Don't worry about it. It's just Disney pushing their agenda again. Don't lose any sleep over it. Furries want to bang anything.

Rule 34 doesnt care about such things....
But for the fanbase around him, part of it is the actor voicing him.
And then, cutthroat villainy (or his attempt) aside, he is an adorable and loveable guy. Plus, there is a tiny bit people can relate to him; wanting to prove yourself and be accepted / part of something / the family.

I did love the twist personally, because he was just nice and goofy enough to distract me, plus being put down gave him the perfect cover so nobody would seriously think hed be a villain in the end.

Just saw this blind reaction to that movie. It was a group reaction and the moment that Pawbert showed up, one of theh guys said, "Villain." It was kind of shocking, actually. Explained that he had mild trope vibes associated to past villains. But most of us were not that keen on picking up upon.

See....it just means he watches ALOT of movies, so he just...knows from the rip. He can see the writing and read between tea leaves.
Which, I dont like personally. Unless the writers & Artists/Animators make it PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, I like surprises. I like not immediately knowing so the TWIST has its intended effect.

Hell, would have really been a twist if Gary De'Snake turned out to be the secret Evil Villain and there was actually a Justified Reason to Kick out the Reptile Society....even if it was mainly just the Snakes.

But, again I like it when its not SUPER painfully obvious. I like to ignore Tropes or not immediately see it.
Otherwise Im distracted by the idea of - I already know whats going to happen.
And that ruins everything for me...because whats the point if I already know / can predict everything.

As a writer, I've been tackling Plight for years. So I've seen how trying to avoid tropes and creating truly original work is downright hard. A character that just pops out of nowhere to be evil is fun for nobody. But balancing them to be surprising when the time comes typically comes off as cheap. Over obvious is just pandering to five year olds. And masterfully balancing them is near impossible as someone is going to pick up on it... or just lucky guess it.

No wonder my master villains show up in two scenes. I just don't know what to do with them past being Darth Maul-types.

I think the reason furries tend to ID with pariah's is most furs tend to feel like that in the day to day, regardless of anything else they see themselves in the ostrization

I think a lot of people got attached to him from the previews, where he was portrayed as just the scrunkly misfit the family picked on for being the runt.

Some I think are attached because he has daddy issues.

Though honestly I felt the movie mishandled him and I really wanted a redemption arc out of him where he realizes his dad is never going to give him the approval he craves. instead he's... just a shitty rich kid. I don't think he even makes sense as the 'final' obstacle, his dad was the real villain of the whole story and they let the titty horse take him out. Really Pawebrt is only threatening for the 5 minutes they don't know he's betrayed them and is trying to murder them with poison, the moment he falls off that cliff and survives he's relegated strictly buttmonkey status the rest of the movie and is completely non-threatening.

That is to say, I did like Pawbert, and it's pretty clear his family abuses him (I mean, you don't have a hideout in the middle of the desert because you like hanging with them) So, I get it on some level, but the movie really kills any sympathy you could have for him by setting him up as the 'psychotic' loser in the end.

...also wtf is up with them giving him the 'relationship metaphor' book with his dad. Like I think that's another part of the driver here.

Thoughtful. I didn't think of the early impact of the trailer

yeah I saw a looot of folks excited for him before the movie dropped

he seems popular enough I won't be surprised if he returns in the threequel somehow

Pawbert is a Tumblr sexyman

Pawbert is a goofball first, a wannabe villain second. Kind of the opposite of how Gideon Grey was a bully first and a bit of a goofball once he grew up.

Whatever the case, a lot of furries have a severe weakness for goofy, silly, socially clueless characters.

Yea, socially clueless underdog... cat...

lets see... gowsh.. um well
1) hes so nicce at the beginning . we love him for being loveable...\
2) we undersan the feeling thaT Our parrents dont love us or love our brothers and sisters more than usl we want them to openly love us and say it and hug us ...
3) i think they did a poor jjob with his character and the twist was poorly handled .
4) we think he can be rehabitulated...

Mm... fury's are attractive to the opposite of themself.
But a Cigar it's just a cigar.

I think he could have been a better character and I think he would have been a more respectable character if he wasn't a twist villain. He had the makings of a low key breakout hero character but Disney just had to do a villain reveal even though they had 3 villains in the movie already.

Same thoughts.

Love your avatar.
Don't see too many fans of the Virtual Boy. Much less Teleroboxer.

Hah thanks. I'm equally surprised :)