Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of kids movies are trying to put emphasis on sec appeal...

Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of kids movies are trying to put emphasis on sec appeal, especially animal movies? I don't know about you but it feels like a lot of positions and situations are specifically pandering to this and I don't remember old children's movies being like this such as Robin Hood ect. What do you guys think? I want actual discussion on this because it's been getting more and more noticeable to me.

I think that this has been a thing for many years, take a look at Julie Bruin for god's sake.

>I don't remember old children's movies being like this such as Robin Hood
oh user, I wish I was that innocent

What's the sex appeal in Robin Hood? You mean the scene where they kiss at night?

Animals being manifested as anthropomorphic characters

just a reflection of a slutty society. I guess some people don't like when you hold up a mirror to them.

Sec appeal in an animated movie? Well I never

Indeed.

>I don't remember old children's movies being like this such as Robin Hood ect.
You're having a giggle, right? It's either that or you haven't seen very many cartoons with anthropomorphic animal characters.

How about kids dressed as underage harem girls gyrating their hips and seducing snakes?

TGMD isn't that old. It's from the late 80's, a time when sexualized anthro first came to major prominence. Compared to Robin Hood, which conceptually existed at Disney since the 1930's.

If anything, animal characters with sex appeal is less overt than it used to be.

Forgot my pic.

That's 30 years ago. It's not new in any sense.

You hang around this place too often if you think Judy has any intentional sex appeal.

Why is the koala from Sing in OP's picture?
Who the fuck wants to fuck the fucking koala from fucking Sing?

It was made and released in the late 70s. I would assume it wasn't frozen in a time capsule since the 30s and went through plenty of changes throughout production, so lets not misrepresent what era that cartoon is from too much.

Oops, early 70s. Just checked. My bad.

Is she tickling my snake?

You've got to educate children about sex so that they're well informed when you chemically castrate them and cut their dicks off.

It is new in the sense it exists within our immediate generation. The 1980's is usually considered the 'renaissance' of animation, ie when the new generations fully stepped in.

It's from the early 70's, and I don't see what difference it makes. It's still far older than the renaissance, and shouldn't be treated as if it's a warner bros cartoon with sex jokes.

I think this movie tickled quite a few people's snakes. You might even call her a snake charmer.

>sec appeal

You mean my main reason for obsessively watching tailspin, in my younger days?

And if that's not old enough, how many people did early bugs bunny """""""turn""""""" gay with his drag shtick?

Those girl animals weren't sexy, just pretty and batted their lashes. Tipical female stuff that would make the boys have a crush on them, but my my they weren't sexual.

Buster is what turned me into a furry, not even memeing

It's an entire sequence about sex, where the animals in question do human activities such as apply makeup and male bedroom eyes at the males. This is the most human like their behavior gets throughout the entire film, and it's unabashedly about sex appeal.

>I don't remember old children's movies being like this such as Robin Hood ect
Are you fucking joking?

Robin Hood was like the FIRST

Not to mention all the kissing. Animals don't do that. That's anthropomorphic as hell. And I can't emphasize enough that this whole sequence was about mating season, so seduction and straight up reproductive sex. It wasn't even subtle. Didn't need to be, because they're just cute cartoons so it's funny.

The same could be said of a giraffe pop star, if we weren't so much more sensitive to the idea today.

Alright I see what you're saying but having animals carry sexual connotations in the story for the story's purpose still differs from trying to make the characters seem sexually attractive to the audience.

Goddamn, you furries go absolutely crazy with your embellishments. There is nothing in Bambi or Robin Hood that even approaches the nudist and pop scenes in Zootopia. Nothing pre-80's-ish is at all like that.

I don't know if I'd call them attractive to the audience, but this was also released in the early 70s. A year or so before Robin Hood. I don't know how well it did, though.

It's more subtle than those modern examples, but it's there.

Whatever, buddy. Keep marginalizing whatever non-point you never had in the first place.

It's obvious from the outset that you're specifically trying to invoke some furry internet cult shit and trying to make some vague-ass conspiracy claims since you don't even attempt to defend the obviously-indefensible claim that animators haven't been selling sex to kids forever. But the style of modern furries is drawn more from the deluge of cartoon mascots whose styles were more derived from Looney Tunes than from Disney's one or two anthropomorphize films, so I don't even know what the hell your point is with Robin Hood. This weird 80's line you're drawing is arbitrary as hell. Yes, that's when that style got popular, so of course that's when animals in that style started showing up in sexy poses. Trying to draw some line between them that is uniquely sexual while tautologically saying sexually suggestive animals in more animalistic models can't really be sexy is just not insightful in any way.

They're not going out of their way to make her dress and act slutty but obviously she's depicted in a way that viewers are at least supposed to recognize her as attractive.

I dunno if I'd go that far. He's right that there are less sexy animal girls prior to the late 70s and early 80s, but then there were less cartoons where animals wore clothes 'n stuff period. Robin Hood is one of the few that I can think of. Most cartoon animals didn't wear full clothing covering their naughty bits, like the Aristocats and Dumbo and stuff like that, and when they needed a sexy lady they often threw in a hot human chick. There was definitely a shift, but I don't think people got any more horny than they used to be. It was just that the style moved on to using more humanoid animals more often and it naturally progressed from there.

I don't see how that's sexually provocative. Shots highlighting Judy's ass is sexually provocative.

...

It's subtle, but that's as good as you're going to get for the era the story takes place in. The traditionally conservative dress and emphasis on female modesty in 12th century England may have as much to do with that than the idyllic innocence of the 1970s animation industry.

Well what I mean is it seems like they've gone from having sexual connotation to trying to provoke sexual response from the crowd if thar makes more sense. Bambi had a scene about the boys getting jillies for the girls. Zootopia however has a dear with resemblant to human anatomy shaking it's ass in skimpy clothing and makeup which I think is sexually provocative in itself. So there's a difference there.

>Trainer Brittany sends out Arbok

>Is it just me or does it seem like a lot of kids movies are trying to put emphasis on sec appeal,
I'll beat my dick to Judy or Gazelle any day but Sing had zero sexually appealing and interesting character designs. It was middling in every regard, to me personally.

> especially animal movies?
It's not human so you got more leeway with it.

Johny's dad was interesting