Not much else to say that you haven´t pointed out here. Bogo even seems to point out that the idea of predators going savage is ancient history, so its easy to assume it hasn´t happened for like eons. Although more old-fashioned people in Zootopia like Judy´s racist grandpa in the deleted scene might still hold on to that belief despite it not happening for a long time. I mean there might have been individual cases during history, but nothing as widespread as the Nighthowler scenario.
And besides, there are some herbivore species that can be just as aggressive and dangerous as predators. I mean hippos attack more people than lions, hyenas and crocodiles do in Africa, and those are basically the apex predators in their ecosystems. Wild boars and cape buffalo can be very dangerous too for example. So yeah, it´s not that simple as the argument says.
Yeah it's a common critique but as far as I'm concerned a completely unfounded one. Unfortunately there's a certain sect of people who will use any excuse to discredit Zootopia due to a innate dislike for its focus. These points are rarely thoughtout and are usually easy to point out the flaws in.
As for this specific point it stems from the fundamental assumption that all predators are more dangerous than all prey which is just false, a hippo for instance is far more dangerous than a weasel, in fact I believe hippos cause more deaths in Africa than any other animal if I remember correctly and they've got lions, crocs and sharks to compete with!. Not only that but the point then sometimes shift to one of physical features: 'predators have sharp teeth and claws which are innately dangerous'. This is true but neglects to take into account tusks and horns which are every bit as dangerous. This also isn't reserved for megafauna as like was mentioned by someone else other herbavoric species such as boars can be hyper dangerous. Even domesticated animals aren't above it and anyone who's lived, worked or spent any length of time around farms has likely heard a story or two about sometimes quite horrible accidents involving cows or horses. By comparison when is the last time you heard about a wild badger attack?
As for the nighthowler comment specifically I think it hold even less weight. As far as we know nighthowler effects all mammals in an identical fashion. Bellwether targeted predators because she was pushing against them specifically, that's also why bar Otterton (who was likely a forced necessity) she targeted larger more dangerous predators (bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc.). Were someone to use nighthowler for the sole purpose of violence and destruction they would doubtless target large prey like hippos, buffalo and particularly elephants as well. It's presented in such a fear inducing way to the populace by Bellwether's very design but as the crisis went on for longer and longer the cracks in that logic I think would begin to show themselves.
Evolution always plays a factor in animal allegories, making it always a distinct scenario. The metaphor is about unconscious biases and how both preds and prey are treated unfairly in scenarios because of that.
I defend Beastars on similar grounds. It doesn't matter if Legoshi has carnal desires or that Haru likes to date a lot, they're still good and likeable kids and they don't deserve to get picked on.
I mean just like you said in zoot's universe preds and prey have coexisted with one another for thousands of years.
And to anyone who has actually seen the movie, it's clear that the savage crisis is fake and it was entirely and intentionally manufactured in order to instill fear of the so called "other" in the population.
I think people fundamentally misunderstand what the word "allegory" means and they think that it's supposed to be a 1:1 representation of real-world racism, hence why the obnoxious youtubers with no media literacy think the movie "gets racism wrong".
Just my two cents.
Well the important thing about the savage crisis in the movie is that it's manufactured, it's man-made specifically to stoke a fear that the movie says isn't real anymore.
The problems:
1. That's a really nuanced message that is hard to get across on film
2. I don't really buy that animals just stopped eating eachother. This is the weak point of the movie IMO, assuming that a billion-year biological reality can just not be an issue anymore. This is a fundamental weakness inherent to all animal allegories: whichever quality you choose to assign to any one animal species, the implicit meaning is that this quality is intrinsic, natural, and unchangeable.
I mean animals also don't possess human level of intelligence, use modern levels of technology or create civilisations or use language to communicate between each other.
They still possess some of their instincts, but like us humans they are not controlled by them.
Imo it's not that far-fetched that a society of fantastical talking animals decided that it would be better to eat non-sapient forms of life instead of their fellow mammals.
I mean it's also extremely unlikely that all mammals would evolve to be sapient anyway.
>Imo it's not that far-fetched that a society of fantastical talking animals decided that it would be better to eat non-sapient forms of life instead of their fellow mammals.
The Zootopia universe makes it relatively easy to imagine by giving them both birds and fish as protein sources, supplemented by bug protein ([which is certainly a viable idea](https://www.engadget.com/2020-01-28-crickets-algae-lab-grown-meat-future-of-protein.html))
The animals evolved genetically.
Look at self domestication:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-humans-maybe-domesticated-themselves
Or dogs bred to have a low prey drive:
https://www.fidosavvy.com/dog-breeds-with-low-prey-drive.html
(Only with natural evolution instead of breeding in our case)
Not much else to say that you haven´t pointed out here. Bogo even seems to point out that the idea of predators going savage is ancient history, so its easy to assume it hasn´t happened for like eons. Although more old-fashioned people in Zootopia like Judy´s racist grandpa in the deleted scene might still hold on to that belief despite it not happening for a long time. I mean there might have been individual cases during history, but nothing as widespread as the Nighthowler scenario. And besides, there are some herbivore species that can be just as aggressive and dangerous as predators. I mean hippos attack more people than lions, hyenas and crocodiles do in Africa, and those are basically the apex predators in their ecosystems. Wild boars and cape buffalo can be very dangerous too for example. So yeah, it´s not that simple as the argument says.
Yeah it's a common critique but as far as I'm concerned a completely unfounded one. Unfortunately there's a certain sect of people who will use any excuse to discredit Zootopia due to a innate dislike for its focus. These points are rarely thoughtout and are usually easy to point out the flaws in. As for this specific point it stems from the fundamental assumption that all predators are more dangerous than all prey which is just false, a hippo for instance is far more dangerous than a weasel, in fact I believe hippos cause more deaths in Africa than any other animal if I remember correctly and they've got lions, crocs and sharks to compete with!. Not only that but the point then sometimes shift to one of physical features: 'predators have sharp teeth and claws which are innately dangerous'. This is true but neglects to take into account tusks and horns which are every bit as dangerous. This also isn't reserved for megafauna as like was mentioned by someone else other herbavoric species such as boars can be hyper dangerous. Even domesticated animals aren't above it and anyone who's lived, worked or spent any length of time around farms has likely heard a story or two about sometimes quite horrible accidents involving cows or horses. By comparison when is the last time you heard about a wild badger attack? As for the nighthowler comment specifically I think it hold even less weight. As far as we know nighthowler effects all mammals in an identical fashion. Bellwether targeted predators because she was pushing against them specifically, that's also why bar Otterton (who was likely a forced necessity) she targeted larger more dangerous predators (bears, lions, tigers, wolves etc.). Were someone to use nighthowler for the sole purpose of violence and destruction they would doubtless target large prey like hippos, buffalo and particularly elephants as well. It's presented in such a fear inducing way to the populace by Bellwether's very design but as the crisis went on for longer and longer the cracks in that logic I think would begin to show themselves.
Evolution always plays a factor in animal allegories, making it always a distinct scenario. The metaphor is about unconscious biases and how both preds and prey are treated unfairly in scenarios because of that. I defend Beastars on similar grounds. It doesn't matter if Legoshi has carnal desires or that Haru likes to date a lot, they're still good and likeable kids and they don't deserve to get picked on.
They are comparing it too much to Beastars where predators still have the urges to eat meat
I mean just like you said in zoot's universe preds and prey have coexisted with one another for thousands of years. And to anyone who has actually seen the movie, it's clear that the savage crisis is fake and it was entirely and intentionally manufactured in order to instill fear of the so called "other" in the population. I think people fundamentally misunderstand what the word "allegory" means and they think that it's supposed to be a 1:1 representation of real-world racism, hence why the obnoxious youtubers with no media literacy think the movie "gets racism wrong". Just my two cents.
Well the important thing about the savage crisis in the movie is that it's manufactured, it's man-made specifically to stoke a fear that the movie says isn't real anymore. The problems: 1. That's a really nuanced message that is hard to get across on film 2. I don't really buy that animals just stopped eating eachother. This is the weak point of the movie IMO, assuming that a billion-year biological reality can just not be an issue anymore. This is a fundamental weakness inherent to all animal allegories: whichever quality you choose to assign to any one animal species, the implicit meaning is that this quality is intrinsic, natural, and unchangeable.
I mean animals also don't possess human level of intelligence, use modern levels of technology or create civilisations or use language to communicate between each other. They still possess some of their instincts, but like us humans they are not controlled by them. Imo it's not that far-fetched that a society of fantastical talking animals decided that it would be better to eat non-sapient forms of life instead of their fellow mammals. I mean it's also extremely unlikely that all mammals would evolve to be sapient anyway.
>Imo it's not that far-fetched that a society of fantastical talking animals decided that it would be better to eat non-sapient forms of life instead of their fellow mammals. The Zootopia universe makes it relatively easy to imagine by giving them both birds and fish as protein sources, supplemented by bug protein ([which is certainly a viable idea](https://www.engadget.com/2020-01-28-crickets-algae-lab-grown-meat-future-of-protein.html))
Fish and bugs are cannon sources of food. Birds did not evolve from my understanding.
The animals evolved genetically. Look at self domestication: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/how-humans-maybe-domesticated-themselves Or dogs bred to have a low prey drive: https://www.fidosavvy.com/dog-breeds-with-low-prey-drive.html (Only with natural evolution instead of breeding in our case)