# Zootopia; facts, thoughts, opinions



## Tattorack (May 6, 2016)

I know, there are a number of Zootopia threads on this forum already, and for good reason, but I saw it only just recently and I want to share some things about it.

I must say, Disney most certainly jumped the furry bandwagon.
The instant the very first trailer came out I suspected it already.
It explained what "anthropomorphic", literally explaining what a furry is (not convinced? Do a Google search for "anthropomorphic" and you'll see mostly furry characters all the way right after the Google dictionary definition).
The base art style also was obvious to me, turning what floats around DeviantArt as the most common style for furry art and giving it a Pixar-esque twist.

What convinced me even more was the interaction trailer (in which Nick is trying to take a selfie), plus the fact that out of the five trailers, only one is of the actual movie and the all the rest are literally trying to sell the characters. PLUS, Disney's outreach to certain key furry groups for marketing purposes.
Both of those combined caused an extremely noticeable wave of fandom artwork like I've seen from no other movie containing anthro furry characters, months before the movie's premier screening.

But even after all that, I thought "meh, maybe the fandom is just overreacting and that one outreach could maybe be Disney seeing a small opportunity".

Then I saw the movie.
Nope, 100% convinced, Disney is marketing towards furries.
While the two main characters need to be as generally related as possible (in order to make sure everyone can enjoy the movie), most of the side characters had personalities that I could easily associate to either RP characters I've come across or the members of the fandom themselves that I've met (e.g. they were very strong stereotypes of the positive aspects of the furry fandom).

The biggest argument I've seen against this is the fact that the furry fandom isn't big enough to be marketed to.
Well, I hope you've noticed, but mention "anthro" or "furry" and 90% of the internet will associate it with the fandom.
It may not be big, like the Anime fandom for example, but the furry fandom is persistent and widely known, and Disney has obviously put their attention to it.

Considering the movie's box office output, positive reviews and it's current popularity, we may well see a gradual rise of people in the furry fandom in the next coming years (and most certainly a couple of sequels).

All this though... I'm not sure what I should feel about it though...
As much as I like it, there's also a feeling that this could be not so right...


----------



## Wither (May 6, 2016)

We're not that important, mate. You pointed it out yourself, we're not all that big. 

It was anthropomorphic because they had a base story for it. Also, kids love animals. They can be much more animated than humans can. I know most kids would rather watch the movie with pretty animals than they would the one with a human cast. They want some extraordinary, somewhere to fill their imaginations.

As for selling the characters? The entire movie was about those characters. They sold the entire movie. The movie was about them, not the overarching plot, I felt. We were supposed to watch these characters grow and learn. Not only that, with all the selfies and such they were doing, i thought it was obvious they were trying to market towards kids and teens of today. "Hey, look, we're not that different. Now come watch us be cute animals in a modern world. Doesn't that sound interesting?" 
It's silly to assume they're trying to market to a niche.


----------



## Somnium (May 6, 2016)

it's Disney. A studio which produces movies primary for children, family and cute animals appeal to little ones and also they are memorable. I'm sure some of creators knew about the controversial furry fandom, but definitely it was not aimed towards it. If there were some adults jokes or references, they were for children's parents.


----------

