts them above the rest.
In case you want to know what it's like, think Watership Down, but better.
I remember when being a furry meant just being a fan of anthropomorphic animals. People with fursonas, shitheads retarded enough to wear fursuits, and idiots making being a furry part of their identity are all horrible people and they ruined the furry fandom.
Why would they make a film like this.
Are they not aware that their main audience are going to be fucked up deviants, OR are they specifically targeting said deviants because they know they have a lot of disposable income?
No. I agree with him. For a period of time on the internet people who were fans of anthropomorphic animals wrote comics and stories of characters of their own original creation. It was simply used as a means of exploring their own imaginations and getting into story writing themselves with characters that they found appealing.
But I do distinctly remember a shift happening, where people no longer referred to their anthro creations as "their characters", but instead started saying that "this is me."
That shift in attitude has since turned the fandom into a selfish, shallow, mean spirited and opportunistic shitshow where ego and status within the community plays more of an important role than creativity and world building. This is directly parallel with the creation of all these sparkle dog OC's. Since anthopomorphic characters are now being created as a representation of their ego instead of a character for a story, these "fursonas" have zero personality or interesting qualities, and in order to stand out they must be painted with bright colors, neon glowing genitals, stripes and spikes and all manner of amalgamations of various animal parts.
The furry fandom now is just an arms race for status among their peers. The only reason to create or commission art is to make porn of your fursona to feed your ego. And in order to stand out in your porn and be recognizable you have to look like a fucking Technicolor monstrosity and try super hard to be the "mostest originalest" with arbitrary and superficial physical qualities.
Wew lad I think something set me off. I will shut up now before I derail this any further.
I had a coworker at one point that was one of the 80s Era old guard furries. The story I get from him is much less rose-tinted.
The furry scene is just a giant mess without a well defined border. To call it deviant is accurate, but the general public as a whole is pretty deviant as well. Furries are just an easy target.
Disney gave up on being wholesome to a fault years ago. They know they can cater to fan communities and still come out on top. There's a lot of freaks working for Disney and they know it
Imagine if they pulled a full 180 on us, and it turns out, that the title isn't just a gag.
Zootopia instead literally is a Zoo, but from the year 58798, where humanity has transcended to such heights, that their zoos are pocket civilizations made up of genetically enhanced and altered species, and the plot will only start out as buddy cop movie, but the mystery will slowly drag away the illusion, and it will start taking Dark City/Brazil like turns in how much of lie they've all been living.
German shepherds would make good swat members
I really don't think Disney will try and push a romantic relationship between the two. The past movies that this crew have worked on have been Wreck-it Ralph and Bolt, among others. Most of their movies have focused on platonic relationships between two main characters. Is proven successful with them so far and I doubt that they will break from this current formula.
But I do admit they have been showing Judy and Nick being very physical with each other. Especially with Judy climbing on top of and clinging onto Nick in various ways. So they do kind of seem to be very comfortable with each other at least, but this can easily just insinuate that they are very good friends and coworkers.
Besides, if they did officially acknowledged that they were in a romantic relationship in the movie, then that begs the question how exactly that could work, because I'm pretty sure no matter how many times they tried they wouldn't be able to make a kid.
Generic buddycop film with animal jokes out the ass but furries will call it the best film ever while they jack off to it
The saddest part is that it won't even be the best "furry" film of 2016
-kung fu panda 3: oh god no more
-spark: looks interesting but I can be wrong
-ratchet and clank: always hated the fuck out of this shit.
-sheep and wolves: that looks horrible and too close to the uncanny valley for my taste.
-sly cooper: let's hope it doesn't suck but knowing the treatment vidya movies get I'm worried.
-rock dog: never heard of it but already sounds like a bad idea.
-the nutjob 2: they made another? what the fuck?
-secret life of pets: generic as fuck but I'll probably watch it when someone make a torrent.
-anime la shit with swords #7235: fuck anime
-animal crackers: this crap is probably be the new madagascar.
I hope its Gazelle with tigers.
I don't mind if they put fluff like Judy gets jealous when Nick flirts with a girl or they get mistaken for a couple or something like that. But that's as far as it should go, IMO.
Disney romances tend to feel like they're shoe horned. The characters involved in the romance barely had any time to develop. Even if Flynn and Rapunzel didn't get married at the end of Tangled, they were still a great team.
Well... Vanellope and Ralph were very comfortable, physically, with each other.
That came out creepier than intended.Part of it may be a natural tendency to show cute characters being cute with each other. "Teddy bear" type characters in cartoons are often physically affectionate, but it usually lacks any sexual component.
>The furry scene is just a giant mess without a well defined border.
This. From what I've heard, the 80s fandom was still pretty ridiculous
Most of the furs I've met have actually been pretty cool, but there's always a mix
Disney is not specifically targeting fan communities/deviants. Stop insinuating this. Walking, talking animals like this have been a thing for centuries, this isn't a new subject.
Okay let's talk about the actual movie and stuff surrounding it.
I know families will often automatically go see movies with cute and funny characters in them regardless of the quality of the story.
I'm mad about how popular Minions is, and I know its popular because of how marketable the minions are. They are like a mascot in a cereal box.
So if Disney creates cute animal characters and actually invests some creative effort in the design, like I think they have, they better fucking make that one billion dollars that Minions are making. I don't want to live in a world where people want to see yellow retard smurfs instead of a cute bunny with a personality and probably a decent story behind it all.
Why would they have invested so much into marvel and lucasfilm? Studio Ghibli? It's not about furries, it's about fandoms. They are aware of them and they are interested in making money.
They market it as a new thing because this is the first time anthromoporphic characters are literally animals with human features instead of just archetypes from fairytales (like in Robin Hood) or "just there" for other visual reasons (such as personality, like in the Mickey Mouse universe).
Characters in Zootopia are more like animals in George Orwells Animal Farm. They are actually that animal, only with human features. They represent a species like an alien, a fantasy race or an ethnic group would.
....and that's the theme of Zootopia. The world is an allegory of a diverse world where everyone tries to get along despite their differences. Only in Zootopia those differences are much bigger than in ours.
>And that feline fat fetish fags who think the fat cheetah is anything but disgusting are horrible people, right?
people who prefer him to the lion mayor or the tiger are degenerates t.b.h.
>tfw working on a fantasy book of anthropomorphic animals a la redwall that touches upon this very thing
>been working on it since 2004
>people will see it as a conceptual ripoff of zootopia
I feel you man.
I've been co-writing a webcomic that has a similiar world only not intended to be furry or anything. And I'm afraid people will think its either a furry comic or a ripoff.
Because the amount of people and kids who will shell out money for marvel and star wars shit is astronomical.
Furries are minuscule when it comes to the amount of comic and sci-fi fans in the world. Also, kids being one of the biggest reason those two make so much money
Many of the fables we know and love already work inside this concept, though they don't emphasize it at length. Many traits are already in the nature of the animal characters and they all try to work around each other's differences, but there is no post-modern spin of "there is no destiny, there is only what we make."
>because today's society is so terrified of deeper truths
How is that just today's society and not also yesterday's society? Disney specializing in serving vanilla to the mass market, it has nothing to do with the fear of "deeper truths."
>-kung fu panda 3: oh god no more
KFP2 was GOAT, so unless the Shrek curse hits Dreamworks again, this one should be at the very least on par with the first.
>-rock dog: never heard of it but already sounds like a bad idea.
One of the few promising movies of the bunch, in fact.
>-anime la shit with swords #7235: fuck anime
Literally talking out of your ass. Go watch Summer Wars, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time and Wolf Children to see what the director can do.
Can't say i disagree with the rest.
>So do I, but that doesn't mean we should talk about it an a board that's both simultaneously mostly furry yet anti-furry.
Maybe we should hookup on f-list and make it happen anon. :3c
>implying Disney would make an actually interesting movie exploring the implications of an animal-based modern society instead of a safe, by-the-numbers buddy cop flick with an animal gimmick
Remember when people didn't want to do anything with anthropomorphic animals for fear of being labeled a "furry".
What an annoying time that was. Nothing like studying animation and being mocked for drawing cartoon animals... by your fellow animators.
Well, they were mostly losers anyway.
>Nothing like studying animation and being mocked for drawing cartoon animals
>by your fellow animators.
Shut up, you whiny cunt.
I'm just pissed off about furry changing from "I'm a fan of media featuring anthropomorphic animals" to "I am this seventeen cocked foxtuar with wings and sparkles, this is who I am".
Furry shit used to focus on the world they lived in, now it's full of socially retarded neckbeards trying to live vicariously through their pathetic murrsonas.
The Moreau series by S Andrew Swann is a good read. The genetically engineered anthros in the series have real problems to deal with and it isn't some pathetic furfag's wish fulfillment self insert.
Fursonas and retards in fursuits ruined furry.
You're not saying anything that isn't already known or agreed upon by the people who like furry stuff on this site. And even back then there was porn of anthro stuff. Course, it was more humanXanthro.
>I am this seventeen cocked foxtuar with wings and sparkles, this is who I am
I have never seen this other than people complaining about it. Unless it's some otherkin bullshit, it's very rare to find someone thinking their furry OC is who they actually are.
Sparkledog edgelord bullshit is fucking autistic though
The shitting dick nipple retards from the Doug Winger days are now laughed at by the shemale sparkledog retards of today while they're laughed at by the non-retards of yesterday and today.
I assure you, retarded multicock hermaphrodite special snowflake murrsonas are still a thing.
Most admit it's a fetish thingand fursonas and OCs are nothing but porn tools to be used in ERP. Identity problems are vastly more common as a gender dysphoria thing than the otherkin kind, still crazy, but not furry-exclusive crazy. Lot's of SJWs among furries, you might have heard of Purpleinkerton.
Lots of weird assholes like gay supremacists, rapists and pedos hiding in there, but again, not really furry things.
Most of 'em ended up flipping burgers anyway because they were lazy idiots who thought it was more important to play video games than complete their assignments, or actually make art...
Hey fuck you too, I guess.
I didn't know how much I wanted this until I had it.
>Just ZOO it
For some reason I'm triggered
I don't blame the furry fandom for changing. Its true -- it got bigger and as a result more autists joined in.
I blame the "YIFF IN HELL" -reaction from over ten years ago when it started. Before that I remember it being pretty normal to have a "fursona" in deviantart without actually wanting to dress up as a rainbow-colored fox with two dicks and four wings. It was just "what I would be if I was an anthro." And that was it. It was just a visual thing just like making manga versions of western characters is.
But then came the "controversy" all of a sudden and people started acting like furries were a big deal and needed to be bullied "out of our internets."
The irony is, that the kind of furries we associate with the word furry -- the kind that really reeks of autism -- is a tiny minority, even though they really make themselves visible in the internet. The people who "just like the aestethics of anthros" are not that visible but are the large majority. Now this majority is being really careful not to become associated with "furries".
The same thing happened with the show that shall not be named. I used to call myself a brony for maybe what -- two months -- before I saw all the rainbowdashfedoras and shit. Now I can't imagine being associated with them.
It's an interesting phenomenon when the most autistic part of a fandom becomes how people see the fandom and ruin it for everyone. There should be a name for it. Some kind of radicalization or something.
>furrys are supposedly ruining this movie with porn
>we're pretending the movie won't be terrible by itself
The sad thing is while you shit on them, there is probably at least one (statistically speaking of course) furry that has done what this movies does, only better. It wouldn't be hard, Zootopia is just an endless series of "Hey guys, look at this quirky, silly thing that animals do! Wouldn't be hilarious seeing a person doing that? LOL sloths are slow!!" jokes.
At least things like Robin Hood and Kung Fu Panda did things better then that.
The context of using/adding anthropomorphic animal characters changed with the mass exposure of the furry fandom. Saying that they should be perfectly acceptable in today's fiction because they were acceptable historically is nonsense; pedophilia was acceptable for much of history and had a place in historical literature and documentation, but that doesn't justify any inclusion of it in modern media. I'm not saying furries are as bad as pedophiles (even though there are like a ton of furry pedophiles kek), I'm just illustrating an example as to why it's not enough to say "it was okay historically."
The furry fandom was always fetishistic and filled with many deserving of contempt. The fursona fantasy nonsense and "affinity" for anthropomorphic characters was as autistic as the sparkledogs, porn proliferators, etc., just in a different way. You're idealising a group essentially akin to the fandomites that obsessively entwine themselves into their favourite shows and books, a la Doctor Who, MLP, Harry Potter, etc.; fanfiction, OC donutsteels, self-inserts, cloistering and cliques, escapism, and so on. It is and was shit, and it was always shit, even with the relatively uncommon self-aware individuals among it that could take the piss out of their themselves and their creations and treat it purely as the paraphilia and source of entertainment they admit it to be.
What gets me is that the last few Disney films have basically told me that I can guess the plot of a Disney film long before it's out
I fucking know this shit is gonna be a generic buddy cop film with animal jokes and it's gonna end with the fox becoming a cop himself
It's fucking sad to see people praise the fuck out of Disney for doing nothing original or creative
I think its safe to say at least the marketing department of Disney wants us to ship them.
We'll see if the writers agree once the movie comes out.
I have a feeling some romantic tension is intentionally there.
I want to emotionally abuse clawhauser over his weight problem.
low key conspiracy, not even a /pol/tinfoily, but does anyone else think this is kind of an easy way for Disney to avoid progressivism and the backlash they've gotten with the "no minority princesses/no gay x/no trans y" internet-liberals who are also turning their backs on the animated legacy of "Beauty and the Beast" and "The Little Mermaid" as patriarchical films that reenforce traditional gender yada-yada.
this features a strong female lead, and likely will not have a romantic main or sub plot, as well it avoids the question of "well it's a strong female but it's a strong WHITE female" by making it a rabbit.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and it's really just a way to make a lot of animals-into-brand-names-puns, but I think there's something to it.
Animals being replacements for controversial social issues between humans is not a new thing by any means.
From The tortoise and the Hare to Animal farm to Cats dont dance, it's one of the biggest motivations behind their use.
Agree with this. Using anthropomorphic animals is an excellent way to tackle highly controversial subjects in a light that encourages discussion, or at least doesn't give too many incentives for people to instantly flare up and dismiss it as racist or sexist (unless you are dull cow retarded and you insist that it is anyway)
In our world it's stupid to say that one person is better than another person simply because of their skin color, because that is a merely superficial trait. But in an animal world, how can you say a wolf is equal to a fox, especially if the wolf is much bigger and stronger?
There were these collectible things, with pictures on them.
On the back, there was a small description of the collectible picture.
Basically, one of the collectibles had a picture of the fox guy with a floating police badge or vest (I don't have the picture right now), and the back said something along the lines of "After stopping X, fox guy joined the force."
You're reading too much into it. I don't think Disney aims to appease liberals to alleviate some sort of pressure they have on them considering the ones who openly "turned their backs" on them are the Fox News audience who are actually upset with pro-female, anti-male tone they're reading into Disney's latest films.
The movie will probably have a message that frames diversity in a positive light and encourages people to break the mold, but I don't think anyone at the table said "we have to do this or they won't like us anymore."
>or at least doesn't give too many incentives for people to instantly flare up and dismiss it as racist or sexist (unless you are dull cow retarded and you insist that it is anyway)
But you just said it's a way to talk about race related issues.
And the fox can be equal to a wolf by dumbing down the wild or makin the fox smarter. The personhood problem comes up when intelligence is not equal because we start valuing animal people differently from species to species. It's racist.
>when he was voicing Jeremy
>make me into anything, just don't make me fat
You are cruel, anon.
>Thread is just bouncing between closet furfags bashing open furfags that want to bone all the characters
>No one is actually talking about the film itself.
What is there to talk about? It's still months away. The animation APPEARS to be pretty top notch, the humor tickles me, and it looks like a fun movie. I will likely spend money on merchandise too, like a good corporate whore.
But I'd be lying if I said my penis wasn't doing most of the decision making in all of this.
Kyell Gold actually explored the concept of a furry Christianity, in which the "miracle of the many species" happened.
Personally, I think a society where multiple sapient species can co-exist is either the most tolerant place on earth or engages in a bizarre cast system.
(Picture: Machine Orthodoxy leonin)
>Fox appears intelligent, wears rags.
>Bunny appears intelligent, wears rags.
>Horse appears intelligent, only wars saddle.
Fuck, that's racist.
Although I gotta say, it would be fun, if someone made a Planet of the Apes parody movie, where this exact situation happens.
Imagine Zootopia like civilisation, sending astronauts into deep space. They end up on a strange world not unlike their own, but all animals like that are literally animals, and humans reign supreme.
Come to think of it, it strange that this didn't get made yet.
Tell me /co/ is this a thing already?
>The people who "just like the aestethics of anthros" are not that visible but are the large majority. Now this majority is being really careful not to become associated with "furries".
The struggle is real. I think anthro characters in cartoons and videogames and whatever are cute and fun but I can't say that without being told to yiff in hell.
It's weird really.
I mean no one accuses you of wanting to shag an Oldsmobile if you tell them you like the way 1950s automobiles looked, and it's not like animals are any more for sexual than cars.
Especially after the movie Cars.
I've read Kyell Golds books. And they are pure objective shit. Not trolling or bashing it simply because it'a furry, but I mean it was one of the few books that actually pissed me off the more I read it.
I found his take on religion to be very superficial and implausible. Mostly because I found his cultures to be very superficial and implausible.
>main character in Volle falls in "true love" with a stranger who raped him without ever knowing his name
Dear god what shitty writing.
>"And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, onto the next prestigious entry of our automotive display! This fine vehicle, is a 1956 Lincoln Premiere. It features a 368 cu. Lincoln Y-Block V8 Engine, with a 3-Speed Turbo Automatic Transmission. According to urban legend, albeit it might be true; near the end of his life, it was indeed favoured by Basil Rathbone, the stellar British Actor, responsible for creating one of the most definitive adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. Any questions."
>"Oy, what about the ass pipe?"
>"Beg your pardon? Ah! The Exhaust System! Well, this particular model favoured a rather standard-"
>"Can you fuck it?"
I am looking forward to this film as much as I was Over The Hedge, Chicken Little, or Chipmunks
2: nude Chipettes.
By the way, there used to be these terms:
- furry lifestyler: feels he/she/etc is an animal.
- zoophile: wants to fuck IRL animals, generally considered an animal abuser and shunned. See also plushophile.
- fursuiter: dresses in a furry costume.
- furry artist: draws for fun, and if you're lucky, for commissions.
- furry fan: none of the above, but liked the Disney Afternoon show block + Gargoyles.
This is from 1997-2000, in case you're wondering. This was before the burnt furs who were furry fans who wanted to scour the internet of all furry porn so people didn't think they were weirdo pervs, and before the SomethingAwful fursecution campaign.
>Can we talk about this movie without you degenerates talking about how much you want to fuck the animals or your disgusting fetishes?
What the fuck do you expect us to talk about? The film hasn't been released yet, it's not like we can actually discuss the fucking movie.
>Lol, at least I have a life nerd
>Posted on a cantonese caricature database
Yesterday, I dreamed
for the second time alreadyI was watching it in the theater.
(This time, at least the animation was finished. No sudden change for animatics and beatboard pictures, with the cheetah randomly becoming a rhino, and the movie ending unresolved etc)
All I remember is a scene of Clawhauser at a Gazelle show. She had a "answer this question about me right and you'll get to stay a day with me" sort of contest.
And Clawhauser seemed to know everything about her. Including that her right boob was bigger than her left.
Damn. I guess it's just too much to ask for a place to post furshit that isn't just multicolored wolf dongs as far as the eye can see.
It's just pawpads all the way down; Generation after generation.
>- furry lifestyler: feels he/she/etc is an animal.
this has never been the case.
lifestyler is an umbrella to people who actually participate in all the furry community nonsense as his main focus of interest and primary social circle. Frequent convention goers, ravers, suiters, etc, all of those are furry fandom things and the 'lifestyle' is indulging in them as if you were part of a subculture.
I believe so. Don't remember much details, other than the campy fanboying and talking, that would show it, though.
Oh, and in my dream, Gazelle had a much heavier chest. Referring to "those babies" in a way that would kill any G-rate hope.
Then again, it's all fag relationship drama, so what did you expect? Deep prose? Those guys are so easy to please, you don't eve need to do 3 dimensional characters. Just have 2 guys being gay, put them into a world of cartoonishly unreal gaysecution the likes of which even the middle east doesn't have and hate from teh evil straights and you've got a hit.
You've seen all you're gonna seen of nude characters already: no clothes, but no junk. Like Robin Hood's nude-from-the-waist-down. And females will not have the breasts they have when they wear tops. Shirt comes off, flat chest.
It's going to be a mediocre film full of forced product placement and a shitty Shakira song. The rabbit being absolutely
adorableis the only good point about it.
I'll stream it eventually to study the animation, 'cause that looks pretty damn good.
What bothers me the most was Kyell's pretentious preamble in his book where he claims that he wanted to make a real story that just so happens to have sexual content sprinkled in.
What we got what is chapter upon chapter of the main character doing absolutely nothing to drive the plot forward and instead having everything handed to him completely. Not even the smut portions of the chapters where any good which I can't go into more detail here without derailing the thread.
In to reiterate his take on an anthropomorphic animal religion. I think one of the main reasons why it doesn't make any sense it's because he doesn't treat each individual species of animal as its own thing, but instead obviously just replaced regular humans with shallow animalistic details. What species someone was was so inconsequential beyond the truly cringe-worthy furry fandom nods like the implication that foxes are promiscuous, that you could pretty much just replace the entire cast with regular humans and it would read exactly the same. Which is the wrong way to write anthro fiction because why bother in the first place if it doesn't make any difference.
I haven't read it, but it seems to be one of those projects where the tone is stuck awkwardly between "you're suppose to take this seriously" and "just don't think about it too much" but doesn't have the benefit of over the top grimdark action like 40k books. It sounds like something that's supposed to be a mediocre comic but settled for being a bad book.
>trying this hard to prove that you're better than some stranger on the internet
>"has a goal in life"
lol, you're just a stupid faggot.
>books written by furries
Guaranteed to be absolute shit. Not to be hating on furries; but they always seemed to have enough of a disconnect from reality that they couldn't articulate deep human emotions. I can't think of a single example of a well written original furry story. At best they would take popular story line and modify it with animal characters.
>they always seemed to have enough of a disconnect from reality that they couldn't articulate deep human emotions
All furries have the autisms confirmed.
I think the problem is that they want to write a story with furries in it because fetish, rather than just writing a good story that happens to have furries as characters.
So what you´re saying is a story like Animal Farm wouldn´t be acceptable today because of some retarded fanbase´s antics, regardless of the content of said story?
Tell that bullshit to dozens of people today who write books and comics about humanized animals. Certainly it´ll convince them.
All 6 of the movies are written by the same guy.
So unless he went full retard. I see no reason why the movies aren't all going to be good.
Look at the trailers, U.S. ones are comdey trailers, sure, that's how it's always marketted. But go look at the Chinese Trailers and you'll see its pretty good.
Isn't this Clawhauser wearing a similar collar? What does this mean?
Could this be what my dream was trying to predict? >>77737750
so he going to be at the nudist place too? speaking of that scene, do you guys think they might feature it in any of the books?
Oh no...please no. That fatass wobbling about, shaking his massive rear...
I....I don't think I could take it. It wouldn't be fair...the sweats, oh goodness, the sweats.
no, Robin Hood have reptile, and I think this rabbit is bigger than Judy
Rabbits can get bigger than foxes tho
>Saying that they should be perfectly acceptable in today's fiction because they were acceptable historically is nonsense
I think you're equating the anthropomorphizing of animals, like this movie, with the furry fandom and thinking they are the same thing. They are not the same thing.
No one's justifying the furry fandom because anthro's has been around forever, they're justifying anthropomorphic animals in fiction because it's been around forever.
The furry fandom is just a recent thing, and no one gives a shit
Just look out for who can benefit the most with the societal break down of Zootopia. The nudists will play a more significant role then just a sight gag. Someone thinks it's best if the species were nearly segregated and someone stands to benefit the most from that.
Minions are literally cereal mascots at this point. They are so perfectly nondescript and inoffensive that they can be put on anything as a marketing gimmick. It's actually genius.
If that's the case I hope it gets cult classic status like "Emperor's New Groove".
Autism implies a defect in the brain. I think the biggest problem with furries has to do with social and parental influences. They get involved with the furry fandom, which has sort of a hivemind to some degree.
Why isn't Tom in this movie? It would improve the ticket sales in Japan
It's a Disney movie. It's going to be the typical hollow movie with some basic Christian value at its base.
Thankfully I have never seen the technicolor porn but this shit probably started with anime which is very sexual in the worst possible way, garish and individualistic, and social networks kicking in... I guess late 90s? People today take selfies all the time which is pants-on-head retarded from my point of view, the base idea is similar.
I always thought of funny animals like... Bugs Bunny, Usagi and that kind of stuff.
>dem clawhauser love handles
who / waiting for brrip to take a million screenshots of clawhauser showing off his gut to go fap to later /
holy shit, that's a great style. I want that.
>Make a movie about animals being human
>Only make it about mammals
Why would you restrict yourself like that?
There's so much fucking potential for character design and more and you just throw it down the drain.
This might be the only thing about this movie that bothers me, but HOLY HELL does it piss me off.
>They get involved with the furry fandom, which has sort of a hivemind to some degree.
>this is what non-furries actually believe
You guys act like there's not retards in every fandom (I mean, look at any thread on /co/ discussing comics). It's kind of hysterical listening to all the speculation of course, but Christ guys, give it a rest already.
>anime is individualistic
That's so weird that you say that considering it comes from a culture that is collectivist to this day.
Also selfies aren't retarded when you have friends and family who want pictures of you. Before, it was the ones with the camera who were never in the pictures.
dude we work in SECRET! we don't need any propaganda.
Let those flithy mammals have their festivel, they don't know what's comming.
>It's a Disney movie. It's going to be the typical hollow movie with some basic Christian value at its base.
Well yeah. That was the joke.
Then again, I can understand why you'd think that someone here actually means it.
Drew this thing. Its only my 3rd or 4th attempt at drawing Judy and is a little skewed (i drew this lying down). I should have some higher quality stuff in coming threads.
I don't really get the hate for pop culture references in general.
I mean yeah, there are movies/etc that do it horribly, and expect people to laugh just because it's there, but as the second guy said, it existed forever, and most old ones are so simple and natural in their setup, that you really need to be assblasted about the concept to be bothered by them.
Think of really old songs like "Putting on the Ritz."
>Dressed up like a Million Dollar Trouper! Trying hard, to look like Gary Cooper (Super Duper!) Come let's mix where Rockefellers' walk with sticks and um-be-rellas in their midst.
Or "You're the Top". Hell 90% of that song is a cultural reference, but it's not played like the "Wow So Random!" references.
I don't ever have a problem with them unless that's all a movie or other medium is. Even then it could still do something interesting with it like Pop Art. It always depends on the execution.
One thing I find odd in all the fanart for this movie is that the guy always has such a horrible posture in everything, despite the fact that in pretty much all of the released official media, he seems to keep a straight back, except for a few moments when he leans in, or is pushed by someone.
What's up with that?
>That's so weird that you say that considering it comes from a culture that is collectivist to this day.
That's probably the very reason why the philosophy behind them is so absurdly individualistic.
I like to see the selfies my friends and family take since I'm far away from many of them. You want to call it just narcissism when it's more likely that you're just bitter, cynical, and lonely.
Just wanted to stop by and say thanks for the smiles anon, every time you tell someone they're wasting their life on the internet, a shit-eating grin makes its way across my face.
this movie's gonna be mediocre. It's going to have a lot of porn much like most other mainline Disney movies. But my favorite part is that so, so many people are gonna get banned for the shitty general it'll spawn.