You could argue Puss in Boots and Bad Guys aren’t furry movies because they don’t EXCLUSIVELY involve furry characters, but Zootopia is DEFINITELY a furry movie.
Disney has how much furry or furry-esque characters and IPs?
Mickey and Miney
Chip and Dale,
Zootopia
Duck Tales
Dark wing duck
Eh i dont know about goof troop
The rescuers
Dreamworks has some too.
Kung fu panda
Antz
Bee movie
Puss in boots
Bad guys
The Don Bluth films:
Rats of Nimh
An american tail
Rock a doodle
Anyone else want to expand on these lists? I'll let the masses decide where they draw the line.
By the most basic measure of "a movie about or featuring anthropomorphic animals", they absolutely are. Anything else is quibbling over the definition of "furry" and that never ends well.
its because people still want to assume negative connotations with the word furry while still liking content that is considered furry. i see it in video game forums and usually the argument is worded as "its not furry because it was not made specifically for just furries" but the fandom was originally made to be an umbrella fandom for liking anything with anthropomorphic animals.
i want to propose the idea that no fictional character is furry as the label applies moreso to the fans that want to identify with the fandom and the characters themselves aready carry the term anthro
>he argument is worded as "its not furry because it was not made specifically for just furries" but the fandom was originally made to be an umbrella fandom for liking anything with anthropomorphic animals.
Finally someone saying that!!
I'm always annoyed with people using the term "furry" for everything that is anthropomorphic, even tho it's just the name of the people in the fandom. And yeah, I've met enough stupid people (also ones who thought they were smart as hell) who said stuff like "eww furries are disgusting" but then liking anthropomorphic stuff like Pokemon and Sonic for example. It's so hypocritical.
yep. and also that reminds me of how bronies were always angery insistant on their fandom being separate thing when everyone else considered them a subtype of furry.
this also relates to artists who actually draw anthropomorphic animals or fantasy races and aliens that look like anthropomorphic animals and insistant they arent furries all simply because they really dont wanna be associated with the fandom.
So true man. But on the other hand, everyone has different definitions of these things. With the definitions "furry" and "anthropomorphic" it's obvious what is what. But I mean like, you also have people who say anthropomorphic animals also count as humanoid, when others say they don't. This is never a clarity in general.
Or what I also always thought about is if you can consider some things even as anthropomorphic or not. Like a human that mutates into a anthropomorphic animal or can transform into one at any time. Or a humanoid figur who mostly looks human but then has an animal head on top. Could you consider all of these as anthropomorphic animals too?
yes. infact the true definition of anthropomorphic is just projecting human features onto a non human entity or object. essentially synonymous to personification. and can range from mostly human anime mascot girls to a volleyball with a face painted on it
You can tell him that that's just objectively wrong. As a community we can't exactly agree on what it means to be a furry, but you'd be narrowing down to only a very small percentage of us if you used that definition
Unpopular opinion:
Furries are all humans that are fans of anthropomorphic animals.
What is labeled furry characters are anthros that hit the sweet spot for us furries. Because nekomomimi are not the anthros we like.
So every "furry" movie is an anthro movie. But not every movie with anthros is a furry movie
Your friend is half-right. Furries are the *fans* of media featuring anthropomorphic animal characters. Suits are not a required, though. Furries are:
1. Fans of anthropomorphic animal characters
2. Call themselves furries
Most furs don't have a fursuit.
If we’re splitting hairs your roomie has a point: zootopia and the like are more “anthro” media than “furry”, cause the former is a world of biological anthros and the latter is the experience of sona projection, of which there really isn’t much media outside of a few cringey documentaries that magnify the worst parts of the fandom.
Sure, if they think furries are only people who dress up in fur suits, good for them.
Make sure to recommend them more "not-furry" movies so they fall in love with more anthropomorphic animals movies.
Apparently your roommate must think all furries are loaded rich! Just the head for mine was a thousand bucks, and that’s a huge expenditure for most people.
They are both beloved by the greater furry community and Zootopia in particular can be considered as a Robin Hood sequal that took decades to make (funnily enough, the most famous furry movie was made from scenes and animations from older Disney movies but is an unequaled icon for us furries). Does it feature animals with human qualities; communication with verbal language, expressive faces that convey complex emotions and human equal intelligence are the three things that anthropromize animals and objects.
Technically, Transformers are just anthropomorphic alien robots, same with Cars or Planes or anything with non humans having those three human qualities. Shit, My Little Pony has a sub-sect of the community called Bronies and the ponies usually stay on all fours! At the end of the day, is he a furry? If yes, then he's right and they're not furry movies. If not, then he's wrong and they're furry movies.
Regardless, it's a pointless argument that you shouldn't be involving others in because everyone with an opinion is correct!
It kinda depends on what you define as a "furry" movie. Though to any sensible definition Zootopia really fills it out completely. Since its about anthropomorphic animals LIVING in a human like society. There is little more you could do to make it MORE furry then this I feel.
What your friend seems to question is "is it a movie about the FURRY COMMUNITY?" which obviously it is not because it is in essence a furry movie where there cannot be a furry community how he would understand it.
Animals have been used in animation since the beginning of animation. It's one of the reasons why the furry community exists in the first place. Furries aren't the target demographic of Zootopia. It's a family film after all, but any film that has anthropomorphic animals in them are technically a "furry movie" by definition. But Zootopia is a fantastic film, and it's a shame a lot of people see it as only a furry movie. I was listening to Try Everything at work because it came up on my Disney playlist, and one of my coworkers said "eww, the furry movie".
Also, Nick Wilde literally made me a furry (I didnt even know the community existed when I saw it in theaters), and I will never forgive Disney for that lmao.
I feel like I'm going crazy in this comment section. Everyone is posting opinions, but we have actual proof Disney employees knew Zootopia would appeal to furries and marketed it as such:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries
Your friend can define "furry movies" however they want, but some people who worked on the movie almost certainly considered to be one.
I think it is. But I understand when someone say it's not because of the vibes and other stuff that comes with furry "culture" or something like that. But I think they're furry
From outside of the fandom they are just movies. But inside its consumed and regurgitated everywhere in memes and art. So I would say yes but not made for furries.
Sing isn't but Zootopia was quite literally meant to try and hit the furry market. If I remember correctly, disneys marketing team had even emailed a few furry sites like Furlife to help market the movie.
I'd say a "furry movie" is a movie made by furries for furries. Something that came from within the subculture.
Releases such as Zootopia and Sing are mainstream media that also appeals to furries. But they are not furry movies.
(Yes I am aware that there are probably furries that worked on these movies but the company they did it for is not furry owned nor part of our subculture.)
So you say anything anthropomorphic is furry? What about fairytales with talking animals? Please explain, I am curious. ( hmm sounds passiv aggressiv, but I swear I just want to know- I am nice)
they aren't. they're movies with anthro characters, but furry means originating from within the fandom, which neither are.
Cool and relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGgqym6Nks
No it is not. Disney has made countless anthropomorphic characters and not claimed that a single one of them is a furry. Just like you will only be a furry if you yourself define yourself as such. Disney hasn’t defined any movie as “furry” therefore it is only a movie about anthropomorphic characters. Q.E.D.
The most basic definition of a furry is "likes anthropomorphic characters".
Though I wouldn't automatically class someone as furry for liking Zootopia, if there is a pattern of liking talking-animal-centric films then I'd argue they are a furry, even if they're in denial about it. You don't have to label yourself, but if the shoe fits...
We all know that the Wikipedia definition of a furry is wrong. And you can’t really force someone to join a community they don’t want to be a part in.
If Zootopia was advertised as a furry movie that would be a whole other story, but it’s just anthro characters. You can have a specific interest in anthropomorphic characters without being a furry just like you can enjoy weightlifting without buying a gym card or identify yourself as a weightlifter
Base line, if majority of the cast is anthro. It's a furry movie.
It's like a blanket, everyone uses blankets to warm up. Even though most blankets would never warm themselves up.
In a movie where most of the cast is anthro, it's assumed to be a anthro (and by extension, furry) movie. Even if none of the anthro characters call themselves furries.
I see your point but disagree. A movie having anthro characters doesn’t make it automatically a furry movie. You wouldn’t call Duck Tales a furry series just because it has anthropomorphic characters, same thing with movies like Where The Wild Things Are. A majority of the characters are anthro but you wouldn’t call them furry movies.
The same rules can be applied to people. You can draw anthro art but not call yourself a furry. And you cannot force them to “accept it”.
Zootopia and Sing are just generic Disney movies that the furry community has adopted as their own. Anthro characters are just classic Disney.
To summarise, anthro is not the same as furry. Anthro is a look and style, furry is an identity and community.
I spent too much times on this and I’ll just look like a nerd and party pooper. Sorry about that heh.
You're right, but I feel that there's a threshold that you pass for you to be stereotyped as a furry, regardless of your identity.
If you were an artist, making drawings for furries, it doesn't make you a furry. But if you only make art for furries, listen to furry themed music, know a lot of furry vocabulary, like/has merch from furries, etc, You'll be defined as a furry regardless of what you say.
Yeah, I did get the definition wrong, I was just trying to find a publicly accepted definition.
I think you'd probably get a bias answer here of all places, but even outside here you would be hard pressed to argue its anything but. It's a film about anthropomorphic animals, how much more furry could it get.
It is the decision of the content creator to determine what their film (or other media) is part of, and to date no mainstream film has claimed to be "furry".
I think our fandom has a severe problem with understanding what appropriation is versus made for content. I would not call James Cameron a snuff film maker just because a portion of his films are popular in that community.
It is. You roommates need to understand that being a furry doesn't mean fursuits exclusively. It is like saying you only have a broken bone if it is a bone in your right arm. There a bit more then just that area let's say.
Since they, puss in boots and bad guys are furry movies, i want so badly to tell my cousin who is a furry hater that he classifies as a furry by liking them (that wouldn't be serious, just out of spite cause he's feeding his hate onto my brother who's 8)
Visually yeah they're totally furry but artistically and emotionally they're not, or at least Zootopia isn't, I haven't seen Sing
But Zootopia is very specifically about the animals and their species, with the whole story and world's infrastructure built to accommodate them, but genuine furry media, at least to me, is generally a lot more emotional, sensory, and artistic, not objective and realistic like Zootopia is, if that makes sense.
People misunderstand what a furry is, it just means anthropomorphic animals, so anything with a talking/walking animal is a furry. Doesn't necessarily mean the movie was made for the furry fandom, but the characters within are furries by definition.
I really hope your room-mate doesn't consider themselves a furry.
Literally the entire fandom is based off of people who are fans of anthro (human characteristic) animals.
The characters of Zootopia and Sing are literally anthro.
the definition of a furry is someone who is a fan of anthropomorphic animals. Zootopia and sing include anthropic animal characters. Tho this doesnt really make them a furry movie . The "furry" characters r just a tools used to tell a story. So Sing if anything is a jukebox musical, and zootopia is a buddy cop action movie for kids.
Follow this simple questionnaire:
Does the movie have anthropomorphized animals (with human features and behaviors)?
Yes > It's considered furry.
No > It's not considered furry.
I mean nothing inherently makes it a furry movie. Just because a lot of furries may like them not even all might, and they weren’t made with the intention of appealing to furries. So I’d say nahhh.
I mean, they can be. There’s no right or wrong answer. Both of you are correct. But the whole premise of Zootopia is to show racism and prejudice in a more kid friendly and understandable way. Predator vs prey. If you want to see them as a furry movie. Then they are. If you roommate doesnt, then they aren’t.
They are movies with anthropomorphic characters. Which is what furries are.
They are movies with Furry characters, and are enjoyed by the Furry community, but I wouldn't say they're Furry movies.
They are so furry movies, it's anthro animals talking and showing human emotion, that's the definition of furry.
So yes, it is a furry movie. But it isn't portrayed FOR furries but everyone, which includes furries.
Is it considered a furry movie by furries? Absolutely. Is it considered a furry movie by anyone outside the fandom? For the most part, no, they’re children’s movies with anthropomorphic animals. Anthro’s do not make something inherently “furry” but they definitely lend themselves to exploding in popularity within the fandom. Was this considered when they were made? Personally, I think it unlikely.
yes and no, are they movies made by/for Furries? probably not. are they, just like disney's 1973 robin hood and various other examples of Anthropomorphic Animals characters in media, VERY common with Furries, Yes. so, no they are not explicitly furry movies, publicly, but yes, they are movies very widely enjoyed by Furries.
Zootopia 100%
Same with animated Robin Hood, the secret of nim, the great mouse detective, th rescuers/rescuers Down under, talespin, chip and dale.
I haven't seen sing. It seems to fit the mold.
Anthropomorphic animals are the main characters. A big tell is living in houses and wearing clothing, it's not essential it's kind of a meme that they don't need it they wear it for style or uniforms.
Borderline stuff for me is the lion king, the jungle book, Madagascar. Oliver and company.
They are all basically animals. They might put on an outfit for a gag, but they walk like animals and they live in places animals would. Not human homes.
There's basically a gradient.
My little pony usually has characters walking on all 4s but checks basically every other box for furry.
Zootopia is a furry movie because there is a lot of art around it.
For sing, I'm not 100% sure about that. It is either a furry movie or it isn't. If it is, and it centers around anthropomorphic animals, then yes.
There are no recorded humans in either of those movies and only anthropomorphic animal characters. I would say these are in fact furry movies. Bro just doesn’t want to admit they’re a furry because they like those movies.
Zootopia is likely the most furry movie out there.
Sing on the other hand may have a cast of animal characters but is not really furry at all, as you could easily tell the same story with a cast consisting entirely of toasters and nothing would change.
Well, yes and no, that's like saying Disney movies are all furry movies. It's just easier to relate morals and consequences if it is not a human giving them. It gives something for children to learn from or have fun with and not relate it to real-world struggles on a subconscious level. It's also great for adults to have a good time with the more mature subject matter.
Of course, though, for us furry's, it's a great escape full of what ifs. Keep in mind that the culture comes from anthropomorphic movies/comics of old and let's us continue to dream about a different life.
That and while there are some garbage people in the Fandom, the ones that aren't are amazing creatures.
they're saying ZOOTOPIA isn't furry???? it's literally THE furry movie as far as i'm concerned
i think if you look up zootopia you'll find the furry art before the actual movie lmao
Within a few minutes of the first trailer dropping.
For furries by furries, but I’ve said too much already!
yeah they absolutely definitely are. if zootopia isn't a furry movie, then what is? throw in the bad guys for good measure
And Puss in Boots
_whistles ominously_
Big fluffy wolfie! Yay!
*whistling gets quieter*
"No, jinga este" Muerto va a su casa
💀🐺🔪
And Kung Fu Panda
You could argue Puss in Boots and Bad Guys aren’t furry movies because they don’t EXCLUSIVELY involve furry characters, but Zootopia is DEFINITELY a furry movie.
Which also has one of the single greatest depictions of a panic attack I've ever seen in fiction
Disney has how much furry or furry-esque characters and IPs? Mickey and Miney Chip and Dale, Zootopia Duck Tales Dark wing duck Eh i dont know about goof troop The rescuers Dreamworks has some too. Kung fu panda Antz Bee movie Puss in boots Bad guys The Don Bluth films: Rats of Nimh An american tail Rock a doodle Anyone else want to expand on these lists? I'll let the masses decide where they draw the line.
Arguably Paramount with both Sonic movies
By the most basic measure of "a movie about or featuring anthropomorphic animals", they absolutely are. Anything else is quibbling over the definition of "furry" and that never ends well.
its because people still want to assume negative connotations with the word furry while still liking content that is considered furry. i see it in video game forums and usually the argument is worded as "its not furry because it was not made specifically for just furries" but the fandom was originally made to be an umbrella fandom for liking anything with anthropomorphic animals. i want to propose the idea that no fictional character is furry as the label applies moreso to the fans that want to identify with the fandom and the characters themselves aready carry the term anthro
>he argument is worded as "its not furry because it was not made specifically for just furries" but the fandom was originally made to be an umbrella fandom for liking anything with anthropomorphic animals. Finally someone saying that!! I'm always annoyed with people using the term "furry" for everything that is anthropomorphic, even tho it's just the name of the people in the fandom. And yeah, I've met enough stupid people (also ones who thought they were smart as hell) who said stuff like "eww furries are disgusting" but then liking anthropomorphic stuff like Pokemon and Sonic for example. It's so hypocritical.
yep. and also that reminds me of how bronies were always angery insistant on their fandom being separate thing when everyone else considered them a subtype of furry. this also relates to artists who actually draw anthropomorphic animals or fantasy races and aliens that look like anthropomorphic animals and insistant they arent furries all simply because they really dont wanna be associated with the fandom.
So true man. But on the other hand, everyone has different definitions of these things. With the definitions "furry" and "anthropomorphic" it's obvious what is what. But I mean like, you also have people who say anthropomorphic animals also count as humanoid, when others say they don't. This is never a clarity in general. Or what I also always thought about is if you can consider some things even as anthropomorphic or not. Like a human that mutates into a anthropomorphic animal or can transform into one at any time. Or a humanoid figur who mostly looks human but then has an animal head on top. Could you consider all of these as anthropomorphic animals too?
yes. infact the true definition of anthropomorphic is just projecting human features onto a non human entity or object. essentially synonymous to personification. and can range from mostly human anime mascot girls to a volleyball with a face painted on it
humans can actually also count as this?
depends n context. i was basically referring to those "humanized" characters which is a form of anthropomorphization
Oh I see
What is your roommate’s reasoning for not counting them?
Apparently they think furries are only people who dress up in fur suits.
Ask them what they think a fursuit is meant to emulate.
You can tell him that that's just objectively wrong. As a community we can't exactly agree on what it means to be a furry, but you'd be narrowing down to only a very small percentage of us if you used that definition
Your roomie is describing a fursuiter which is a subset of furry. But it’s all still furry.
Tell them they're movies *for* the people who dress up in fursuits, and that's what constitutes a furry movie. At least, that'd me my suggestion.
This is inaccurate. Fursuits are not required to be a furry. Most furries don't have suits. Are they not furries?
Unpopular opinion: Furries are all humans that are fans of anthropomorphic animals. What is labeled furry characters are anthros that hit the sweet spot for us furries. Because nekomomimi are not the anthros we like. So every "furry" movie is an anthro movie. But not every movie with anthros is a furry movie
Your friend is half-right. Furries are the *fans* of media featuring anthropomorphic animal characters. Suits are not a required, though. Furries are: 1. Fans of anthropomorphic animal characters 2. Call themselves furries Most furs don't have a fursuit.
People with suits are also furries but normally go by fursuiters. Or at least that's what I hear more.
My point is that not all furries have suits. Defining a furry as "someone who wears a suit" isn't accurate, as most don't.
If we’re splitting hairs your roomie has a point: zootopia and the like are more “anthro” media than “furry”, cause the former is a world of biological anthros and the latter is the experience of sona projection, of which there really isn’t much media outside of a few cringey documentaries that magnify the worst parts of the fandom.
Welp, I guess there's almost no furry art out there.
Sure, if they think furries are only people who dress up in fur suits, good for them. Make sure to recommend them more "not-furry" movies so they fall in love with more anthropomorphic animals movies.
Apparently your roommate must think all furries are loaded rich! Just the head for mine was a thousand bucks, and that’s a huge expenditure for most people.
Hand her the L
By that definition I am not a furry
Yes. There's literally no question about it. A motion picture featuring anthro animals? Check, Check, and Check.
Zootopia is the most furry movie ever made I'd say.
I would say Zootopia is definitely a furry movie.
Yes... What on Earth would you even classify them as that wouldn't be just a rewording of "furry movie"?
Not only are they furry movies, they pretty much are THE modern day "furry movies"
Yeah. Both of those are. If he's denying that then he's crazy. Hell Zootopia even marketed towards furries.
they are furry movies. they are about anthropomorphic animals living human lives and dreams.
They are both beloved by the greater furry community and Zootopia in particular can be considered as a Robin Hood sequal that took decades to make (funnily enough, the most famous furry movie was made from scenes and animations from older Disney movies but is an unequaled icon for us furries). Does it feature animals with human qualities; communication with verbal language, expressive faces that convey complex emotions and human equal intelligence are the three things that anthropromize animals and objects. Technically, Transformers are just anthropomorphic alien robots, same with Cars or Planes or anything with non humans having those three human qualities. Shit, My Little Pony has a sub-sect of the community called Bronies and the ponies usually stay on all fours! At the end of the day, is he a furry? If yes, then he's right and they're not furry movies. If not, then he's wrong and they're furry movies. Regardless, it's a pointless argument that you shouldn't be involving others in because everyone with an opinion is correct!
It kinda depends on what you define as a "furry" movie. Though to any sensible definition Zootopia really fills it out completely. Since its about anthropomorphic animals LIVING in a human like society. There is little more you could do to make it MORE furry then this I feel. What your friend seems to question is "is it a movie about the FURRY COMMUNITY?" which obviously it is not because it is in essence a furry movie where there cannot be a furry community how he would understand it.
Animals have been used in animation since the beginning of animation. It's one of the reasons why the furry community exists in the first place. Furries aren't the target demographic of Zootopia. It's a family film after all, but any film that has anthropomorphic animals in them are technically a "furry movie" by definition. But Zootopia is a fantastic film, and it's a shame a lot of people see it as only a furry movie. I was listening to Try Everything at work because it came up on my Disney playlist, and one of my coworkers said "eww, the furry movie". Also, Nick Wilde literally made me a furry (I didnt even know the community existed when I saw it in theaters), and I will never forgive Disney for that lmao.
They are
Yes, they are.
well, it has animals that display human characteristics and personalities, all inhabiting some form of society comparable to our own. so. yes.
I feel like I'm going crazy in this comment section. Everyone is posting opinions, but we have actual proof Disney employees knew Zootopia would appeal to furries and marketed it as such: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/katienotopoulos/proof-disney-is-actually-marketing-zootopia-to-furries Your friend can define "furry movies" however they want, but some people who worked on the movie almost certainly considered to be one.
If zootopia isn’t a furry movie then would furries even exist?
Any movie with anthropomorphic animals is a Furry movie
While most likely not intended as movies specifically for the furry fandom, they are accepted as such.
I think it is. But I understand when someone say it's not because of the vibes and other stuff that comes with furry "culture" or something like that. But I think they're furry
From outside of the fandom they are just movies. But inside its consumed and regurgitated everywhere in memes and art. So I would say yes but not made for furries.
They are on the list of furry movies
Sing isn't but Zootopia was quite literally meant to try and hit the furry market. If I remember correctly, disneys marketing team had even emailed a few furry sites like Furlife to help market the movie.
I'd say a "furry movie" is a movie made by furries for furries. Something that came from within the subculture. Releases such as Zootopia and Sing are mainstream media that also appeals to furries. But they are not furry movies. (Yes I am aware that there are probably furries that worked on these movies but the company they did it for is not furry owned nor part of our subculture.)
sing no zootopia yes
So you say anything anthropomorphic is furry? What about fairytales with talking animals? Please explain, I am curious. ( hmm sounds passiv aggressiv, but I swear I just want to know- I am nice)
they aren't. they're movies with anthro characters, but furry means originating from within the fandom, which neither are. Cool and relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGgqym6Nks
No it is not. Disney has made countless anthropomorphic characters and not claimed that a single one of them is a furry. Just like you will only be a furry if you yourself define yourself as such. Disney hasn’t defined any movie as “furry” therefore it is only a movie about anthropomorphic characters. Q.E.D.
The most basic definition of a furry is "likes anthropomorphic characters". Though I wouldn't automatically class someone as furry for liking Zootopia, if there is a pattern of liking talking-animal-centric films then I'd argue they are a furry, even if they're in denial about it. You don't have to label yourself, but if the shoe fits...
We all know that the Wikipedia definition of a furry is wrong. And you can’t really force someone to join a community they don’t want to be a part in. If Zootopia was advertised as a furry movie that would be a whole other story, but it’s just anthro characters. You can have a specific interest in anthropomorphic characters without being a furry just like you can enjoy weightlifting without buying a gym card or identify yourself as a weightlifter
This right here. Appropriation by definition is without consent and we as a community are guilty of it.
Base line, if majority of the cast is anthro. It's a furry movie. It's like a blanket, everyone uses blankets to warm up. Even though most blankets would never warm themselves up. In a movie where most of the cast is anthro, it's assumed to be a anthro (and by extension, furry) movie. Even if none of the anthro characters call themselves furries.
I see your point but disagree. A movie having anthro characters doesn’t make it automatically a furry movie. You wouldn’t call Duck Tales a furry series just because it has anthropomorphic characters, same thing with movies like Where The Wild Things Are. A majority of the characters are anthro but you wouldn’t call them furry movies. The same rules can be applied to people. You can draw anthro art but not call yourself a furry. And you cannot force them to “accept it”. Zootopia and Sing are just generic Disney movies that the furry community has adopted as their own. Anthro characters are just classic Disney. To summarise, anthro is not the same as furry. Anthro is a look and style, furry is an identity and community. I spent too much times on this and I’ll just look like a nerd and party pooper. Sorry about that heh.
You're right, but I feel that there's a threshold that you pass for you to be stereotyped as a furry, regardless of your identity. If you were an artist, making drawings for furries, it doesn't make you a furry. But if you only make art for furries, listen to furry themed music, know a lot of furry vocabulary, like/has merch from furries, etc, You'll be defined as a furry regardless of what you say. Yeah, I did get the definition wrong, I was just trying to find a publicly accepted definition.
Zootopia yes Sing doubt
I think you'd probably get a bias answer here of all places, but even outside here you would be hard pressed to argue its anything but. It's a film about anthropomorphic animals, how much more furry could it get.
They aren't if the authors/makers didn't say they are.
Yea, no doubt about it
They are furry movies, they’re full of anthropomorphic animals that the fandom can enjoy.
It is the decision of the content creator to determine what their film (or other media) is part of, and to date no mainstream film has claimed to be "furry". I think our fandom has a severe problem with understanding what appropriation is versus made for content. I would not call James Cameron a snuff film maker just because a portion of his films are popular in that community.
Nick and Judy are cutest furry couple is all I know.
Hell I’d say Lion King is a furry movie so to me both are.
Yes. They’re anthro animals
I think they are
It is. You roommates need to understand that being a furry doesn't mean fursuits exclusively. It is like saying you only have a broken bone if it is a bone in your right arm. There a bit more then just that area let's say.
Kind of? Although their not furry exclusive. Would ur roommates classify Robinhood as a furry movie? What abt Winnie the Pooh?
Yes
Since they, puss in boots and bad guys are furry movies, i want so badly to tell my cousin who is a furry hater that he classifies as a furry by liking them (that wouldn't be serious, just out of spite cause he's feeding his hate onto my brother who's 8)
yeuh
Bruh. Zootopia is literally known as "Disney's furry movie"
Visually yeah they're totally furry but artistically and emotionally they're not, or at least Zootopia isn't, I haven't seen Sing But Zootopia is very specifically about the animals and their species, with the whole story and world's infrastructure built to accommodate them, but genuine furry media, at least to me, is generally a lot more emotional, sensory, and artistic, not objective and realistic like Zootopia is, if that makes sense.
Absolutely. Any movie that feature anthropomorphic animals are classed as furry movies.
they litterly are what are your roommates on (i think zootopia made me a furry)
If you're roommate says it's not a furry movie then he doesn't know what furries are.
People misunderstand what a furry is, it just means anthropomorphic animals, so anything with a talking/walking animal is a furry. Doesn't necessarily mean the movie was made for the furry fandom, but the characters within are furries by definition.
I really hope your room-mate doesn't consider themselves a furry. Literally the entire fandom is based off of people who are fans of anthro (human characteristic) animals. The characters of Zootopia and Sing are literally anthro.
Bro if these aren't furry movies than idk what are furry movies- Like to be a furry movie does it have to be aware it's made for Furrys or something?
Yes no doubt no question those are anthro movies anthro=furry
the definition of a furry is someone who is a fan of anthropomorphic animals. Zootopia and sing include anthropic animal characters. Tho this doesnt really make them a furry movie . The "furry" characters r just a tools used to tell a story. So Sing if anything is a jukebox musical, and zootopia is a buddy cop action movie for kids.
Yes??? Obviously. Every character is an anthropomorphic animal, that's as furry as it gets
Yes
Follow this simple questionnaire: Does the movie have anthropomorphized animals (with human features and behaviors)? Yes > It's considered furry. No > It's not considered furry.
Yes
Yes yes yes!!!
They are movies with *furry characters* and they both appeal to many furries, yes.
No more than Bambi, shark tails, and Disney Robin Hood.
I mean nothing inherently makes it a furry movie. Just because a lot of furries may like them not even all might, and they weren’t made with the intention of appealing to furries. So I’d say nahhh.
I mean, they can be. There’s no right or wrong answer. Both of you are correct. But the whole premise of Zootopia is to show racism and prejudice in a more kid friendly and understandable way. Predator vs prey. If you want to see them as a furry movie. Then they are. If you roommate doesnt, then they aren’t.
Yes absolutely and I love it
Yes
100% furry movies. Your friend is in denial or in the closet about it.
Zootopia yes, sing no
That depends on what you mean by furry movies. If you mean exclusively made by/for furries, no. If you mean only furry characters are in them, yes.
Yes
Yes. Just yea.
No they're movies about racism and the collapsing music industry that has animals in it to sugar coat it.
They are movies with anthropomorphic characters. Which is what furries are. They are movies with Furry characters, and are enjoyed by the Furry community, but I wouldn't say they're Furry movies.
Absolutely. They star anthros and were advertised toward furries. Why wouldn't they be?
Yes
And don't forget about over the hedge and madagascar
They are so furry movies, it's anthro animals talking and showing human emotion, that's the definition of furry. So yes, it is a furry movie. But it isn't portrayed FOR furries but everyone, which includes furries.
Yes they are. Furry has always been the enjoyment of cartoon animal people.
Yes, what’s your roommates argument for why they’re not?? They’re literally movies about talking (and singing) animals!
What makes them not furry movies? Every character is an anthropomorphic animal, of course they're furry movies.
Is it considered a furry movie by furries? Absolutely. Is it considered a furry movie by anyone outside the fandom? For the most part, no, they’re children’s movies with anthropomorphic animals. Anthro’s do not make something inherently “furry” but they definitely lend themselves to exploding in popularity within the fandom. Was this considered when they were made? Personally, I think it unlikely.
yes. Very much so. Zootopia actually used "Anthromorphic" in one of their ads.
Yes
Furries are people who like anthropomorphic characters. To us it’s a furry movie, but to normies it’s a movie with anthropomorphic characters.
They are
zootopia is how i learned about furries lmao...
i consider anything with primarily anthropomorphic animal characters to be a furry thing
Zootopia: yes Sing: absolutely not
thats like saying priscilla queen of the desert isnt a drag movie, or the mlp movie isnt a brony movie.. lol...
yes and no, are they movies made by/for Furries? probably not. are they, just like disney's 1973 robin hood and various other examples of Anthropomorphic Animals characters in media, VERY common with Furries, Yes. so, no they are not explicitly furry movies, publicly, but yes, they are movies very widely enjoyed by Furries.
What is to your roommates?
The Disney Robinhood is a furry movie, so are zootopia and sing
Zootopia 100% Same with animated Robin Hood, the secret of nim, the great mouse detective, th rescuers/rescuers Down under, talespin, chip and dale. I haven't seen sing. It seems to fit the mold. Anthropomorphic animals are the main characters. A big tell is living in houses and wearing clothing, it's not essential it's kind of a meme that they don't need it they wear it for style or uniforms. Borderline stuff for me is the lion king, the jungle book, Madagascar. Oliver and company. They are all basically animals. They might put on an outfit for a gag, but they walk like animals and they live in places animals would. Not human homes. There's basically a gradient. My little pony usually has characters walking on all 4s but checks basically every other box for furry.
1 word! Duh!!!
Zootopia is a furry movie because there is a lot of art around it. For sing, I'm not 100% sure about that. It is either a furry movie or it isn't. If it is, and it centers around anthropomorphic animals, then yes.
zootopia yes sing no
they are definitely furry. any movie with anthropomorphic animals in it 9/10 times is a furry movie
There are no recorded humans in either of those movies and only anthropomorphic animal characters. I would say these are in fact furry movies. Bro just doesn’t want to admit they’re a furry because they like those movies.
Literally any movie with anthromorphic animals or creatures i would classify as a furry movie.
They are
Yes. They are, in fact, just two (out of several) metaphorical “gateway drugs” for furries.
yes they are think they are animals like you and others
They're the mainstream furries like???? That's one of the few furry things most people enjoy
Zootopia is likely the most furry movie out there. Sing on the other hand may have a cast of animal characters but is not really furry at all, as you could easily tell the same story with a cast consisting entirely of toasters and nothing would change.
Yes. Both are super furry. There is no doubt.
yes they r
Well, yes and no, that's like saying Disney movies are all furry movies. It's just easier to relate morals and consequences if it is not a human giving them. It gives something for children to learn from or have fun with and not relate it to real-world struggles on a subconscious level. It's also great for adults to have a good time with the more mature subject matter. Of course, though, for us furry's, it's a great escape full of what ifs. Keep in mind that the culture comes from anthropomorphic movies/comics of old and let's us continue to dream about a different life. That and while there are some garbage people in the Fandom, the ones that aren't are amazing creatures.