# Why Was Alpha and Omega Hated?



## Diamond Man (Oct 22, 2014)

*Note:*
​This thread is mainly meant for _open minded_ people who are more sure about this. I also (sort of) personality respect those who personality dislike it as there is a difference between personal reason or disinterest than the hatred based off of it. _I have NO clue if this is the best website to ask._ _I also don't have the perfect grammar I think._


I've gotten into an argument on a website called _Fanpop_ (Oh boy..) with a few rude fans of that movie. _I won't tell who I am on there or bring out there names on here and I find it rude for them to use someone's personal opinion as a "reason" to call something bad._
About three people attacked one style which was "Standing on Hinds" and apparently they claim that the "hind dancing" scene was the main "reason" as to why this movie was hated.
Is this true?

I thought it was because many people hated the plot?

I know there are some people who are bias against this movie. Some hate the art style, some hate the animation style (While many fails to realize that it's a cartoon furry film that isn't meant for that), some hate it because of wolves, some hates it because the story focuses on love, etc..

Just for anyone who is open but can't understand: From what I recall, good critique is *never* based upon _personal opinion._


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Oct 22, 2014)

i'm trying really hard to take this seriously.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 22, 2014)

"...others criticized it for having mostly-poor animation, and more  generally criticized it for having a predictable plot and weak  storyline." - That about sums it up, it seems. Seriously - Go hit up Rotten Tomatoes. There's an *entire* website dedicated to *answering *_this exact question_. 

Also - How _else _would critique work, if not based upon personal opinion?


----------



## Diamond Man (Oct 22, 2014)

Evan of Phrygia said:


> i'm trying really hard to take this seriously.



Umm, I don't get what you mean. But it sounds like you are not very open minded as some others who are curios.



Captain Howdy said:


> "...others criticized it for having  mostly-poor animation, and more  generally criticized it for having a  predictable plot and weak  storyline." - That about sums it up, it  seems. Seriously - Go hit up Rotten Tomatoes. There's an *entire* website dedicated to *answering *_this exact question_.
> 
> Also - How _else _would critique work, if not based upon personal opinion?



It's not just the critics, I've seen them argue based off 'non-critics' too.. Outside of the "critics", I've seen other hatred based off "anti furry" or something..
My question was general by anyone, not just critics.

And from wikipedia, and what I learned and experience in terms of GOOD feedback, "bias" is to be kept out as bias or personal opinion in judgement can be unfair. I heard on wikipedia that "personal opinion" should be avoided in critique.

Also, here is what the updated wikipedia said:
_"a few others criticized it for having mostly-poor animation, and more  generally criticized it for having a predictable plot and weak  storyline._"
A few others rather than the other thing.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 22, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> It's not just the critics, I've seen them  argue based off 'non-critics' too.. Outside of the "critics", I've seen  other hatred based off "anti furry" or something..
> My question was general by anyone, not just critics.
> 
> And from wikipedia, and what I learned and experience in terms of GOOD  feedback, "bias" is to be kept out as bias or personal opinion in  judgement can be unfair. I heard on wikipedia that "personal opinion"  should be avoided in critique.



Well I'm not saying they're 100% correct, but sites like Rotten  Tomatoes also has an entire section below the critics, of 'fan  responses'. So yeah, check it out, there's  probably hundreds or thousands of reviews from non-critics.

On  the topic of critque, I  think you might be mixing up "personalized" and "personal opinion" (the  terms "personal" and "opinion" don't even appear on the 'critique'  wiki-article, nor wiktionary). Given that I think art is subjective  itself, it'd be weird that critique would be objective - Unless the  context is like...accuracy of human anatomy, in a human anatomy  class/competition/etc.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Oct 22, 2014)

I thought the plot, writing, and cgi animation was putrid. 
Just my opinion.

Also its a childrens movie, not a "furry" one.


----------



## Diamond Man (Oct 22, 2014)

Captain Howdy said:


> Well I'm not saying they're 100% correct,  but sites like Rotten Tomatoes also has an entire section below the  critics, of 'fan responses'. So yeah, check it out, there's probably  hundreds or thousands of reviews from non-critics.
> 
> On the topic  of critque, I think you might be mixing up "personalized" and "personal  opinion" (the terms "personal" and "opinion" don't even appear on the  'critique' wiki-article, nor wiktionary). Given that I think art is  subjective itself, it'd be weird that critique would be objective -  Unless the context is like...accuracy of human anatomy, in a human  anatomy class/competition/etc.



That's hard, considering  it's all mixed. But I can probably check, just didn't want to do much  work and since it's not the only website. I just wondered if there was a  general agreement with everyone based of what is "most". Haha Oh, and it wasn't just Rotten Tomatoes, there are other sites out there, comments, etc.

I  heard "personal opinion" on a critique page on wikipedia. Personal  Opinion means an opinion based off "personality" and maybe another  personal thing.
I think I've been growing up to the idea that  "critique" is about polishing something for what it is, by adding more  and not attacking any art style, or any other intention of a work.  Usually it involves respecting purpose.





Batty Krueger said:


> I thought the plot, writing, and cgi animation was putrid.
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Also its a childrens movie, not a "furry" one.



Hmm was it because it wasn't as creative and as smooth as some other movies?

Yes,  it's a children's movie, but it's also a furry movie. Furry means  having anthropomorphism effects on animals. Morphism or not.


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Oct 22, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> Yes,  it's a children's movie, but it's also a furry movie. Furry means  having anthropomorphism effects on animals. Morphism or not.



Saying its a furry movie though makes it sound like furries were the movie's target audience. They weren't. Children were. Furries just happen to have sick fetish that draws them to it like bugs to florescent glow.


----------



## Diamond Man (Oct 22, 2014)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> Saying its a furry movie though makes it sound like furries were the movie's target audience. They weren't. Children were. Furries just happen to have sick fetish that draws them to it like bugs to florescent glow.



I don't think that's what it means. Yet, there is nothing wrong with having a "fetish" or anything that doesn't hurt anyone. But furry means anything that features anthropomorphic animals. It's also defined to describe fans of anthropomorphic creatures. Sex isn't required but it is part of the fandom in some places.
I'm just saying what I saw and grew up with in the Furry Fandom but it is also true that people has "misused" the word "furry" for things like sex.

Yet, if children were different, it's possible that it can be both.


----------



## Harbinger (Oct 22, 2014)

Watched it on netflix, it was mostly naff and ok at best, animation wasn't  great, style was a bit goofy and everything else was meh.


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Oct 22, 2014)

If it's directed at kids (actually technically it's a family movie), it's not a furry movie. Because kids generally love personified animals. It's cool if furries enjoy the movie and create a furry following, but it doesn't MAKE it a furry movie.

If it was made BY furries, targeted to a teen/adult audience, that's a different story altogether.

E. I loved the movie for personal reasons. I will admit that parts make me cringe, and I won't subject anyone else to it so I'll shut it off if anyone comes home and wants to watch TV. I didn't fault the animation so much though - it's not as great as it could have been, yeah, but we have all seen a hell of a lot worse.


----------



## Troj (Oct 22, 2014)

On top of what others have said, Alpha and Omega also had a creepy "purity culture"-esque subtext as well, by my reading. 

The psycho mother wolf was hilarious, though. She deserved a passport to a better movie.


----------



## monochromatic-dragon (Oct 22, 2014)

I've never seen the movie personally, but I have seen about a dozen creepy photo-manipulations on FA featuring the wolf characters' heads photoshopped onto the bodies of porn stars. So that alone is enough to make me hate the movie already V: 

Wolf children was probably 100x better


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 22, 2014)

I saw it awhile back, and it wasn't bad in terms of children's films, but it wasn't great either. Cute if you like the plot and such, but it falls short and just becomes goofy. But from an objective stance, the plot, animation, and characters were not memorable. It isn't as strong in terms of animated movies like Despicable Me, Shrek, how to train your dragon, etc. It's certainly forgettable.


That's a movie critique in terms of watching the film.

Other than that, i think you are confusing hate with dislike or disinterest. People do not find the film favorable, that's it.


----------



## Fernin (Oct 22, 2014)

Batty Krueger said:


> I thought the plot, writing, and cgi animation was putrid.
> Just my opinion.
> 
> Also its a childrens movie, not a "furry" one.



THUD goes the hammer, right on the nail's head.


----------



## Harbinger (Oct 22, 2014)

Troj said:


> The psycho mother wolf was hilarious, though. She deserved a passport to a better movie.



She was the only legit funny thing about it for me.



monochromatic-dragon said:


> I've never seen the movie personally, but I have seen about a dozen creepy photo-manipulations on FA featuring the wolf characters' heads photoshopped onto the bodies of porn stars. So that alone is enough to make me hate the movie already V:
> 
> Wolf children was probably 100x better



Whoa-not just 100x better, wolf children is in a whole other league, they arent really comparable films. Fucking loved that move, even named my kitten Yuki :3



monochromatic-dragon said:


> a dozen creepy photo-manipulations  on FA featuring the wolf characters' heads photoshopped onto the bodies  of porn stars. So that alone is enough to make me hate the movie already  V:



Im sickened but i cant stop looking.


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Oct 22, 2014)

It was a bad film, bad CGI and bad everything.
it had more layers of shit than just the hind dancing


----------



## Diamond Man (Oct 22, 2014)

*One of these quotes are re-made by me, rest are not I think. Reasons might be for simplicity.*
*They are not in order.*

_"it had more layers of shit than just the hind dancing"_
That was part of the style, I mean I can respect that you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a "flaw" on it's self.

_"Not a furry"_*
I think some people don't get what it means. Yes, it was targeted at children I agree, but just because it wasn't targeted "at furries" (Theory though who knows), doesn't mean it's not furry. If something has anthropomorphism/personification in it, then it automatically makes it furry. It's fair to say that Donkey Kong is furry, even though the company didn't know this subculture (or fandom).

_"That's a movie critique in terms of watching the film."_
I can understand, however the memorable part is kind of personal, as it's memorable to me, and to some others.

_"I've never seen the movie personally, but I have seen about a dozen  creepy photo-manipulations on FA featuring the wolf characters' heads  photoshopped onto the bodies of porn stars. So that alone is enough to  make me hate the movie already V:"_
... Those were the guys I've had the debate with! Well, not the original maker I think.
They selfishly bash the dancing of the movie (I like it, some others do and it's there style) then act as if there morphs were "better".. Then again, I'm tolerated on the images themselves.

_"On top of what others have said, Alpha and Omega also had a creepy "purity culture"-esque subtext as well, by my reading."_
The idea of creepy is "personal opinion".. That's what I mean by difference between "disliking" and "expressing it" as it could be criticized. I'm only saying this in case anyone is thinking.

________________

In above all, as I've been asking, I wasn't sure what the "primary reason" was as to why people didn't like the film. If it's the plot (Bias or not), or the lack of stuff, or it's just _some personal bias opinion._
Some people have personal tastes for disliking that, I respect that but I do find it fair to argue that the film isn't bad on it's self for what it is because of that. 
However, this is by no means to make anyone like it. Hahaha


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 22, 2014)

Was this account seriously created to solely promote and blindly defend Alpha and Omega?  seriously. Get over it. "Furry" isn't a movie genre, art is subjective, some movies are shit, and some people hate certain movies.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 22, 2014)

...Probably the kinds of people who got excited over it.


----------



## Conker (Oct 22, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> _"Not a furry"_*
> I think some people don't get what it means. Yes, it was targeted at children I agree, but just because it wasn't targeted "at furries" (Theory though who knows), doesn't mean it's not furry. If something has anthropomorphism/personification in it, then it automatically makes it furry. It's fair to say that Donkey Kong is furry, even though the company didn't know this subculture (or fandom).


It is terribly rude to force the fandom onto things that have nothing to do with the fandom other than an art aesthetic. 

Just because animal people =/= furry.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> *
> 
> "That's a movie critique in terms of watching the film."
> I can understand, however the memorable part is kind of personal, as it's memorable to me, and to some others.
> ...


*

Which is technically your personal opinion.
It's like...well, I like Rocky Horror Picture show. It's memorable to me, but not everyone else thinks so. In essence, that's my opinion.
Or Food Fight for that matter. It's memorable because it is a TERRIBLE movie that costed more than most animated movies ans was a shitty movie to begin with in terms of animation and script. But Food fight is objectively terrible. 

Alpha and Omega? It isn't bad and certainly not terrible like Food fight, but it is certainly forgettable.*


----------



## Troj (Oct 23, 2014)

There's nothing wrong with having a personal opinion, and when people claim that they aren't guided by personal feelings at least somewhat, they're usually being disingenuous, in my estimation.

What matters is being able to _explain_ and _defend_ your opinion, and respond articulately to challenges and questions. 

Being willing to _at least_ entertain good counter-arguments or facts that run counter to your view is also important.

People are welcome to _like_ or _dislike_ Alpha and Omega, and there's not a lot of meaningful conversation you can have around just that, really, because people usually can't be talked into liking or disliking something once the Gut Has Spoken. There's not much point in debating whether a movie is _likable_, because that's entirely subjective and gut-driven.

What you _can_ meaningfully debate or discuss is whether Alpha and Omega is an Objectively Good Movie, or a Technically Skilled Movie, or a Thematically Relevant Movie. 

You can also debate and discuss its meaning, messages, relevance, legacy, artistic value, and symbolism.

But, either way, people's sentiments will still _largely_ be driven by their personal feelings, interpretations, and opinions, and that in itself doesn't count against them, unless their arguments are bad, their logic is flimsy, or they've got their facts wrong.

Anywho, in addition to the weird purity culture subtext I picked up on, it also occurred to me that the movie also invokes the "Nice Guy" trope that rubs feminists the wrong way, aye?

But, the goose and the duck were also funny, on the plus side, and I actually like that the intended future mate of the female protagonist was actually a reasonably nice guy, instead of the usual douchebag, if I'm remembering rightly.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> Which is technically your personal opinion.
> It's like...well, I like Rocky Horror Picture show. It's memorable to me, but not everyone else thinks so. In essence, that's my opinion.
> Or Food Fight for that matter. It's memorable because it is a TERRIBLE movie that costed more than most animated movies ans was a shitty movie to begin with in terms of animation and script. But Food fight is objectively terrible.
> 
> Alpha and Omega? It isn't bad and certainly not terrible like Food fight, but it is certainly forgettable.



Rocky Horror owns tho.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2014)

Lobar said:


> Rocky Horror owns tho.



It does. No arguments there.

"The Room" is a terrible movie, but it has a cult following.
"Manos the hands of fate" Is just fucking awful and it has a cult following.


----------



## Troj (Oct 23, 2014)

The Room, Manos, Troll 2, and Birdemic have a following BECAUSE they are so bad (while trying so hard to be good).

Most bad animated films don't develop the same type of cult following because they a) don't manage to reach that so-bad-it's-good level, and b) lack the sincerity of most so-bad-they're-good movies. 

C Me Dance is also thoroughly enjoyable, but bad Christian flicks really are more of a niche market within a niche market.


----------



## Ayattar (Oct 23, 2014)

Uhh... The only thng I can think about when discussing alpha and omega subiect are greek letters.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 24, 2014)

Troj said:


> Most bad animated films don't develop the same type of cult following because they a) don't manage to reach that so-bad-it's-good level, and b) lack the sincerity of most so-bad-they're-good movies.
> 
> .



To that I give one of my favorite movie quotes:

You know, there's something you should know, so I'm gonna tell you so, don't sweat it, forget it, enjoy the show!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Riddled with horrible wolf cliches...a wolf pack works more like a family unit there isnt this whole 'alphas and omegas cant breed' thing. Plus the sing howling was stupid and just bleeeeeh


----------



## Troj (Oct 27, 2014)

DarrylWolf said:


> To that I give one of my favorite movie quotes:
> 
> You know, there's something you should know, so I'm gonna tell you so, don't sweat it, forget it, enjoy the show!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxHNztg0X3s



YES!

I'd say that Titanic definitely qualifies as a "cult" animated film in the "so-bad-it's-mesmerizing" category. 

The OTHER Titanic movie is pretty weird, too, but it isn't as well-known.

Does Foodfight qualify for that status yet as well?

Meanwhile, the Video Brinquedo movies are awful, but I can't imagine people actually gathering to watch them and riff on them. They're too bland and too obviously-low-effort for that.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 27, 2014)

Troj said:


> The Room, Manos, Troll 2, and Birdemic have a following BECAUSE they are so bad (while trying so hard to be good).
> 
> Most bad animated films don't develop the same type of cult following because they a) don't manage to reach that so-bad-it's-good level, and b) lack the sincerity of most so-bad-they're-good movies.
> 
> C Me Dance is also thoroughly enjoyable, but bad Christian flicks really are more of a niche market within a niche market.


You need to see food fight.

[yt]Lf85ZaAfixM[/yt]



Troj said:


> Does Foodfight qualify for that status yet as well?



Food fight does qualify to have its own cult following in terms of being bad on it's own while trying to be good. It's memorable because it is so bad.

Like barbed wire...which is also Pamela Anderson fetish fodder that tries hard to be good.


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (Oct 29, 2014)

The reasons why I believe the movie hits and misses with people have already been mentioned.

But I believe it's because of the following: Take a look at some of what _A&O_ had to go up against back in 2010:
-Toy Story 3
-How To Train Your Dragon
-Tangled
-Despicable Me
-Shrek Forever After

The animated family movie category has become heavily contested. Just look at 2013.  Franchises that don't have a following or aren't part of a world-renowned studio/distributor have to do their best to make up in other areas to compensate.
I believe people -not just easily-jaded kids- are expecting more from their animated movies, especially those that decide to go to an overpriced movie theater.


----------



## Diamond Man (Nov 3, 2014)

Sorry for late reply: _Mods, I'm sorry if I went over the reply date limit, if I did, I don't care if you close this. :/_

____________

_"It is terribly rude to force the fandom onto things that have nothing to do with the fandom other than an art aesthetic. 

Just because animal people =/= furry."_
I think it's rude to force your opinion claiming that it's "not" furry.. Honestly it's a furry by it's meaning, but that does NOT mean you are forced to like that part.. Everyone has the right to fit furry with other "animal-people" and I think it's unfair to claim "It's not furry" because you or others don't like it being part of it. I think it's part of it by it's meaning and I like that.
There is NO requirement for something to be furry other than simply having "human-characteristics". Otherwise that's like a anthropomorphic movie that has human-characteristics a non-anthropomorphic movie just because they didn't know what it means.

*Edit* - http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Furry
_"Anthropomorphic Animals"_
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Anthropomorphic
_"However, the word can apply to any non-human thing, including animals, plants, and inanimate objects."_ *- Edit Finished*
_

Yeah, you can have a personal opinion but for "legit critique", it would make "criticism" be purpose-less and I do think hatred is not good based off personal opinion when it comes to arguing.
And people as an audience are allowed to give out a personal opinion to show existence of an audience who likes it.. Those who don't doesn't have to watch it and such.. It's hard to explain this part. Haha
_

Honestly the term "cliche" is only an personal opinion, and I like the dancing, but it's what they did on purpose so it's not a flaw.
_

As for Cult, that isn't true. This movie had a cult following because it was enjoyed.. That's what I saw.. There is no reports of this movie having a cult following because somehow it was "bad".


----------



## chesse20 (Nov 4, 2014)

the furries who like alpha and omega make bronies and warrior cats fans seem not annoying


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 4, 2014)

chesse20 said:


> the furries who like alpha and omega make bronies and warrior cats fans seem not annoying


 Whoa, they're even worse than socially oblivious manchildren AND fox-haters?


----------



## Alexxx-Returns (Nov 4, 2014)

I liked Alpha and Omega... =(


----------



## Fiab (Nov 4, 2014)

Since definitions are being posted. Here for ya.



Diamond Man said:


> There is NO requirement for something to be furry other than simply having "human-characteristics".



Naaaah. For things to be furry, they must go through a rigorous process. First it must have a copious amount of porn dedicated to it depending on the popularity of what is involved, and based off that number, depending on the quality of the original, will decide whether or not the next wave of it will be heavily cringe inducing. The numbers may vary from time to time, but most of the time, the cringe factor is a yes. Next you must go to your nearest governmental building (Depending on where you're living) and apply for FuRight. You must then wait six months for the acceptance or denial of your application. If denied you may have to try again after 24 months have passed. 

If accepted, then you may declare it furry. :V


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (Nov 5, 2014)

Has anyone seen the straight-to-DVD sequels?

Are they more of the same (the stuff that plagued the first movie)? Better? Worse?

I was aware of the Christmas movie -sequel #2- but got caught by surprise when I found out of three more, two released in the same year and one soon to come out next year, bringing this franchise to a total of five movies!


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 5, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> As for Cult, that isn't true. This movie had a cult following because it was enjoyed.. That's what I saw.. There is no reports of this movie having a cult following because somehow it was "bad".



A&O isn't "Bad", but it is forgettable. Forgettable enough that you can watch it and move on. Unlike Food Fight or The Room.

And I really just get the feeling why you are making it a big deal because it has talking "woof" animals in it. If it were the same plot with humans or a bunch of Zebras with derp faces, it wouldn't be a big issue.


----------



## Troj (Nov 5, 2014)

I haven't seen them, but I can tell you the animation is MUCH worse, judging from the trailers.


----------



## Harbinger (Nov 5, 2014)

ElectricBlue1989 said:


> Has anyone seen the straight-to-DVD sequels?
> 
> Are they more of the same (the stuff that plagued the first movie)? Better? Worse?
> 
> I was aware of the Christmas movie -sequel #2- but got caught by surprise when I found out of three more, two released in the same year and one soon to come out next year, bringing this franchise to a total of five movies!



They're on netflix and last time i checked they had higher average ratings that the first one, havent watched them though.


----------



## PastryOfApathy (Nov 5, 2014)

I forgot this was even a movie. I only recently remembered it when I saw a shit-ton of copies of some bizarre straight-to-DVD thing at the store. It looked shitty anyways so whatever.

Oh and since people are talking about Foodfight here ya go champs. You can hate me later.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 5, 2014)

PastryOfApathy said:


> I forgot this was even a movie. I only recently remembered it when I saw a shit-ton of copies of some bizarre straight-to-DVD thing at the store. It looked shitty anyways so whatever.
> 
> Oh and since people are talking about Foodfight here ya go champs. You can hate me later.



WTF, why?!
WHY?!?

While we are on the subject of bad movies; ohai mark hows yer secks lyfe? :V


----------



## Troj (Nov 5, 2014)

Bless you, Ozriel! I've been looking everywhere for this, and Netflix has never bothered to stream it!


----------



## Maugryph (Nov 12, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> I think some people don't get what it means. Yes, it was targeted at children I agree, but just because it wasn't targeted "at furries" (Theory though who knows), doesn't mean it's not furry. If something has anthropomorphism/personification in it, then it automatically makes it furry. It's fair to say that Donkey Kong is furry, even though the company didn't know this subculture (or fandom).



No does not. If is not targeted towards a certian a group but that group likes it, it doesn't magically change it into that group. Can a plain stone be called a hammer simply because you where able to use it to drive in some nails? You could say you hammered the nails with the stone but that doesn't change the stone into a hammer you can buy at your local tool store.


----------



## ElectricBlue1989 (Nov 14, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> And I really just get the feeling why you are making it a big deal because it has talking "woof" animals in it. If it were the same plot with humans or a bunch of Zebras with derp faces, it wouldn't be a big issue.



Looky what I found:






Not derpy, but they're zebras from an animated movie called *Khumba.* 
Haven't seen it. I just found the DVDs/Blu-Rays for sale. Looked interesting.


----------



## Maugryph (Nov 15, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> *Note:*
> ​This thread is mainly meant for _open minded_ people who are more sure about this. I also (sort of) personality respect those who personality dislike it as there is a difference between personal reason or disinterest than the hatred based off of it. _I have NO clue if this is the best website to ask._ _I also don't have the perfect grammar I think._



Whats with adding the disclaimer? One can be open minded and not like "Alpha and Omega". Hating a movie is for certain reasons is valid. All critiques and reviews have some sort of bias and personal opinion, the best reviewers acknowledge this by saying 'it wasn't my cup of tea but fans of this type of film will like it, etc".. I am confused what you expecting to get. Are you looking to get others opinions to the film? To prove the people on Fanpop wrong? To defend why you think A&O is so awesome?


----------



## Troj (Nov 15, 2014)

Khumba is in my Netflix queue, so when I watch it, I'll let ya'll know how it goes.

In perhaps a similar vein, Adventures in Zambezia was certainly better than I was expecting, so ya'll might consider giving it a peek.

Oh, and Maug, I may be wrong, but I _suspect_ OP may be mistaking "open-mindedness" for "liking things that I like," or "not being too hard on things I like." People do often have a tendency to accuse others of being "closed-minded" when those those others criticize, pooh-pooh, or attack things that are very near and dear to their heart. It's a natural response, really, and even I've internally reacted like that to people who've been too hard (from my point of view) on things I loved, because I believed those people didn't "get it."


----------



## Sarcastic Coffeecup (Nov 15, 2014)

Ozriel said:


> You need to see food fight.
> 
> [yt]Lf85ZaAfixM[/yt]
> 
> ...


I have not seen or heard of a worse movie than foodfight. This is also the first time I've heard of the movie, which kinda surprises me.
I need to see this some day, I just can't miss this.


----------



## Conker (Nov 16, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> I think it's rude to force your opinion claiming that it's "not" furry.. Honestly it's a furry by it's meaning, but that does NOT mean you are forced to like that part.


Yes, how terribly rude of me to not want to force everything with a talking animal into a fandom that's like 40% porn and filled with socially awkward, stupid, manchildren. 

Furry is a fandom. For something to be furry, it has to be made for the fandom. 

You can't just grasp at everything that fits an aesthetic as being part of your culture to legitimize your time spent wanking.


----------



## Diamond Man (Dec 1, 2014)

@Conker
Bullcrap.

Nobody is forcing you to like stuff that's different. There is NOTHING wrong with that stuff.

_@Conker @Fiab_
And no, it doesn't. It can be furry by it's meaning WITHOUT purpose. It's a furry film and you have NO RIGHT to decide what "shouldn't" be furry just because it wasn't for the furry fandom (Maybe it was too anyway) by some mind.. If it's anthro, it's furry. Period. Furry can have different styles.
If your right, then _*Conker*_ isn't furry because _Rare_ didn't even know what the heck a "furry fandom" was. Or say let me make a box, and make it for the furry fandom, it's furry.
Seriously *there is NO requirement other than having elements that's personification.* *Anyone who said so is extremely bias and has no real legit evidence.

Mods: If you find this bad to keep thread up since I replied about 2 weeks, then I don't mind if you close this. I mean if I broke that rule.
*


----------



## Maugryph (Dec 1, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> It's a furry film and you have NO RIGHT to decide what "shouldn't" be furry just because it wasn't for the furry fandom



Conker has the same right to say 'it isn't a furry movie' as you have to say it 'is a furry movie'. And now your resorting to insults? What happened to the 'open minded discussion'?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 1, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> *Mods: I don't mind if you close this.
> *



Yeah, lets do this. The OP clearly doesn't want a discussion, and the already iffy thread has devolved into whether or not a mediocre movie is furry or not.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 5, 2014)

monochromatic-dragon said:


> Wolf children was probably 100x better



Oh, indeed yes.  Seen both... no comparison, really.


----------



## Conker (Dec 5, 2014)

Diamond Man said:


> _@Conker @Fiab_
> And no, it doesn't. It can be furry by it's meaning WITHOUT purpose. It's a furry film and you have NO RIGHT to decide what "shouldn't" be furry just because it wasn't for the furry fandom (Maybe it was too anyway) by some mind.. If it's anthro, it's furry. Period. Furry can have different styles.
> If your right, then _*Conker*_ isn't furry because _Rare_ didn't even know what the heck a "furry fandom" was. Or say let me make a box, and make it for the furry fandom, it's furry.
> Seriously *there is NO requirement other than having elements that's personification.* *Anyone who said so is extremely bias and has no real legit evidence.
> *


So I can't pull stuff out of my ass but you can. Oh dear! Or should I say "oh deer" because furry?

And no, Conker isn't a furry. He's an anthropomorphic character, but his filth is completely devoid from the filth furries jerk off to. Conker as a character is way too high class to be associated with this fandom.

You have no right to depreciate the value of honest work by lumping it in with the garbage that gets posted on the likes of Sofurry.


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 5, 2014)

It was an absolute horrible, corny movie with shitty animation, shitty plot, shitty characters, and did not deserve two sequels.

For those who haven't seen it, check this shit out. This is the THIRD movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1cAu1DRLw


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2014)

I hold onto my forum title for times like this.


----------



## Maugryph (Dec 5, 2014)

Clayton said:


> It was an absolute horrible, corny movie with shitty animation, shitty plot, shitty characters, and did not deserve two sequels.
> 
> For those who haven't seen it, check this shit out. This is the THIRD movie.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu1cAu1DRLw



I think this comment on youtube takes the cake:
[h=3]The baby wolves... it's like someone rendered my nightmares in 3D.ï»¿ -SuperPhilSH[/h]The animation looks like a render test. The character designs are creepy, and the voice acting is bad... what could possibly go wrong? :V


----------



## Volkodav (Dec 5, 2014)

Here's another clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEg1jEjU0jU

The dad wolf's voice is just altered deeper by a computer, it's hilariously bad

(What the fuck is with the noises in the beginning?)


----------



## GarthTheWereWolf (Dec 5, 2014)

Wow, they somehow managed to make puppies look hideous. That takes talent.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Dec 5, 2014)

GarthTheWereWolf said:


> Wow, they somehow managed to make puppies look hideous. That takes talent.


Plenty of puppies are hideous in real life. Most of the toy breeds, for example.
Widdle babby wuffs should be adorable tho


----------



## Roose Hurro (Dec 6, 2014)

Gad... those A&O #3 clips really sucked.


----------



## Fermata (Dec 8, 2014)

I like how it appears as if the budget has decreased with each movie in the trilogy. Shit gets worse and worse and its hilarious.


----------



## BadRoy (Dec 9, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Here's another clip
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEg1jEjU0jU
> 
> The dad wolf's voice is just altered deeper by a computer, it's hilariously bad
> ...


"_My dad says your good, but not as good as your mom was._" BAM!

Man that looks atrocious.


----------



## Diamond Man (Feb 24, 2015)

@Conker, actually if you claim that, people are allowed to argue back. That's freedom of speech too.

And anyone else, this isn't open minded. Being open minded is about being kind and respectful often and *answering the main point.*
Some people liked this movie and I think it's great that it got sequels.

I didn't ask for fucking hatred on here, I simply asked why many people hated this movie generally. I didn't ask for your random opinion about it, I was asking about the main thing involving why it was hate by many, but many people gang on up me like jerks and bigots.

Thanks a lot, now please Mods, please close the thread before more stupid users act immature again.
_Again, in a critique for there purpose, the animation is a cartoon (not a flaw), the characters are great for who they are, and so is the plot as there purpose. I never seen wolves do this before. Critique is about improving something for what it is, not changing it to something it's not. But adding more is better maybe._


----------



## Taralack (Feb 24, 2015)

Holy shit dude it's been several months. Just let it go.

I am locking this thread, but not because you fucking asked it to be, but because you necroed.


----------

