FA+
Shop
Spoilerless reflections on Zootopia
9 years ago
Zootopia was pretty good. Not a single scalie to be found, and it had the predictable betrayal/makeup in the second act, but it had a fox, and it was fun.
The reason for the breakup is pretty flimsy and kinda comes out of nowhere. She really was stating the facts of the case, so why is Nick mad? Why did Judy say it at all, not knowing why it happened?
Really, does every movie have to have the contrived breakup/makeup in the second act?? Is there a checklist of things all movies must have in order to be appealing to the largest audience? Does this list include a flowchart, too, because I think audiences are catching on to the same plot points popping up in all movies! This isn't new of course, but it seems to be more prevalent than in years past.
...and why is this <<what a twist!>> allowed to exist? Everyone knows about it and what it can do, so why isn't it an illegal substance?! Why has no one done this before?! Having the answer right in the garden the whole time was awfully convenient.
Other than that, it's a fun movie, the mystery is interesting, and the way Judy and Nick solve the case confirms... it's not what you know, it's who you know... Well, it's a lot better than Big Hero 6. The formula isn't so obvious this time. It's fun, and I loved seeing how the bunny one-ups the fox every time he puts one over on her.
*buys Fox Repellent... just in case*
The reason for the breakup is pretty flimsy and kinda comes out of nowhere. She really was stating the facts of the case, so why is Nick mad? Why did Judy say it at all, not knowing why it happened?
Really, does every movie have to have the contrived breakup/makeup in the second act?? Is there a checklist of things all movies must have in order to be appealing to the largest audience? Does this list include a flowchart, too, because I think audiences are catching on to the same plot points popping up in all movies! This isn't new of course, but it seems to be more prevalent than in years past.
...and why is this <<what a twist!>> allowed to exist? Everyone knows about it and what it can do, so why isn't it an illegal substance?! Why has no one done this before?! Having the answer right in the garden the whole time was awfully convenient.
Other than that, it's a fun movie, the mystery is interesting, and the way Judy and Nick solve the case confirms... it's not what you know, it's who you know... Well, it's a lot better than Big Hero 6. The formula isn't so obvious this time. It's fun, and I loved seeing how the bunny one-ups the fox every time he puts one over on her.
*buys Fox Repellent... just in case*
jls
Instead of the betrayal, they could have shown more of the city tearing itself apart in fear of the predator species. It could have shown something like an allegory to racism. Nick would have a better reason to be pissed at Judy for starting the fear. The movie doesn't show that part very well, but it could've. It would have been less contrived, and a much stronger reason for her to resign.
It would be funby if Judy calls Nick like a filthy red coat or something like that.
Though I think it could get dark and still be fine. We survived the Don Bluth movies of the 80's and came out better people because of it
Also I still have to wait two weeks to see it in Aus, goddam region releases suck.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
"She really was stating the facts of the case, so why is Nick mad? Why did Judy say it at all, not knowing why it happened?"
That's the point, she didn't know why it was happening, the scientists hadn't figured it out, but her saying "maybe it's predators reverting to their primitive savage ways" was her own personal bias.
The overall theme of the movie was about prejudice and bias (racism), and that moment was to show how even though Judy rejected her parents' bias about predators and was herself very open-minded and forward-thinking, that doesn't mean she wasn't also still deep-down harboring some of that bias, too (like how she did actually take the fox repellent). That's what Nick got mad about: They don't know what's happening, nobody does, but Judy offered her own opinion that maybe Preds can just 'go savage' (but of course a bunny could never). Then when he spooked her, it showed she really was on some level still afraid of him because he's a fox. Just like the kids said they could never trust him because he's a fox, even after all they'd been through, Judy still didn't fully trust him, either.
I agree the movie is trying to show that even Judy harbors prejudice, but the filmmakers left that development vague and poorly established.
At the press conference, Judy repeats what the scientist says without understanding why. Judy doesn't offer her own interpretation at all; she is quoting what she heard the scientist say, that it's likely because of a predator's DNA that they're going feral. Nick heard the scientist, too, so why is he mad at Judy? She didn't say anything that he didn't already know. The press conference does not show that Judy harbors hidden prejudice, but that she repeated things she did not fully understand. Nick should be mad at her for that, not because she's "like all the others."
From what we saw of Zootopia, the city was pretty prejudiced to begin with, so how did Judy make it worse? She quits the force, but things don't seem any different after the press conference compared to before.
The filmmakers could have done a much better job showing the prejudice theme, but they left it vague and undeveloped. Instead, they glazed over it with the contrived makeup and breakup, and it comes out of nowhere. It's my only problem with the movie. Otherwise, it is pretty good.
What she said at the press conference was a repeat of her lines in the opening of her stage-play as a kid. She already held the prejudice about predators' violent primitive past. The scientist only said "there may be a biological component." Everything beyond that, specifically "they may be reverting to their savage primitive ways," was Judy's words, not the scientist's.
The city had prejudice, but Judy's comments sparked exactly what the mayor had been trying to prevent: all the prey becoming afraid of all preds possibly randomly inexplicably going savage. The difference between before and after the press conference was the full-blown panic and fear, the protest with Gazelle showed prey screaming at preds to go away, where before the press conference all we saw was general underlying prejudice. Clawhauser being moved from the front desk was also a mark of the difference: Nobody had a problem with a pred being at the front desk before, but now, people are so scared, they decided to tuck him away out of sight to avoid scaring people.
There was a HUGE difference between before and after the press conference, but they showed it with a few specific pointed scenes rather than long elaborate scenes of extended racism (which would be more and more likely to potentially cross a line and offend somebody).
They laid all the groundwork for the breakup/makeup, they showed the difference the press conference caused, they showed Judy's underlying prejudice. It's not that it isn't shown, it's that there is a limit to how specific and explicitly you can show outright racism in what is supposed to be an entertaining kids' cartoon. They rode that line very well. It was all there, but it was wonderfully subtle, so I'm sure plenty of people missed a few things here and there. If they'd been less subtle about it, the movie would be getting more objection or criticism for being too much for a kids flick. I've seen it multiple times already, so maybe I've caught some things I missed the first time. You should see it again, cuz there's definitely things you've missed, too. <:3
Zootopia was pretty prejudiced long before Judy got there, and the film implies that all of this tension was under the surface, so it didn't seem that much different after the press conference. We're told predators are being singled out, but it's not shown very well.
The filmmakers did what they thought they could get away with in a kid's film, which is ok, but they could've done a lot more to make the prejudice theme stronger. Don Bluth made some very dark kid's films in the 80's, so it is possible.
At what point did the movie seem to suggest that everything was going to be 'sunshine and roses in Zootopia' after having, for all intents and purposes, a species war, even if it didn't completely tear the city apart?
Also, how/why would Nick, a person we never get to know much about except what the movie tells us, become a police officer? Does he even have a 'home'? A full education, i.e. high school graduate or GED? Or a criminal record?
Also I gotta wonder how long it took him to become a cop, and what happened in the meantime. I'm sure there's fanfiction to address that part by now
eh, it's still meant for kids. I still think the filmmakers didn't want to go too deep or make it too dark, so they skipped over those parts.
It's not like Disney HASN'T dealt with this concept before. People forget, back in the day, Disney dealt with darker material and treated it like normal.
Not that I would have expected Disney to be faithful to the book, but my point is they still "Disneyized" the story to make it kid friendly, even back in the 80's.
The last time Disney tried something really dark was The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and it didn't do so well, so it seemed to confirm people didn't want dark material from Disney animation. I think it would have been possible to tell a darker, more overtly racist story like Zootopia's earlier draft, but I can see why the studio lightened it up. It's what Disney does.