Hello, Sup Forums.
What makes Zootopia so fantastic? Why do so many of you enjoy so much? What parts of the story, characters, action, setting and themes do you love?
Haven't seen it, yet, but as someone who wants to make his own story, I want to know how this billion-dollar box-office giant made you, as a viewer, tick.
Because it's a good movie, the characters are likable and the setting is fun.
Also Nick is 100% hetero and not even incidentally homosexual.
We have a thread
There's someone cute to fuck for everyone's taste
Likeable characters with cute and appealing designs, imaginative setting with lots of potential, outstanding attention to detail, decent humor not limited to something children alone could appreciate, etc.
Gotta be the smug fox
also
Nick's sexual appeal
Because furries
I admit I'm a low level furry but I also love Bateman and mysteries. I legitimately wasn't sure who the culprit was which means I'm retarded or they did a good job of hiding the villain
Probably a bit of both
I know, but the first time I asked this, I didn't get a lot of replies.
Figured my own thread would be more productive.
Pick a random character.
Now imagine what their private porn stash looks like.
Mainly because the world actually sort of works and is imaginative. Rather then just being "haha what if animal put in human world with nothing else of substance :DDD" there is a lot of creative elements put into the world which makes it a lot more fun to watch. For example, the smaller mammals get around the city through tubes/smaller transportation systems.
you should watch the fusion documentary, zootopia was going to be much more interesting mature movie!
what we got is boring rainbow land.
I asked the same on another zootopia thread, a lot of anons said that they loved the movie too much because they don't have friends IRL so they can pretend that the characters are their friends and that they live in zootopia.
Others just asnwered ''to fill a void''
that's a long way of saying ''atustistic furrfags love it''
That's... incredibly depressing.
>For example, the smaller mammals get around the city through tubes/smaller transportation systems.
that's not funny nor creative, it has been done before thousands of times.
>Its the best animated movie since Lion King!
Suffice to say, I was skeptical of that and had to see for myself.
can you imagine another legit reason of why adults would get soooo into a kids movie with a pretty basic ''don't be a hater be a lover'' message while trying to make the movie sound as if it was a visual masterpiece and that it had ''compelling adult themes''?
It was good but Inside Out is a 100 times better.
Example?
any cartoon that has animals living in a city as if they were humans, its just a really generic idea.
That's why the whole '' people like it because of the world building'' sounds like a bunch of bs, they are not doing something that hasn't been seen before.
Hell, the worldbuilding is lazy as fuck, '' every animal is like a person!! Except fish and bugs, they are still dumb animals for some reason.''
honestly I have no idea
the first minutes set a nice theme. then it becomes memes and shit to the point it is unwatchable. the whole case is boring and not really interesting at all. couldnt bt}other to watch the rest
inside out was better
>Lion King
it was shit from any angle you look at it. music was bland va was generic heck even animation wise it was terrible, one of the 9 old men said it had no soul at all
but there are more furries than you think so of course it was a hit
Did they fugg?
Is it true we broke 1 billion?
Uh, I admit that childhood nostalgia is a factor, but bashing Lion King feels wrong somehow...
>we
About time
>every cartoon
Name three. We're waiting.
>Except fish and bugs, they are still dumb animals for some reason
Correction. They’re soulless, godless creatures.
So....example?
bumo
This is why it succeeded
It was a pretty good story, however, the setting and characters are where it really shines. Zootopia as a city feels like a living, breathing city. It feels like somewhere you could actually move to, like it could really exist, despite being inhabited by anthros. The characters were top tier in their interactions, and design. What more could you want?
>Kung Fu Panda
>Robin Hood
>Looney Tunes
>Fantastic Mr. Fox
>Rango
Can I get a source on that documentary?
I heard about the original concept yet it wasn't that appealing for me, probably because there are simply too much rubbish teenager-pandering dystopian movies floating around. It would be interesting to read the entire story.
From my perspective, the movie works because it feels heartfelt. There doesn't seem to be any cheapness or pandering aspects to it. The movie doesn't have a clear-cut political message (which is why you'll get liberal news outlets saying "Hey! Zootopia got racism wrong
!", but it's possible to get a personal message out of it if you so desire. I think I saw an interview where one of the writers or something scorned people trying to use the movie as a prop for their agenda. That kind of attitude. That just makes me like the film even more.
As a detective/conspiracy film the movie is okay. The pieces are there and the story as a whole works but is too predictable, however ''don't be a hater be a lover'' can play out in a million ways and this movie has a rather neutral tone about it. Even in the end the protagonist acknowledges that her belief was naive, though they make it more upbeat with her deciding she'll continue fighting.
Judy isn't the same crybaby victim throughout the entire film, she has her own prejudice despite acting/pretending to be the most innocent character in the setting. Having her breaking down and apologizing is an interesting take as it avoids the audiences seeing her as the perfect and proud saint of the movie who you're forced to agree with.
Nick started as the oppressor who labels and undermines Judy's effort but was later revealed to be a victim himself, yet the film never try to defend his actions earlier as a criminal. It simply give him a chance to restart and it was up to him to decide whether he want it or not.
Wetherbell could have been the same sheep who was bullied by Gideon then her motive and some of her actions would be a lot more convincing. But that's borderlining on corny and for once I actually though a generic plotting big bad was pretty convincing. "Fear always work" while clearly demonstrate a political agenda, yet it wasn't entirely out of place. I for one at least applaud for the ballsy-ness and effort.
And none of those movies or shows features an expansive and unique transportation system adapted for different kinds of animals, those just have animals living like humans in mostly "real world" cities. But here it is argued that those non-human features of cities can be found almost everywhere, thus making Zootopia less unique. So you just contradicted that thesis and proved that Zootopia actually did something more than most animated features. Well done.
Apart from visuals, characters and design?
Maybe how it could have been a preachy movie with clear black and white morals, clearly separating the oppressors from the opressed, but instead it avoided 1 to 1 real life parallels to minorities or genders, stayed mostly in the grey area (even for the main characters whonusually are almost spotless) and delivered a very balanced and good natured moral at the end?
I mean, out of those measly 4 negative reviews it got on RT at least two are new wave feminists bitching how the movie has lost the connection to the real world problems and lost it way halfway, because they couldn't fit their black and white views aboit society into it's story no matter how they tried to spin it. In other words, they could not fathom they could ever be at fault. I think it the best example how well balanced and objective the moral is.
>above average writing and a plot that actually goes somewhere (even better so considering many things have been improvised)
>cute characters and interesting worldbuilding
>outstanding animation
These things alone make it a great movie. It also doesn't help how it gets compared to Frozen a lot, a movie with rather weak writing, so many of us were surprised about Zootopia working out so well.
Can you fuck off with that? Nobody is talking about '' did you see their cars and shit????''
Go to any zootopia thread and most of it is ''I want to fuck the fox/rabbit!'' posts
furries
that's the only answer you need
it's a well done but otherwise completely lazy story, breaking 0 new ground
user, a lot of animated movies have all that going on.
Hell, most animated movies that have big releases are usually pretty solid, even Angry Birds wasn't a turd, even Cars is not a bad movie for what it is.
The point is, why did this make so much money? The answer is furry fags, is that simple.
They are making a movie about animals living in a modern regular city, not in China like Kung Fu Panda, so furries go ape shit about it '' I could live there! its familiar to me!''
Can let's be real and honest about the fact that furrys made this movie big? I haven't seen a single kid playing with zootopia toys at all but I have seen cringey adults making videos about buying merchandize aimed at children
>furries are powerful and numerous enough to get Zootopia to 1 billion
Either you're paranoid and can't accept that people legitimately found this movie good, or we're dealing with a terrifying wave of degeneracy.
and I'm a furfag
If you want to be real you'll have to do a little more than throwing anecdotes around. Just what statistical evidence we have that shows furry is the major contributor to 1 billion? What's the proportion?
Not ganna deny that alot of furry are perving out on Sup Forums and I'm getting tired of it despite liking the movie myself, but there is a dramatic difference between the RT reviews from this movie and that of other animated film, say Cars.
A story can't be well-done and lazy at the same time bait-kun
If you kissed Judy, it would feel like Kissing Ned Flanders.
>most of it is ''I want to fuck the main leads'' posts
Fixed it to showcase every general thread on Sup Forums ever.
well for starters the director of this shit clearly is a filthy furr fag and you would be surprised the amount of autism that the furry fandom emanates when they pander to them.
We are talking about no lives people watching a kids film multiple times, some of them over 6 times.
I wouldn't be suprised if out of that billion at least 250 were made thanks to fur faggs
I think it's because not only are the well animated characters appeal to the eyes, but people can use them to project their bizarre sexual fantasies onto.
A lot of weirdos love to take happy go lucky movies as their self insetion paradise.
Like they see childish characters like Judy that are meant to be adults being all jokey and ''heartwarming'' that they rather try to live in that fake world that dealing with the fact that adults and specially women usually are not like Judy.
I shit you not a lot of furries say that the movie has been succesful because its easier to lust over characters like Judy because they are ''waifu material'' for their personality and of course because she is an animal without will and with basica desires
>director of this shit
Stopped reading there desu.
That still doesn't prove anything "real" about the one billion.
Sure what you describe is probably what's happening on Sup Forums, but we're talking about real money and income from audiences worldwide. If I'm like the OP "who wants to make his own story", I would prefer to have my goal set based on observable statistics that can actually be dissected and examined. A simple claim of how a fetish can easily land you one billion dollars sounds pretty far fetched.
If anything at least the reviews of published magazines or named reviewers are much more reliable because they have their own reputation at stake. Are we going to call all of them furfags too?
furry shit is always makes tons of money and has tons of fans.
Think about it, a lot of really big autistic fanbases are into furry shit.
Sonic, Zootopia, MLP, those that think that they are wolves which are their own brand of furry just like Dragon furries and Shark people furries, then you go to /trash/ which is shit that doesn't belong on any board and guess what? is filled with furry shit.
I can see furries making 250 millions out of the billion easily.
I mean take a look at this thread saying that it was probably because the writing was great, the characters and the world building while in reality none of that is anything special for this movie.
Nice animation but I don't see people getting hyped about the design of the city or the characters and them not being fur fags.
Just saying, not that you can't shit on furfags for the cancer they are, but this one billion has to come from somewhere. It's rather naive to dismiss it completely as if they have all pop up from somewhere deep down the caves.
There is a possibility where the movie actually has more appeal than the vocal fetishists. And if I'm a creator or an artist, I'll keep an eye on what they are and perhaps learn from them.
its a mediocre movie, get real faggot.
You are still basing your assumption on Sup Forums dude, seriously there are better places to make your judgments than an anonymous board.
don't play dumb, furry bullshit has a ton of fans.
Porn sites similar to deviant art but aimed at furries, tons of webcomics aimed at furries, porn webcomics, online shit in general, furry conventions, etc.
Those sick fucks are everywhere and they have an autism level off the charts, its not just that they would casually watch the movie, they would watch it over 6 times, multiple times per day, in groups, etc
We are not talking about normal people here
Kek, you're opinion man. But I'd lay off calling me a faggot.
After all, I'm not the one spending hours at a time on a Chinese knitting club website spamming threads for a movie I hate because I fail to comprehend why other people might like it outside of "hur dur, they must all be furfags."
Faggot.
fur fag detected
I'm gonna take a wilde guess here and say these posts are all yours.
If so... why are you wasting hours of your life on these threads trying to convince us to not like this movie when you know damn well you're not going to change anyone's mind. It seems like a fruitless effort.
>implying anyone defending this movie must be a furfag
Good deduction skills there comrade. If only I was as logical, and a wise, as you oh great shitposting user.
So...are these people all furfags?
Lou Lumenick
Anthony Lane
James Berardinelli
Christopher Orr
David Edelstein
Matthew Lickona
Andrew Lapin
Peter Travers
Neil Genzlinger
Chris Nashawaty
Gary Goldstein
It's easy to dismiss a group of people with no clear background or relations, but some of these people are willing to be named and publish positive note about the movie.
this is Sup Forums, you can't shame anybody here with ''look at all these posts!!! you have no life.
1- those are not all mine, just 2
2- you are also in Sup Forums, you don't have anything better to do if you are here.
3-zootopia was mediocre unless you want to fuck animals
the person that came up with the idea of making a movie full of animals instead of people is the fur fagg
if they are movie critics its a moot point, they just see it as a kids film and that's that.
The '' I watch for the world building and the adult themes instead of watching an adult movie with adult themes'' those are the fur fags that see stuff that isn't there
It also helped that today's North American population is essentially Leftist indoctrinated sheeples and as such they worship the propaganda and agenda that Zootopia obviously has starting with Judy Hopps being an unrealistically competent Twat Cop.
and that fox should kill the shit out of her to barely eat her meat while leaving most of it to rot like a real fox would do
Carl Plemens
So why are you so fixated that the film made one billion dollars only because of furfags?
Many movie critics responding positively to a film that kids like and themselves, being adults, can also enjoy. Boom, the movie made one billion dollars, what a surprise.
Where exactly does the evil furry cult comes into the equation? And why are they the majority when there is no real evidence showing so?