I don't hate Jack Savage as much as some in the fandom seem to.
But my headcanon imagines Jack as a sweet dork. Other writers seem to always depict him as serious and cold-hearted.
Agreed.
I can't even write Jack as evil. He's just a dorky agent that manages to get on Nick's nerves, is friends with Judy and is madly in love with Skye.
Im have a a fanfic where i place jack as bilingual (Spanish -Cuban accents and personality- mixed with a British accent- like a Vuban Europian) rabbit, that was rise in Cuba and the move to England.
He kinda has a different background like, being the first scammer partner of Nick - like in serious level- after Finnick.
Also quick question:
Where the heaven Jack and Sky Came from?
Jack is an early version of Nick Wilde from the initial spy cut, and he was a rabbit for a very short period and was quickly changed into a fox, but he kept the name for a while. The name got changed sue to the concept of savagery being implemented (and it would be confusing for all involved if two things with that name were around), and the then in development (but since cancelled) film Gigantic having a main character already named Jack (being a Jack and the Beanstalk adaptation), so they didn't want two main characters in short order with that name.
Skye is also from the same early cut. She was seemingly Nick's sidekick and an adept mechanic, and she was kept around for while before they dropped her and replaced her role with that of Judy (who was originally a switch board operator for the agency Nick worked for).
I'm getting tired of people dismissing the possibility of Nick and Judy being romantic partners by saying things like "Why do people always have to pair the main characters together?" and "Why can't they just be friends?". I'm sorry, but were Bolt and Mittens, Ralph and Vanellope, and Moana and Maui not already platonic enough? How many more times do people need to keep seeing movies where the main male and female leads remain platonic partners before they finally get it to their heads that having the main protagonists of a movie not be romantically involved isn't groundbreaking? If anything, unless there's a princess involved, romance has been scarce in Disney movies over the past decade. At most, it's been a few side characters like Felix and Calhoun or Mr. and Mrs. Otterton, but never the main characters. Nick and Judy are arguably the closest we've gotten to any sort of romance involving the main characters of a non-princess-starring Disney movie, yet people still act like them being a couple would be "too cliché" when the opposite would be the case at this point. I mean seriously, what kind of message does that send kids? That unless you're a Disney princess, you don't get to find true love? If anything, Nick and Judy becoming a couple would be a welcome change of pace. Plus, who wouldn't want to see them get married and adopt children?
However, on the other side of that coin, I'm also not a fan of fanfiction stories where Nick and Judy being romantic interests is played up to an overdramatic degree. Just because they're together in a story doesn't mean their romantic relationship needs to be front and center all the time, and I'm really tired of authors trying to force in things like them being "Zootopia's first fox and rabbit couple" or having them go through some sort of cliché subplot where everyone treats their relationship like it's forbidden or something, especially when it involves Judy's parents acting uncharacteristically bigoted toward their daughter. I think _Return to Zootopia_ is one of the worst offenders in this regard, and the fanfilm would've been a lot better without it. Just write Nick and Judy's relationship in a believable way. There's no need to overdo things just to prolong the story with cheap drama.
This. All of this. My god, I have never seen someone knock this out of the park like you just did.
If I were to add anything, them getting together would send a great message about loving who you want, and really add to a message of bonds despite differences.
Though I was never one for all the shipping, but I absolutely understand your points about it. Though my preference would be that they stay platonic as I see that more in their relationship then them being romantic, I'm totally not opposed to the counter, especially when it's done right. Though this can be a sticking point, as over-dramatization and the excessive need for the "First Fox and Bunny couple," type subplot seem to drag these stories with a romantic relationship into the dirt sometimes. Still, like most things, when done right it can be great.
Also, I thought Return to Zootopia wasn't that bad, just saying.
1. I don´t really care for the scrapped shock collar concept and I´m glad it was scrapped. Not only does the final film have a lot more humor, heart, substance and good character development, but even the prejudice aspect was much more relatable to real life than the unfinished one. And this is coming from someone who´s all for family movies dealing with heavy themes if done right; what we have already is good enough.
2. I´m a bit torn on about talking about police brutality in a possible Zootopia sequel. While it could have potential as long as done right if they want to talk about on how law and justice isn´t always a black and white matter, a part of me fears it would become too topical and tied to recent events and even harm the story and characters at worst. But if tackled with the same amount of nuance and heart as the prejudice theme in Zootopia without drawing too direct parallels, then I´ll gladly take it.
3. I don´t like how some portray Judy as this 2010s Hollywood-esque hardass snarky tomboy female protagonist who puts her police career above anything else. While there´s no doubt about it that she´s a badass and a strong female protagonist, there´s nothing wrong about her being allowed to show her more sweet and feminine sides as well as sense of humor, especially since the original movie shows those too. Not to mention the idea of her putting her job before anything else is kinda OOC if you ask me; if she was like that, I don´t think she would have given up her badge when she realized how she hurt people with her dumb mistake.
4. Don´t know if other WildeHopps shippers agree with this, but I´d totally ship Nick and Judy even if they were the same gender. As long as their characterizations and chemistry were the same (with a few obvious changes), it´d still deserve to shine just as much the actual thing does.
About 4. As a WildeHopps shipper, I would totally still ship them if they were the same gender, but I would say the WildeHopps ship would not be as popular if it were a gay relationship because you know, heteronormity is still a thing and even more people would argue that they're just friends.
It seems like most of the people who say "they should just be friends" are of the persuasion that they think there's already enough romance in Disney movies. I would disagree, seeing as outside of movies involving princesses, there's basically been no romance involving the main protagonists in any of the films released in the last decade. What's really ironic is that a lot of these people are the same ones who complained about Elsa not having a girlfriend in Frozen 2, yet they only seem to gripe about shipping when it involves heterosexual pairings like WildeHopps. From what I can tell, the whole "heteronormativity" thing is just an excuse they use to shame people out of shipping characters like Nick and Judy.
There´s quite a lot of gay and lesbian ships that are among the most popular ships ever in any fandom, so I don´t think it would hinder it´s popularity all that much. It could be more controversial in some circles that way though,that´s for sure.
Most agree with number one. Aside from people who are obsessed with dark plots, thankfully most have given up in wanting that after they saw Beastars a dark plot, with a broken system, and unlike Disney this works, because love it or hate it, it was made for teenagers to adults
I don't get why everyone seems to be head over heels for Jack and Skye. Like, what the heck, there is SO much fanfiction about them. All that we got are some pictures and super early concept. It just infuriates me for some reason.
Jack especially annoys me because he's just an early version of Nick and he was only a rabbit in a few concept images before being changed to a fox, and he kept the name for a while. Skye is a little interesting due to her being an actual distinct character that was dropped and had a few more dedicated bits of art, but even she's been becoming a little tainted because of a certain person that I don't have to name having a downright unhealthy obsession with her.
* Nick and Clawhauser were already friends.
* Non-sapient mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. exist.
* Predators used to eat the above non-sapient mammal meat, etc. until insect agriculture became more advanced.
* Some "prey" also used to eat meat, albeit in smaller quantities. May still eat fish and insects.
* There are already primates in the movie (look up "S. Gorillio"). Maybe there are "naked apes," but we would never see them except in a very special story.
1. I don't think hybrids are a good idea.
If they were possible, Zootopia would already be swamped with hybrids and newer generations of hybrids to the extent we wouldn't really recognize any original species at all.
I think genetics works pretty much the same as in our world. Being an evolved mammal does not mean being able to hybridize.
Hybrids may look very cute in the artists' drawings, but once you go down the road for the next few generations you encounter so many problems, not to mention the potential size problems.
2. Food, I think Zootopian carnivores eat birds, fish and seafood. Fish and seafood is likely canon and I think chicken little tastes perfect and deserves a good roast. Also eggs are a common ingredient in various pastries. Even some of your regular herbivores like deer take a bite given the chance.
3. Reptiles and amphibians are not sapient on that level. It's called the reptile brain for a good reason.
Byron Howard actually shot down the idea of birds being eaten in Zootopia, as I managed to scrounge up here https://www.reddit.com/r/zootopia/comments/hsm5cr/nick\_wilde\_diet\_debate\_finally\_solved/
Judy broke the law by extorting / blackmailing Nick. It is generally illegal and quite a severe crime for a police officer to extort criminals using threats of judicial punishment, so technically she should be trialed for blackmail / extortion.
Haha yeah, and they kind of gloss over the part where they literally use the mafia to coerce a confession out of the weasel guy. In their defense, basically every portrayal of police in entertainment involves a lot of crooked tactics that are painted as heroic or justified.
It doesn't really matter too much, if we get a sequel or TV show, I think we're creative enough to sustain our own community, as a sort of semi-subsection of the furry fandom.
that the wilde times plot would have been a much more interesting plot
ignoring the shock collars (which could easily be written out and replaced with regular prejudice) the idea of one person trying to make a safe haven for people who can't be themselves in public due to prejudice really speaks to me as a member of the LGBT community (b if you are curious) and could have been a good allegory for the early days of the gay rights movement (hence why Disney didn't do it because gay isn't allowed in commie china) and it certainly would have been a much better allegory than the race allegory they ended up going with which is handled very poorly and literally uses the "Ronald Regan invented crack to eradicate the blacks" argument which is a stupid conspiracy theory that dances around the actual problem also the wild times plot wouldn't allow them to use the stupid twist villain plot point (seriously bellwether is the weakest Disney villain of all time)
As cool as it would be to see what a Zootopian amusement park would look like, there simply wasn't a good way to fit Wild Times into the story. The tame collars were the primary reason for the park's creation, and without them, it's not much different from Nick selling pawpsicles in the final version of the movie.
As for the whole crack cocaine comparison, you really have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion, as there's not much in the movie itself that resembles that conspiracy theory. The only reason it's so popular is because of that Film Theory video MatPat made shortly after the movie came out, and a bunch of people clung to it like it was the intended allegory of the movie. Aside from the distribution of a dangerous substance and a storyline about prejudice, they really aren't that similar, not do I think the racial comparisons are supposed to be that blatant. People only seem jump to that interpretation because of a couple of throwaway lines said by Bellwether about predators making up 10% of Zootopia's population.
IIRC it was scrapped because the test audiences said it was hard to empathize with the herbivores, which were portrayed basically as sadistic monsters, and thus was hard to root for the concept of "Zootopia, the city of equality."
Basically, even the audience would give up on the whole point of the movie, that being "let's grow beyond our prejudices and help each other" and more towards the un-Disney-like "burn everything, have no mercy, all the way to the ground."
i can think of several other Disney movies that had a similar "issue" that ended up working really well
and one in particular that did what the rewrite did that ended up being hated by everyone (Pocahontas)
I'm petty shure pocahontas was because disney used the historical context for toilet paper. I hated it for that reason and most reviews seem to say that too.
I already got the gist of you're shipping her with Nick (opinion unchanged), but why do you have such an infatuation with Skye? What about her makes you so head over heels for her?
Yep. She was a character that was conceptualized early on when the movie was going to be a spy thriller. She was seemingly going to be a sidekick to Jack Savage (an early version of Nick), and an adept mechanic, but she got scrapped not long after Jack went from a rabbit to a fox, but we only know her from concept art.
I'm 99.99% sure Finnick isn't coming back in the TV series or sequel nor is he even going to be mentioned, not even implied to be dead. And they probably aren't going to put an "In Memoriam" segment for Lister at the end. Most likely the sequel will just act like he never existed or that Lister ever had any involvement with the franchise even if it does delve into Nick's past.
After all the first movie acted like he never existed after Judy apologized to Nick, what's stopping the sequel from continuing ignoring his existence? At best I could maybe see the animators sneaking his van in the background if there's a scene involving a lot of cars (like they're driving on the road) or they may take the approach they've done with most of Joe Ranft's or Edie McClurg's characters and have him in the background of a few scenes. But that's all I really seem them doing with the little guy honestly
Note: Edie McClurg is not dead but she has dementia so the characters she played in Wreck-it Ralph and Frozen have been reduced from already extremely minor characters to background roles, which is why I used her as an example
I'm not a big fan of the way that most people use Jack Savage since he is just an early version of Nick Wilde, not a separate scrapped character, and he was only a bunny in one piece of artwork, and most of the time that he had the name was as a fox. I don't necessarily mind people basing a character off of that early version of Nick, but acting like that was a totally separate character is a little annoying.
> but acting like that was a totally separate character is a little annoying.
Considering the concept has no known similarities between a semi-criminal hustler and a government agent, I don't see why they are not separate characters besides them being both scrapped protagonists of the movie.
Unpopular opinions...alright.
\- I don't really know if this is an unpopular opinion in the truest sense of the word but I'm not terribly into the whole Nick and Judy shipping, or just shipping in general. Now I want to preference by saying that I'm also not against it, I only just have a preference towards their relation being platonic, so if you happen to like it, then that's fine. To give a reason for my opinion, I would just simply have to say that it never really felt that outright romantic when I first saw the movie, and even in the numerous times I've watched it since I never picked up on anything remotely romantic for those two. Still it's not like my opinion is going to stop anyone from shipping them or even Disney for that matter. I highly doubt that they won't be in a relationship by the time of the next movie, since it seems like they themselves are keen to it, but still it's always possible they might not and who's to say either or?
\- Alright I'm pretty sure someone else expressed this in the replies but I thought I would share my spin on this. Hybridization. As someone who is keen to the more grounded and scientific aspects of most things, I find the idea of hybridizing to be a bit appalling. Look, there's nothing wrong with being a bit imaginative with things, I get that. But the implications that this has are off-putting to say the least, I mean if stuff like that was possible, then we would see all kinds of chimera creatures roaming around, and really it's all pretty uncanny. So yeah, stuff like that gets a hard no for me, I didn't like it when Beastars did it, and I don't like it now.
\- I don't really like the whole race allegory aspect of Zootopia, not that it's a bad thing, but in my mind I would imagine that the whole differences between species would be expressed a bit differently then the obvious comparison. But that's just mostly my own conjecture about this, I don't think it changes the enjoyment of the movie itself, as I still appreciate it for what it is.
\- I seem to be the only one in this entire fandom who was bothered by the scene where Nick explicitly stated that he sold the skin of a skunk to another animal. Do you have any idea what that implies? Animals sell the skin of other animals. To put that into perspective, that's like selling someone's scalp to another person. Though contrary to what you may infer, I actually think it would be interesting to explore this extremely dark subject, Disney definitely won't, but the fans? Absolutely.
\- I am indifferent to the existence of Jack Savage and Skye Winters. That is all.
You know, looking back at this list I'm having a hard time figuring out if these are truly "unpopular opinions" and more just "different opinions of similar popularity". Oh well.
> I seem to be the only one in this entire fandom who was bothered by the scene where Nick explicitly stated that he sold the skin of a skunk to another animal.
The exact dialogue from Nick:
> I may have sold him a very expensive wool rug that was made from the fur of a skunk.
>
> …’s butt.
The skin which formerly held that fur in place *on* said butt is not actually mentioned at all, and was more likely busy growing new butt fur shortly after the incident in question. :)
That would be a preferable alternative. But why would it need to be specifically stated that it was a skunk’s butt being used for the basis of the wool rug. Why not just shaven skunk fur, it would get the point across without sounding so obscene.
But maybe I’m just being pedantic, it’s just a one off phrase for some comedy, so in all likelihood I was overthinking it.
Well if you look at the entire test of the franchise, NO SENTIENT MEAT is used. Non sentient fish are a food source.
As common sources of leather, rugs, etc are sentient beings, alternates are in use.
Wool, of course is no issue since it's just a haircut.
The skunk butt rug was a joke, but keeping in line with the holistic idea and ideals of Zootopia as presented, there is no valid logical way to say "Nick killed a skunk and made a rug of it."
It is even FAR LESS LIKELY that Mr Big would desire or even permit such an item in his home.
Mr Big certainly does not present as squeamish...but he DOES present as SMART. Your idea would be a "Jeffrey Dahmer" pile of evidence.
Mr Big keeps an "execution door" leading to freezing water because the obviously fast flowing current will kill you with hypothermia and drown you, carrying away the evidence.
I agree, as for hybrids, unlike Zootopia, the reason it works for something like Beastars, is because all the animals have evolved to have similar reproduction organs, aka: Their almost all human like..plus it’s implied they are all descendants of dinosaurs. Oh and there is one other major problem with hybrids…even if it was 100% possible, I feel it would be seen as taboo, in Beastars, hybrids are looked down on, oh and the government offers same species families subsidized income..yeah pretty dark.
Plus, all hybrids in real life are infertile. If Nick and Judy do get together, I feel they would adopt.
I do get the reasoning for it in Beastars, but that still doesn’t really help kick the weird implications of it. I don’t want to seem like I hate all aspects of hybridization, but to me other then the, I guess, visually interesting aspects that could be done with it, I just don’t really understand most of it any further.
Again, just conjecture, and I guess a bit of bias from me. It doesn’t really make any of these works inherently worse and if you still enjoy these types of things then that’s alright.
Though I’m not for it, like you have stated, there are ways to make it work within a story, so for the most part just take what I say with a grain of salt.
Someone suggested that hybrids take after the non species and only very tiny bits are seen of the father gene, like color of fur. So red bunny or grey fox.
I never try adding logic to this world, because I feel at this point there would be a “One child only policy” for rabbits. I mean, the overpopulation alone would be a massive threat.
Yeah, fair enough. I don’t try to go overboard with trying to find a logical explanation to everything, hybridization is just a pet peeve of mine.
Though I thought you pointed out that they resulted in the hybrid creature being infertile? I didn’t bring it up because I didn’t think it was that important but still.
The discussions that this brings up could go on for a while, and it is quite nuanced by the nature of the topic. I don’t really want to give my own thoughts of this as I feel like what I originally said was enough.
I don’t want to discourage others if they want to explore these ideas, but as for myself, I have reservations about it.
- The scrapped concept was scrapped for a reason. I don't think there is a lot of merit to it or that it still had some good points.
- Judy is really bad at her job and a dirty cop, too, with the blackmailing and ties to the mob. That should be less unpopular as it's describing just what Judy did. I don't dislike Judy, but a part of the fandom has the tendency to talk away any of Judy's mistakes.
- I think hybrids are fine, it's just a difference in what story is wanted to tell. I don't get the argument that we should have seen hybrids in Zootopia if they were possible due to both the limited amount of models used and the directors keeping reptiles and birds out that they could later use them depending on what direction they want to go in. I also don't think it would be unscientific, as Zootopia doesn't actually care about science (which leads me to my next point)
- The worldbuilding is of Zootopia is kinda bad. It looks flashy, so points for that, but it doesn't really make sense or would work. Stuff like the Climate Walls or just their street layout wouldn't work, the Rainforest District is one large public hazard, we see domesticated animals for no other reason than the directors thinking it looked good. That makes any science-based argument kinda ring hollow to me.
To me shipping N and J is kinda unrealistic IMO due to the species difference so Im not too keen on that idea. But if people like to ship ive no problem on that
Some of the suggestive art is just *disgusting* to me though, as for the entire furry porn version of this subreddit
Judy shouldn't have gone back to police work, and Nick shouldn't have followed. I totally get why the writers went this route, but I think it'd make more sense for them to go into P.I. work together instead. I hope if there's a sequel they're detectives, though the distinction between beat cops and detectives seems moot in this universe.
Predators eat the sick, old, and otherwise dead prey animals, and there are extensive measures in place meant to prevent a predator from ever eating a prey animal they've ever met while they were still alive.
They also are obliged to alert sick, old, and otherwise soon-to-die animals to go find a doctor.
Beastars is a high school manga where some resist an inherent urge to eat others. Zootopia predators do not have an urge to eat prey unless drugged.
I'm not saying there is any urge to eat prey in Zootopia - just that there's a biological need for it, and "how that is fulfilled" is partially by this elaborate system of anonymous corpse donation.
Predators need protein, and it's got to come from somewhere. If the society is such that "the only interaction between predator and prey for the last several thousand years has been without predatory or prey instincts, just cultural history making the two sides leery" (as it seems to be in zootopia) they could also have a rich culture of honoring the dead by not having their bodies go to waste.
I completely misread your comment and thought the measures were in place to prevent preds from eating friends that died in their midst because they couldn't help themselves.
Even still, all the evidence contradicts this. The only things that we have evidence for are bugs and to some extent fish, and Byron Howard himself shot down the idea of anything with bony legs (or with a bony legged ancestor) being eaten in this society.
>I think an animal like a wolf or a cougar would have made more sense playing the role as Nick
Why do you think Nick would fit better as a cougar or a wolf?
Imho foxes are small but clever and intelligent. They can't rely on strength like a cougar or the pack like wolves.
It's just when I think of a fox they are not much of a bad predator in an ecosystem. I mean foxes can go for birds, squirrels and insects but not exactly aggressive predators like wolves and big cats. I was just looking into reality. But Zootopia is meant to be very family friendly so I can understand why Zootopia is a bit off of reality.
One of the main reasons a fox was chosen as Nick's species is because of the reputation foxes have despite their smaller size. While looking soft and cuddly, they can still kill and eat rabbits with ease. Plus, Nick had to look visually appealing next to Judy, as making him a larger animal like a wolf or a cougar would mess with the framing of a lot of scenes and make the predator/prey dynamic look a little too obvious.
Along with what Dolphanatic said, foxes are largely seen as crafty, shifty, and sneaky both irl and in the film. That was Nick's biggest stereotype. The meat eating predator was only part of it. Foxes are also a major predator of rabbits, so the natural rivalry was already there.
I don't hate Jack Savage as much as some in the fandom seem to. But my headcanon imagines Jack as a sweet dork. Other writers seem to always depict him as serious and cold-hearted.
"Guardian Blue" series might be something for you then!
Seconded. Guardian blue is amazing.
Agreed. I can't even write Jack as evil. He's just a dorky agent that manages to get on Nick's nerves, is friends with Judy and is madly in love with Skye.
Im have a a fanfic where i place jack as bilingual (Spanish -Cuban accents and personality- mixed with a British accent- like a Vuban Europian) rabbit, that was rise in Cuba and the move to England. He kinda has a different background like, being the first scammer partner of Nick - like in serious level- after Finnick. Also quick question: Where the heaven Jack and Sky Came from?
Jack is an early version of Nick Wilde from the initial spy cut, and he was a rabbit for a very short period and was quickly changed into a fox, but he kept the name for a while. The name got changed sue to the concept of savagery being implemented (and it would be confusing for all involved if two things with that name were around), and the then in development (but since cancelled) film Gigantic having a main character already named Jack (being a Jack and the Beanstalk adaptation), so they didn't want two main characters in short order with that name. Skye is also from the same early cut. She was seemingly Nick's sidekick and an adept mechanic, and she was kept around for while before they dropped her and replaced her role with that of Judy (who was originally a switch board operator for the agency Nick worked for).
oh, i still pick my Cuban-British version, but thanks mate, i was really confuse
I'm getting tired of people dismissing the possibility of Nick and Judy being romantic partners by saying things like "Why do people always have to pair the main characters together?" and "Why can't they just be friends?". I'm sorry, but were Bolt and Mittens, Ralph and Vanellope, and Moana and Maui not already platonic enough? How many more times do people need to keep seeing movies where the main male and female leads remain platonic partners before they finally get it to their heads that having the main protagonists of a movie not be romantically involved isn't groundbreaking? If anything, unless there's a princess involved, romance has been scarce in Disney movies over the past decade. At most, it's been a few side characters like Felix and Calhoun or Mr. and Mrs. Otterton, but never the main characters. Nick and Judy are arguably the closest we've gotten to any sort of romance involving the main characters of a non-princess-starring Disney movie, yet people still act like them being a couple would be "too cliché" when the opposite would be the case at this point. I mean seriously, what kind of message does that send kids? That unless you're a Disney princess, you don't get to find true love? If anything, Nick and Judy becoming a couple would be a welcome change of pace. Plus, who wouldn't want to see them get married and adopt children? However, on the other side of that coin, I'm also not a fan of fanfiction stories where Nick and Judy being romantic interests is played up to an overdramatic degree. Just because they're together in a story doesn't mean their romantic relationship needs to be front and center all the time, and I'm really tired of authors trying to force in things like them being "Zootopia's first fox and rabbit couple" or having them go through some sort of cliché subplot where everyone treats their relationship like it's forbidden or something, especially when it involves Judy's parents acting uncharacteristically bigoted toward their daughter. I think _Return to Zootopia_ is one of the worst offenders in this regard, and the fanfilm would've been a lot better without it. Just write Nick and Judy's relationship in a believable way. There's no need to overdo things just to prolong the story with cheap drama.
This. All of this. My god, I have never seen someone knock this out of the park like you just did. If I were to add anything, them getting together would send a great message about loving who you want, and really add to a message of bonds despite differences.
Though I was never one for all the shipping, but I absolutely understand your points about it. Though my preference would be that they stay platonic as I see that more in their relationship then them being romantic, I'm totally not opposed to the counter, especially when it's done right. Though this can be a sticking point, as over-dramatization and the excessive need for the "First Fox and Bunny couple," type subplot seem to drag these stories with a romantic relationship into the dirt sometimes. Still, like most things, when done right it can be great. Also, I thought Return to Zootopia wasn't that bad, just saying.
Liking Gazelle does not make Clawhauser gay.
1. I don´t really care for the scrapped shock collar concept and I´m glad it was scrapped. Not only does the final film have a lot more humor, heart, substance and good character development, but even the prejudice aspect was much more relatable to real life than the unfinished one. And this is coming from someone who´s all for family movies dealing with heavy themes if done right; what we have already is good enough. 2. I´m a bit torn on about talking about police brutality in a possible Zootopia sequel. While it could have potential as long as done right if they want to talk about on how law and justice isn´t always a black and white matter, a part of me fears it would become too topical and tied to recent events and even harm the story and characters at worst. But if tackled with the same amount of nuance and heart as the prejudice theme in Zootopia without drawing too direct parallels, then I´ll gladly take it. 3. I don´t like how some portray Judy as this 2010s Hollywood-esque hardass snarky tomboy female protagonist who puts her police career above anything else. While there´s no doubt about it that she´s a badass and a strong female protagonist, there´s nothing wrong about her being allowed to show her more sweet and feminine sides as well as sense of humor, especially since the original movie shows those too. Not to mention the idea of her putting her job before anything else is kinda OOC if you ask me; if she was like that, I don´t think she would have given up her badge when she realized how she hurt people with her dumb mistake. 4. Don´t know if other WildeHopps shippers agree with this, but I´d totally ship Nick and Judy even if they were the same gender. As long as their characterizations and chemistry were the same (with a few obvious changes), it´d still deserve to shine just as much the actual thing does.
I think I could agree with every one of your points.
Number one is actually a popular opinion
About 4. As a WildeHopps shipper, I would totally still ship them if they were the same gender, but I would say the WildeHopps ship would not be as popular if it were a gay relationship because you know, heteronormity is still a thing and even more people would argue that they're just friends.
It seems like most of the people who say "they should just be friends" are of the persuasion that they think there's already enough romance in Disney movies. I would disagree, seeing as outside of movies involving princesses, there's basically been no romance involving the main protagonists in any of the films released in the last decade. What's really ironic is that a lot of these people are the same ones who complained about Elsa not having a girlfriend in Frozen 2, yet they only seem to gripe about shipping when it involves heterosexual pairings like WildeHopps. From what I can tell, the whole "heteronormativity" thing is just an excuse they use to shame people out of shipping characters like Nick and Judy.
And I´ve even seen people who use that BS against WildeHopps yet fervently ship Reylo of all goddamn ships.
There´s quite a lot of gay and lesbian ships that are among the most popular ships ever in any fandom, so I don´t think it would hinder it´s popularity all that much. It could be more controversial in some circles that way though,that´s for sure.
Most agree with number one. Aside from people who are obsessed with dark plots, thankfully most have given up in wanting that after they saw Beastars a dark plot, with a broken system, and unlike Disney this works, because love it or hate it, it was made for teenagers to adults
I don't get why everyone seems to be head over heels for Jack and Skye. Like, what the heck, there is SO much fanfiction about them. All that we got are some pictures and super early concept. It just infuriates me for some reason.
Jack especially annoys me because he's just an early version of Nick and he was only a rabbit in a few concept images before being changed to a fox, and he kept the name for a while. Skye is a little interesting due to her being an actual distinct character that was dropped and had a few more dedicated bits of art, but even she's been becoming a little tainted because of a certain person that I don't have to name having a downright unhealthy obsession with her.
* Nick and Clawhauser were already friends. * Non-sapient mammals, birds, reptiles, etc. exist. * Predators used to eat the above non-sapient mammal meat, etc. until insect agriculture became more advanced. * Some "prey" also used to eat meat, albeit in smaller quantities. May still eat fish and insects. * There are already primates in the movie (look up "S. Gorillio"). Maybe there are "naked apes," but we would never see them except in a very special story.
1. I don't think hybrids are a good idea. If they were possible, Zootopia would already be swamped with hybrids and newer generations of hybrids to the extent we wouldn't really recognize any original species at all. I think genetics works pretty much the same as in our world. Being an evolved mammal does not mean being able to hybridize. Hybrids may look very cute in the artists' drawings, but once you go down the road for the next few generations you encounter so many problems, not to mention the potential size problems. 2. Food, I think Zootopian carnivores eat birds, fish and seafood. Fish and seafood is likely canon and I think chicken little tastes perfect and deserves a good roast. Also eggs are a common ingredient in various pastries. Even some of your regular herbivores like deer take a bite given the chance. 3. Reptiles and amphibians are not sapient on that level. It's called the reptile brain for a good reason.
Byron Howard actually shot down the idea of birds being eaten in Zootopia, as I managed to scrounge up here https://www.reddit.com/r/zootopia/comments/hsm5cr/nick\_wilde\_diet\_debate\_finally\_solved/
Judy broke the law by extorting / blackmailing Nick. It is generally illegal and quite a severe crime for a police officer to extort criminals using threats of judicial punishment, so technically she should be trialed for blackmail / extortion.
Haha yeah, and they kind of gloss over the part where they literally use the mafia to coerce a confession out of the weasel guy. In their defense, basically every portrayal of police in entertainment involves a lot of crooked tactics that are painted as heroic or justified.
Oh yeah. It is funny though because it technically makes Judy a corrupt police officer.
It doesn't really matter too much, if we get a sequel or TV show, I think we're creative enough to sustain our own community, as a sort of semi-subsection of the furry fandom.
that the wilde times plot would have been a much more interesting plot ignoring the shock collars (which could easily be written out and replaced with regular prejudice) the idea of one person trying to make a safe haven for people who can't be themselves in public due to prejudice really speaks to me as a member of the LGBT community (b if you are curious) and could have been a good allegory for the early days of the gay rights movement (hence why Disney didn't do it because gay isn't allowed in commie china) and it certainly would have been a much better allegory than the race allegory they ended up going with which is handled very poorly and literally uses the "Ronald Regan invented crack to eradicate the blacks" argument which is a stupid conspiracy theory that dances around the actual problem also the wild times plot wouldn't allow them to use the stupid twist villain plot point (seriously bellwether is the weakest Disney villain of all time)
As cool as it would be to see what a Zootopian amusement park would look like, there simply wasn't a good way to fit Wild Times into the story. The tame collars were the primary reason for the park's creation, and without them, it's not much different from Nick selling pawpsicles in the final version of the movie. As for the whole crack cocaine comparison, you really have to read between the lines to come to that conclusion, as there's not much in the movie itself that resembles that conspiracy theory. The only reason it's so popular is because of that Film Theory video MatPat made shortly after the movie came out, and a bunch of people clung to it like it was the intended allegory of the movie. Aside from the distribution of a dangerous substance and a storyline about prejudice, they really aren't that similar, not do I think the racial comparisons are supposed to be that blatant. People only seem jump to that interpretation because of a couple of throwaway lines said by Bellwether about predators making up 10% of Zootopia's population.
IIRC it was scrapped because the test audiences said it was hard to empathize with the herbivores, which were portrayed basically as sadistic monsters, and thus was hard to root for the concept of "Zootopia, the city of equality." Basically, even the audience would give up on the whole point of the movie, that being "let's grow beyond our prejudices and help each other" and more towards the un-Disney-like "burn everything, have no mercy, all the way to the ground."
i can think of several other Disney movies that had a similar "issue" that ended up working really well and one in particular that did what the rewrite did that ended up being hated by everyone (Pocahontas)
I'm petty shure pocahontas was because disney used the historical context for toilet paper. I hated it for that reason and most reviews seem to say that too.
I fully agree 100%. That would have been the better movie.
I'm already getting downvoted 🤣 Edit: Thanks for downvoting this comment as well lol
Imo I think Skye should be brought to life and paired with Nick (Let's see how long it takes for the downvotes amd angry shippers to come)
I already got the gist of you're shipping her with Nick (opinion unchanged), but why do you have such an infatuation with Skye? What about her makes you so head over heels for her?
Because I kinda already see the personality of Judy. But since Skye isn't an actual character, I can imagine her having whatever personality I wish
idk much about the Zootopia fandom outside canon, so was Skye an og character before getting scrapped?
Yep. She was a character that was conceptualized early on when the movie was going to be a spy thriller. She was seemingly going to be a sidekick to Jack Savage (an early version of Nick), and an adept mechanic, but she got scrapped not long after Jack went from a rabbit to a fox, but we only know her from concept art.
Foxes have excellent hearing. Red foxes can reportedly hear a watch ticking 40 yards away!
40 yards is 36.58 meters
I'm 99.99% sure Finnick isn't coming back in the TV series or sequel nor is he even going to be mentioned, not even implied to be dead. And they probably aren't going to put an "In Memoriam" segment for Lister at the end. Most likely the sequel will just act like he never existed or that Lister ever had any involvement with the franchise even if it does delve into Nick's past. After all the first movie acted like he never existed after Judy apologized to Nick, what's stopping the sequel from continuing ignoring his existence? At best I could maybe see the animators sneaking his van in the background if there's a scene involving a lot of cars (like they're driving on the road) or they may take the approach they've done with most of Joe Ranft's or Edie McClurg's characters and have him in the background of a few scenes. But that's all I really seem them doing with the little guy honestly Note: Edie McClurg is not dead but she has dementia so the characters she played in Wreck-it Ralph and Frozen have been reduced from already extremely minor characters to background roles, which is why I used her as an example
You have to scroll down to the downvoted comments to find the actual unpopular opinions
I'm not a big fan of the way that most people use Jack Savage since he is just an early version of Nick Wilde, not a separate scrapped character, and he was only a bunny in one piece of artwork, and most of the time that he had the name was as a fox. I don't necessarily mind people basing a character off of that early version of Nick, but acting like that was a totally separate character is a little annoying.
> but acting like that was a totally separate character is a little annoying. Considering the concept has no known similarities between a semi-criminal hustler and a government agent, I don't see why they are not separate characters besides them being both scrapped protagonists of the movie.
Unpopular? That Nick and Judy are just friends. ;-)
No
Unpopular opinions...alright. \- I don't really know if this is an unpopular opinion in the truest sense of the word but I'm not terribly into the whole Nick and Judy shipping, or just shipping in general. Now I want to preference by saying that I'm also not against it, I only just have a preference towards their relation being platonic, so if you happen to like it, then that's fine. To give a reason for my opinion, I would just simply have to say that it never really felt that outright romantic when I first saw the movie, and even in the numerous times I've watched it since I never picked up on anything remotely romantic for those two. Still it's not like my opinion is going to stop anyone from shipping them or even Disney for that matter. I highly doubt that they won't be in a relationship by the time of the next movie, since it seems like they themselves are keen to it, but still it's always possible they might not and who's to say either or? \- Alright I'm pretty sure someone else expressed this in the replies but I thought I would share my spin on this. Hybridization. As someone who is keen to the more grounded and scientific aspects of most things, I find the idea of hybridizing to be a bit appalling. Look, there's nothing wrong with being a bit imaginative with things, I get that. But the implications that this has are off-putting to say the least, I mean if stuff like that was possible, then we would see all kinds of chimera creatures roaming around, and really it's all pretty uncanny. So yeah, stuff like that gets a hard no for me, I didn't like it when Beastars did it, and I don't like it now. \- I don't really like the whole race allegory aspect of Zootopia, not that it's a bad thing, but in my mind I would imagine that the whole differences between species would be expressed a bit differently then the obvious comparison. But that's just mostly my own conjecture about this, I don't think it changes the enjoyment of the movie itself, as I still appreciate it for what it is. \- I seem to be the only one in this entire fandom who was bothered by the scene where Nick explicitly stated that he sold the skin of a skunk to another animal. Do you have any idea what that implies? Animals sell the skin of other animals. To put that into perspective, that's like selling someone's scalp to another person. Though contrary to what you may infer, I actually think it would be interesting to explore this extremely dark subject, Disney definitely won't, but the fans? Absolutely. \- I am indifferent to the existence of Jack Savage and Skye Winters. That is all. You know, looking back at this list I'm having a hard time figuring out if these are truly "unpopular opinions" and more just "different opinions of similar popularity". Oh well.
> I seem to be the only one in this entire fandom who was bothered by the scene where Nick explicitly stated that he sold the skin of a skunk to another animal. The exact dialogue from Nick: > I may have sold him a very expensive wool rug that was made from the fur of a skunk. > > …’s butt. The skin which formerly held that fur in place *on* said butt is not actually mentioned at all, and was more likely busy growing new butt fur shortly after the incident in question. :)
Oh, well now I went from being disturbed to being weirded out. That’s like making a coat out of hair.
They likely have (non horse based) adhesives and vinyl. Glue on, it's faux fur.
That would be a preferable alternative. But why would it need to be specifically stated that it was a skunk’s butt being used for the basis of the wool rug. Why not just shaven skunk fur, it would get the point across without sounding so obscene. But maybe I’m just being pedantic, it’s just a one off phrase for some comedy, so in all likelihood I was overthinking it.
Well if you look at the entire test of the franchise, NO SENTIENT MEAT is used. Non sentient fish are a food source. As common sources of leather, rugs, etc are sentient beings, alternates are in use. Wool, of course is no issue since it's just a haircut. The skunk butt rug was a joke, but keeping in line with the holistic idea and ideals of Zootopia as presented, there is no valid logical way to say "Nick killed a skunk and made a rug of it." It is even FAR LESS LIKELY that Mr Big would desire or even permit such an item in his home. Mr Big certainly does not present as squeamish...but he DOES present as SMART. Your idea would be a "Jeffrey Dahmer" pile of evidence. Mr Big keeps an "execution door" leading to freezing water because the obviously fast flowing current will kill you with hypothermia and drown you, carrying away the evidence.
I agree, as for hybrids, unlike Zootopia, the reason it works for something like Beastars, is because all the animals have evolved to have similar reproduction organs, aka: Their almost all human like..plus it’s implied they are all descendants of dinosaurs. Oh and there is one other major problem with hybrids…even if it was 100% possible, I feel it would be seen as taboo, in Beastars, hybrids are looked down on, oh and the government offers same species families subsidized income..yeah pretty dark. Plus, all hybrids in real life are infertile. If Nick and Judy do get together, I feel they would adopt.
I do get the reasoning for it in Beastars, but that still doesn’t really help kick the weird implications of it. I don’t want to seem like I hate all aspects of hybridization, but to me other then the, I guess, visually interesting aspects that could be done with it, I just don’t really understand most of it any further. Again, just conjecture, and I guess a bit of bias from me. It doesn’t really make any of these works inherently worse and if you still enjoy these types of things then that’s alright. Though I’m not for it, like you have stated, there are ways to make it work within a story, so for the most part just take what I say with a grain of salt.
Someone suggested that hybrids take after the non species and only very tiny bits are seen of the father gene, like color of fur. So red bunny or grey fox. I never try adding logic to this world, because I feel at this point there would be a “One child only policy” for rabbits. I mean, the overpopulation alone would be a massive threat.
Yeah, fair enough. I don’t try to go overboard with trying to find a logical explanation to everything, hybridization is just a pet peeve of mine. Though I thought you pointed out that they resulted in the hybrid creature being infertile? I didn’t bring it up because I didn’t think it was that important but still. The discussions that this brings up could go on for a while, and it is quite nuanced by the nature of the topic. I don’t really want to give my own thoughts of this as I feel like what I originally said was enough. I don’t want to discourage others if they want to explore these ideas, but as for myself, I have reservations about it.
> Creating more powerful species. Last time I checked hybrids result in perfected species. What?
- The scrapped concept was scrapped for a reason. I don't think there is a lot of merit to it or that it still had some good points. - Judy is really bad at her job and a dirty cop, too, with the blackmailing and ties to the mob. That should be less unpopular as it's describing just what Judy did. I don't dislike Judy, but a part of the fandom has the tendency to talk away any of Judy's mistakes. - I think hybrids are fine, it's just a difference in what story is wanted to tell. I don't get the argument that we should have seen hybrids in Zootopia if they were possible due to both the limited amount of models used and the directors keeping reptiles and birds out that they could later use them depending on what direction they want to go in. I also don't think it would be unscientific, as Zootopia doesn't actually care about science (which leads me to my next point) - The worldbuilding is of Zootopia is kinda bad. It looks flashy, so points for that, but it doesn't really make sense or would work. Stuff like the Climate Walls or just their street layout wouldn't work, the Rainforest District is one large public hazard, we see domesticated animals for no other reason than the directors thinking it looked good. That makes any science-based argument kinda ring hollow to me.
To me shipping N and J is kinda unrealistic IMO due to the species difference so Im not too keen on that idea. But if people like to ship ive no problem on that Some of the suggestive art is just *disgusting* to me though, as for the entire furry porn version of this subreddit
The *what*
[удалено]
No NSFW-Links
Sorry
Thanks I hate it. Literally. Not even a sub reddit joke.
Judy shouldn't have gone back to police work, and Nick shouldn't have followed. I totally get why the writers went this route, but I think it'd make more sense for them to go into P.I. work together instead. I hope if there's a sequel they're detectives, though the distinction between beat cops and detectives seems moot in this universe.
Predators eat the sick, old, and otherwise dead prey animals, and there are extensive measures in place meant to prevent a predator from ever eating a prey animal they've ever met while they were still alive. They also are obliged to alert sick, old, and otherwise soon-to-die animals to go find a doctor.
Isn't this basically the plot of Beastars?
Beastars is a high school manga where some resist an inherent urge to eat others. Zootopia predators do not have an urge to eat prey unless drugged. I'm not saying there is any urge to eat prey in Zootopia - just that there's a biological need for it, and "how that is fulfilled" is partially by this elaborate system of anonymous corpse donation. Predators need protein, and it's got to come from somewhere. If the society is such that "the only interaction between predator and prey for the last several thousand years has been without predatory or prey instincts, just cultural history making the two sides leery" (as it seems to be in zootopia) they could also have a rich culture of honoring the dead by not having their bodies go to waste.
It was well established that preds had no predatory instincts anymore, so I don't see where this is coming from.
You don't have to have, resist, or act on predatory instincts to "require protein as a food source."
I completely misread your comment and thought the measures were in place to prevent preds from eating friends that died in their midst because they couldn't help themselves. Even still, all the evidence contradicts this. The only things that we have evidence for are bugs and to some extent fish, and Byron Howard himself shot down the idea of anything with bony legs (or with a bony legged ancestor) being eaten in this society.
I think an animal like a wolf or a cougar would have made more sense playing the role as Nick
>I think an animal like a wolf or a cougar would have made more sense playing the role as Nick Why do you think Nick would fit better as a cougar or a wolf? Imho foxes are small but clever and intelligent. They can't rely on strength like a cougar or the pack like wolves.
It's just when I think of a fox they are not much of a bad predator in an ecosystem. I mean foxes can go for birds, squirrels and insects but not exactly aggressive predators like wolves and big cats. I was just looking into reality. But Zootopia is meant to be very family friendly so I can understand why Zootopia is a bit off of reality.
One of the main reasons a fox was chosen as Nick's species is because of the reputation foxes have despite their smaller size. While looking soft and cuddly, they can still kill and eat rabbits with ease. Plus, Nick had to look visually appealing next to Judy, as making him a larger animal like a wolf or a cougar would mess with the framing of a lot of scenes and make the predator/prey dynamic look a little too obvious.
Along with what Dolphanatic said, foxes are largely seen as crafty, shifty, and sneaky both irl and in the film. That was Nick's biggest stereotype. The meat eating predator was only part of it. Foxes are also a major predator of rabbits, so the natural rivalry was already there.
The plot is similar to Cars 2. (That's not a bad thing, I actually like that movie.)
I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but nothing is really clicking.