First character images of 'Zootopia' revealed
The first character images of the upcoming movie Zootopia have been revealed [Tip: GuilRosmer via Reddit]; meet the two main characters. Wunza a criminal fox (Nick Wilde, played by Jason Bateman). Wunza cop bunny (Judy Hopps, played by Ginnifer Goodwin). Together, they fight crime. Or something. Details on the actual plot are scarce at this point.
The movie will be co-directed by Disney veterans Rich Moore and Byron Howard, and the release date is currently scheduled for March of next year. This is one of four movies featuring complete casts of fully anthropomorphic animals planned for wide release in 2016; the others include Kung Fu Panda 3 in January, plus Sly Cooper and Spark, which currently don't have release dates.
Update (6/11): Now with a teaser trailer. (Tip: Mink)
About the author
crossaffliction (Brendan Kachel) — read stories — contact (login required)a reporter and Red Fox from Hooker, Oklahoma, interested in movies, horror, stand up comedy
Formerly Wichita's only furry comic.
Comments
And now Disney has released the actual teaser trailer -- which instantly went viral. At very least among out furry fans!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lmhBYB11U
For the record: The creators of Zootopia have stated in interviews that they made this movie because they thought it was time for there to be another Robin Hood style animated film, and there hadn't been one in a long time.
Thanks for that! (Is it weird to link to a comment in the article's comment section?)
While "like nothing you've seen be-fur" is a. a terrible "fur" pun, and b. terribly inaccurate even if you're not a furry, this doesn't mean it (and 2016 in general) isn't really, really rare.
Unless I've missed something, there have been a grand total of nine anthropomorphic animal movies theatrically released in America that feature no human characters (though, it should be noted, this may be the first movie to use that as a selling point):
1972. Fritz the Cat - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068612/
1973. Robin Hood - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070608/
1974. Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071913/
1990. DuckTales the Movie: Treasure of the Lost Lamp - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099472/
1995. A Goofy Movie - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113198/
2005. Chicken Little - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0371606/
2008. Kung Fu Panda - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0441773/
2011. Kung Fu Panda 2 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/
2013. Ernest and Celestine - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1816518
And in 2016, we've got four coming (plus the "furry alien" movie Ratchet and Clank and Finding Dory).
Nit-picking: You forgot "The Lion King" (1994), and as I recall "Nine Lives" actually has some humans in it.
Hadn't seen the second one (so thanks for the clarification, actually) and I guess I should have specified that I was listing bipedal, clothes-wearing furries (which I didn't).
Not sure if the "anthropomorphic" education was fully needed, but it probably introduced a new word for many. As listed above its not like there's never been a movie in recent history with walking/talking animals before.
I think the non-Furry general public can grasp that these aren't some genetically-engineered space aliens (unless there's a plot twist to this story not hinted in the previews) and can simply accept a universe of animals the way we Furries do.
The plot twist is that all the character in Furtopia are merely avatar constructs being controlled by individuals behind keyboards in poorly lit dwellings in another world where people walk around furless...
Don't eat the red pill!
You may be missing the most interesting thing about this tactic in advertising; the fact that the movie is about a bunch of anthropomorphic animals with no humans in sight is the primary selling point. Has that ever happened before? Just thinking of this century's movies, Kung Fu Panda's main selling point, from memory, was Jack Black for the first one, and "it's the sequel" for the second one, Ernest and Celestine was advertised as "nominated for an Oscar" (if at all), and Chicken Little's main selling point, at least according to the advertising, seemed to be "it isn't The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
For comparison, here's the first Kung Fu Panda teaser trailer. While it certainly doesn't hide that it's furry like Zootopia is furry, it doesn't highlight it either. Whereas, just going from the trailer, we don't know anything about Zootopia except it features a cast of exclusively anthropomorphic animals, and probably the fox and maybe the rabbit are important characters. Yes, we know their names and exactly what their relationship is thanks to press releases, but if you only saw the trailer in the context of a movie theater, all you'd really get is "anthropomorphic animals."
Sort of off topic but does anyone else remember...gosh I think it was called "Forest Tale" or something like that...?
It had humans but the animals--mostly mice, moles and other small rodents, wore clothes and used technology and stuff; there was a gas leak/truck spill and one of the little ones got sick and the others had to go find something to help her, and at one point a mole got caught in a trap but conveniently lost all of his clothing before hand so when the human looked at him he was "naked"
I get a nostalgic urge to watch it again once in a while but it seems really difficult to find.
Here is “Once Upon a Forest”, which is probably your “Forest Tale”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbgMNzQ_Nw
Fred Patten
Ah yes, that's it! Thank you!
I belive that film also coined the term "Furlings" in lieu of "younglings" which is the most furry neologism that the fandom never uses.
We already have "cubs" - just as furry, and half the length.
That said, it's an running joke for everyone in the Inkbunny staff chat to be referred to occasionally as "{Name}ling" - but that's probably more to do with the founder.
@Sonious - And may God have mercy on our souls if we ever start.
@GreenReaper - Yeah, that word kind of comes with some baggage, furry-wise.
Already Rule 34ed:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/16801743/
Work Safe.
Let me guess: ;)
50 Shades of Fur
So, if our nerdy culture would be similar to that of Star War nerds or Trekkies shouldn't we, like, be planning to line up at theaters in fur suits or some shtick?
Yes, and at least one actually did that for Guardians of the Galaxy; though, unlike Trekkies, the guy called ahead to make sure it was okay, seeing as how coming in full Rocket Raccoon fursuit is a bit more difficult than showing up to the latest Star Trek in a Starfleet uniform (I guess stormtroopers would have the same problem, though). He took his fursuit head off to watch the actual movie.
I was there! (Or at least at one of the places someone was doing that.)
Alas, just had my $20 phone camera, but hey, you can get the idea.
Yeah, I think I was remembering another comment by you.
I actually saw the movie at a drive-in in Colorado.
It's so going to happen. They do it for non-furry movies around my parts!
Yarst! Doesn't anyone remember "Animalympics"? I won't cite the official movie release because Mark Merlino's edit of the two TV Specials is superior. But I thought that it had been played to death at furry parties, furmeets, and furry conventions since the '80s. Maybe it's time for it to be hauled out once more...
Fred Patten
Oh we remember it, Fred, but I believe the gentleman's point was fully anthropomorphic films that had been released theatrically. I don't believe that silly Animalympics compilation film ever was.
No, but "Animalympics" was originally intended to be released theatrically, before the U.S. pulled out of the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and Lisberger found that his theatrical distribution contracts were unenforceable -- unlike movies that are intended to be direct-to-video releases. Merlino's home-edited movie was obviously never intended for any kind of commercial release -- unfortunately, since I still consider that it can stand with the best of the all-furry animated theatrical movies. It's certainly better than the authorized home video movie that was commercially released.
Fred Patten
Something to look forward to (or not) is that for the past few years, virtually every animated theatrical feature from every major studio has had a merchandising tie-in juvenile novelization of 140 pages or so. (If it’s from Simon and Schuster’s Simon Spotlight juvenile imprint, it’ll be exactly 144 pages.) Some live-action features like “Tomorrowland” and “Guardians of the Galaxy”, too. Not just the non-anthro features like “The Book of Life” and “Big Hero 6”, but “Penguins of Madagascar” and “Planes: Fire & Rescue” as well. Do you consider the yellow minions of “Despicable Me” to be anthropomorphic animals? The novelization of “Minions” is already out.
These are all bland, but carefully written from the movie’s script. So you can count on it that around next February or March, there’ll be a “Zootopia” novel from the Disney Book Group. It’ll be written down for kids, and it won’t have anything that isn’t in the movie, but if you want a detailed plot synopsis and the names of every minor character that has a walk-on role, it’ll be here. Check out Amazon.com in seven or eight months.
http://www.amazon.com/Penguins-of-Madagascar-Movie-Novelization-ebook/dp/B00L01G...
http://www.amazon.com/Minions-Deluxe-Junior-Sadie-Chesterfield/dp/0316301604/ref...
http://www.amazon.com/Paddington-Junior-Novel-Jeanne-Willis-ebook/dp/B00IHZY4CU/...
http://www.amazon.com/Rio-2-The-Junior-Novel-ebook/dp/B00DB3D5IW/ref=pd_sim_351_...
http://www.amazon.com/Monsters-Junior-Novel-Disney-Group-ebook/dp/B009ZL3F3E/ref...
Fred Patten
A piece on how Zootopia is Disney's 2016 "B-movie," and that's not a bad thing.
The writer also notes its a bit odd that the movie feels the need to explain the concept of an anthropomorphic animal movie; I'm beginning to think it's just an excuse for Disney to use the word "anthropomorphic" to pique furries interest without actually dropping the f-bomb (never mind that they had us at "cartoon fox"). "Anthropomorphic" is a word used more than a bit totemically by the fandom; they're basically using it in a "signifier" way, i.e. a way to signal someone or something is part of a culture without someone outside of the culture being aware of it. Of course, this probably more of an "appropriation" for capitalistic exploitations reasons rather than a sincere desire to be part of the furry subculture, so don't get too excited.
Who remembers back to 1989 (?) when "The Rescuers Down Under" was going to be Disney's A-movie of the year, and "The Little Mermaid" was just something tossed off to keep whoever wasn't working on "The Rescuers Down Under" busy?
That said, whatever happened to "Silly Hillbillies on Mars"? I wanna see "Silly Hillbillies on Mars"!
It would be WONDERFUL if "Zootopia" does well enough that there's a sequel...
Fred Patten
That also seemed to be the case with The Lion King versus Pocahontas according to most animation lore I've heard.
I wasn't old enough to know about the anticipation talk for the two films. But I was old enough to know I like Down Under more than the Mermaid.
Even if at the time I didn't know I had particular biases which I would only understand later.
http://symphonic-rp.livejournal.com/234911.html
Here's a interesting take on the "Disney is targeting the furry fandom" spin which I can't help but agree with in many way.
Particularly this quote:
"This is just the latest Disney take on the old Funny Animal formula they've been using since before the inception of the company. The only new thing they're doing that is similar to fandom habits is that they are venturing to explain the concept of anthropomorphism, as if there was anyone in the world who didn't instinctively know what a cartoon animal is."
Oh, my gentle Jesus. I'm taking Peri missed episode 100 ... which I actually really liked (Doctor Hooves' scarf was the best moment of season 5 so far), but, oh, gentle Jesus.
Anyway, the whole "well, it's not that big a deal" thing a lot of furries have been doing is, well, you know what, it's worth breaking a pretty good streak and saying fuck you if you're a furry that thinks that way. You're the reason we can't have nice things.
This piece of fucking shit was posted to the furry Reddit site (also NSFW for boobies and violence, by the way), and I guess I'll just repost my post there, because I think it was actually clever.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go scream obscenities at the newest Pixar movie (tell me the trailers aren't sexist "women are like this, men are like this" newspaper comic strip hackwork, which is also where the premise comes from).
The problem is that it may be more coincidence than evidence that the use of the word 'anthroporphic' in the trailer is pandering to the fandom. We by far did not coin the term, so there a chance someone just used it on their own fruition and not with any other intent.
As Mr. Rhodes mentioned in their journal they would have to go futher to prove that they indeed are making it with the fandom in mind. He ends by saying that one way we can be sure is if they show up at Anthrocon of Further Confusion to promote their film. Or maybe the content of the film itself make some more internal references that only those within the fandom would understand.
If not, they are not pandering to us. It be more accurate to say they're pandering at us while maintaining their distance at this point at best, or just advertising using coincidental buzz words at worst.
But even if they do not is it not a net positive to have more furry works out there even, and ones using buzz words used by the fandom (even if that is just coincidental)? Absolutely.
There just needs to be more evidence before I can believe what many want to believe.
Will Furtopia be an "Episode 100" of MLP? It's very too soon to say.
Maybe Google the term "signifers" some time.
It's coded, man. It's "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, a nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse". It's the same thing yiff used to be; what's yiff? Oh, it's just the sound a fox makes. It's this emoticon, ;), except not at the end of the sentence, just implied. It's saying something without saying something. It's not saying it's furry; it's saying, "I didn't say furry. Nobody said furry. You said furry. Seems to me like you want it to be furry."
Jesus, it's a ridiculously important part of subcultures in general, and gay culture in specific (and it's a little bit late in the game to deny we're not heavily allied with gay culture). Yes, it's a bit passive aggressive, but, well, duh. This isn't rocket science. I'll be the first to admit if it quacks like a duck, and it waddles like a duck, and water flows off its back like a duck, it might be a coot.
But do you know the difference?
I guess I'm actually lumping two opposite complaints into one; the people bitching about how it happens all the time (it doesn't), and the people bitching about how it's not happening(it is).
What I'm saying is somebody gives you a blow job, you say thank you. Didn't your parents teach you manners?
While I would agree mainstream doesn't pander to the furry fandom all that much, if at all, and that in all cases the fandom finds the items they want to adapt of their own gumption and then claims it was 'made for them'. It's a only a theory at this point that this isn't what is happening here as well.
Yes, they used a buzzword. But that's the thing. Anyone can learn code words. And there are those that use them without realizing they're using them. Especially when they were words that existed before becoming said buzzword. "Yiff" wasn't really a word people used until furries made it a neologism. "Anthropomorphic" did before furries used it as the word you use to make unintelligent people want to leave you alone.
It that's the case that they just used anthropomorphic without knowing about furry then it'd be more like a blowjob where they go "Oh, sorry, that was actually meant for another target demographic."
This shouldn't stop the fandom, of course, from acting as if it isn't a coincedence. Even if Disney isn't targeting them, they should be supporting Disney as if they were as that would promote others from doing it in the future. And doing it somewhat tastefully may also be most helpful.
Perhaps getting local fur groups to call about to local theaters for the okay to show up in costume. Partial or otherwise.
I regret the blowjob metaphor. Let's agree to drop it and never speak of it again.
The main thing about the trailer is (and I've actually got links up in earlier posts actually comparing other trailers) why in the hell did they feel the need to explain "anthropomorphism," when none of the other, older movies felt that need? But this is a piece of marketing; this was created by people who do things for a reason. Unless the Disney trailer makers had a sudden surge of cynicism about the average trailer watcher's intelligence, why the hell else would they do this?
As a side note, since I watched Inside Out (boooring), I got a chance to watch the Zootopia trailer in the wild, as it were. Reaction was positive; kids really liked it, and I'll never argue that still isn't the primary audience.
However, the universe seems to want me to make this point, because while in between points, I was reading some super nerdy navel gazing about Doctor Who (because that's what I do on a Saturday night; life of the party, me) in which the author wrote this about Xena: The Warrior Princess (yes, I know I said it was about Doctor Who. It is, it's just also about Xena: The Warrior Princess for this bit.):
http://www.philipsandifer.com/2012/10/pop-between-realities-home-in-time-for_24....
So that's what I'm saying is happening, basically. Also, there's this quote from an earlier article:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/20/cannes-2015-disney-unveils-toy-story...
Never mind that, once again, Zootopia is using false advertising (The Little Mermaid had nudity), what does that sound like?
Also, that's just a really clever joke; it exploits the difference between "naked" and "nudity" in a way that points out that these aren't really animals, while still very clearly also being animals. They're being very subtle with how they are using anthropomorphism in a an adult context ... which, wait, actually, never mind. Subtlety in adult anthropomorphism?
Yeah, that's not very furry.
Disney has poked fun at the "nakedness" of their anthro characters before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePSZcF8yhkE Are you going to start arguing that Toon Disney is targeting a furry demographic because they're joking about toons being naked?
Also Pixar has always done a good job in making 'kid friendly toons that adults can enjoy with them' since Toy Story. No one is saying it isn't humorous or that the film isn't furry. The question here is whether it was made with the furry demographic being actually targeted, or if it just happens to be a anthro film targeted to general Pixar/Disney audiences. And that's still a bit blurry.
Time will tell as it always does. Hype is an important emotion to have, and there is certainly that to feel here. It'll probably be a good movie, regardless of the demographic it had in mind at its conception.
Because when it comes to content does really WHO its being marketed to matter as long as it's good? I mean if someone makes a magnum opus of anthropomorphism but hates the hell out of furrys, does that matter? This kind of goes back to the 'artist VS their art' argument.
I mean, let me put it this way, when you're eventually going to review Furtopia and Panda 3 is the fact that the former allegedly targeted your subculture going to impact your judgement on which is actually the better anthro flick?
No, no, no. I'm pointing out the "nudity" scene because the club actually sounds like an admittedly facile parody of furry fandom (I also just liked the nudity joke, but yeah, it's not actually anything new).
But anyway, that's a damn good question. I think the most honest answer I can give is I hope that they're both totally awesome and I never actually have to answer that question.
Of course, the final quality of the movie is debatable, but I'm saying, hey, we got a shout-out. And, you know what, if it's not a literal shout-out, but a wink, maybe that's better, in the end, because it says they're willing to play with us; whereas just going "hey furries!" would probably be eye-roll worthy as that "be-fur" pun (and bad marketing). Strangely, coming at us in a nervous, cautious sort of way is oddly endearing; and, they are Disney. They are the mainstream. They don't need us. And think about this possibility. What if they'd tried to define "furry" instead of "anthropomorphic"? Furries don't even allow other furries to try and do that; I know!
I'm just saying we just had a moment; an entity outside the fandom acknowledged the fandom in a respectful cool way, in a way that acknowledges our position as a viable culture of our own that they're just borrowing for a while, which means, oh, yeah, we get a new cartoon fox movie into the bargain in a year. How cool is that?
And, of course, furries ruin that by trying to play it off as cool with a "yeah, whatever."
It's just nice to be noticed in a positive way for once.
It's so cool to get a shout-out from Disney, and it totally is one, even if it's a modest bonus for a general-purpose movie.
I only have circumstantial evidence, but you have to live under a rock to make anthropomorphic cartoons these days, and not know what furries are, and not expect to be lumped in with them if you make one like this. Take it for granted they expect that. Look at the reaction from the public... it's saturated with furry recognition, all the comments on Youtube are full of it. Furry comments were the very first comments before it got millions of views. Disney always knew it would start that way.
Furries aren't just a tribe of committed fans, they also make negative potential. It can call for strategy not to make the -wrong- kind of furry movie. That's influence too.
I could say stuff about talking about furries with animation professionals, but I probably shouldn't, too revealing... It's fun to be a secret society. :)
If they did engage in conversation with furs, as you're alluding to, then I suppose that is that.
Fred's comment below is better than mine. But there is some minor furry awareness from movie professionals that has to do with the topic. Also this is a silly place to mention it but I totally got asked to be a cameo in the next furry force animation. I think crossie is on the mark with his comments.
Congratulations, Patch.
Fred Patten
You forgot to end that with a ? Fred :)
Haha :) They can try but I don't think a caricature could get as absurd as the reality. It's likely just background art though.
I'm not raining on your parade (that's awesome), but actually, this kind of goes with what I'm saying.
Before Zootopia's nod and wink, the nicest mainstream gesture at us was "Furry Force." And they were nice by making fun of us mostly accurately.
(Also, why are you always referring to Zootopia as "Furtopia," Sonious? Either that's a Freudian slip that kind of helps prove me right, or we never really disagreed and you were winking at me the entire time and I just got it, which would be kind of hilarious if you were, but it would also make me look like an idiot, so I'm guessing the first.)
Furtopia is the name of some furry site which I got stuck in there yes, so it was the former mostly.
I think they got the term 'anthropomorphic' all wrong in some way.
It sounded like that all if some anthropomorphic character is naturally naked but still walks and talks, it's no longer anthropomorphic (bullcrap) or if a creature walks on four legs but still has human-characteristics, it's no longer anthropomorphic.
And that of course, furry and anthropomorphic is the same. ... RIGHT?! >_o
As for this whole thing, I don't get why this subject had to be a big deal (I'm speaking toward anyone here including non-furries) because of media and crap. I mean, who cares if this was really made for 'furries'? And considering, while I believe they used 'furry' stuff before, it's possible that this is still a 'refresh' point that was inspired by our current fandom. I doubt it's only targeted at furries, but it's not bad (regardless of the majority) to include furries too. Even if this was just for furries.
I even heard 'concerns' about if at least one of the makers were a 'furry' too.. Seriously? Who cares? I don't get why 'big media' needs to be upset about other people who's different and likes to have there thing spread too? Is media just getting worse by that? Or is it just me...?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
We need to know whether to celebrate it as a triumph of subversion by one of our own, working from within, or to criticise it as a cynical attempt by Big Mouse to cash in on the furry subculture.
Why are you doing the "us vs. them" thing, again, Green Reaper? Why is Disney making money a loss for us? We get a movie; they get money. It's called win/win.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but, you seem like a guy who'd have the highly effective habits of seven people taped on your wall, but you're missing the whole "think win/win" thing, you actually seem to "seek first to understand, then to be understood" thing wrong (you kind of do bulldoze over certain things, and furries in general need to understand that saying "we're misunderstood" is not the same thing as helping someone to understand, which is also important), and you're missing the "begin with the end in mind" thing completely (you never really got back to me on that "what's your goal" thing in any way that could remotely be called satisfying).
I don't seem like the guy who'd be pushing self help books from the eighties, but, you know, if it works, it works.
I'm sorry, I was having a little fun; I didn't think anyone would take that seriously. :-) Obviously, it's cool to have new furry mass-media, and who cares if Disney makes a little on the side?
I once bought a self-help book on time management, but never got around to reading it…
Well, you had the bad luck of me searching old articles for links in the Ted 2 review; I wound up reading old arguments in article comments.
The purpose of it being for cash is often part of anything made for fans, like the more money they get, they can make more for fans. But I might see what you mean like in terms of 'Just for the sake of money without care' if I'm reading right. XD
Adding a message to an addition of my first logged in one here:
I kinda forgot to add one more thing as a reply to the OP of the thread under: "well, it's not that big a deal". I don't know why it's considered a problem to say that by him. I mean, by the whole media thing with this, I believe media really needs to stop taking it as a big deal regardless.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
If it is a an attempt to cash in they're already doing a better job of it then IMVU.
And this week's episode's alternative title is "YES, EVEN 'CUPCAKES'. Though we're being a bit subtler so I guess we should take the Caps Lock off."
(But, seriously, besides fan references, these two are knocking it out of the park on the British pop culture references.)
Furries have been inviting Disney writers and directors to furry conventions since, what, ConFurence 6 in 1995? Jymn Magon, the creator/writer of Disney TV’s “TaleSpin”, was presented with the ConFurence’s only Golden Sydney Award at ConFurence 7 in 1996. Yeah, I think you can say that Disney knows about furries.
Fred Patten
This picture of the Roy E. Disney Animation studio contains silhouettes of characters from Big Hero 6, Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph, I think Bolt and Judy, Nick and what appears to be a shorter, long-eared fox next to them.
So, probably an important fennec fox character ... or, let's go crazy, a bunny/fox hybrid!
It's not too crazy... I mean it's not Donkey/Dragon territory. :)
I might get some hate for this, but when I saw the trailer, I was very disappointed about how they defined 'anthropomorphic'. Like that they "must" 'stand on two feet', 'wear clothes' (not that I care, just the whole anthropomorphic point thing), and I think another thing but can't remember.
It creates a lot of stereotypes and it reminds me of the time these furry assholes went out and defined my favorite characters to "not" count as furry when it did. (Characters from A&O). Now it may make more people think furry as a limited trend now. And it really makes me mad.. God I hate Disney.
Anyway, I'm sorry if this rant upset some, but I was upset about how they did that. I may of course be overlooking at it and they didn't mean it. But I am not sure, they could be serious and it sounded a bit judgemental too. I even fear this film is actually going to be judgemental and even more stereotypical. Idk.. God I hope I'm all wrong.
Okay, so crossie has already listed most of the previous like "Fritz the Cat", "Robin Hood", etc. But by the time that the animated theatrical feature “Rock Dog”, set in a world of anthropomorphic animals without humans, will be released by Reel FX in Dallas on October 1, 2015 (in China; no U.S. release date scheduled yet); and the animated theatrical feature “Kung Fu Panda 3”, set in a world of anthropomorphic animals without humans, will be released by DreamWorks Animation in Glendale on January 29, 2016; the world of anthropomorphic animals without humans will be fresh in the public's mind by the time that Disney's "Zootopia", “Like nothing you’ve seen be-fur”, is released on March 4, 2016. (Not to mention the Argentine “Manuelita”; the French “Wolfy; the Incredible Secret”; the German “Ooops, the Ark is Gone”/“All Animals Big & Small”; etc.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDpua1tXD4Y
Fred Patten
Okay, so I finally got around to watching the trailer and reading the story behind Rock Dog, and, well, I'm so happy right now. I mean, it's got foxes with speaking roles; that's pretty much all I really ask for in a movie.
However, there are going to be just so many Whiplash jokes; apparently, you can't make a U.S./Chinese furry co-production without J.K. Simmons.
There appear to be a huge number of Chinese furry theatrical productions without any U.S. partner (most with monkeys or rabbits or bears, but without foxes; sorry). Take last month’s “Monster Hunt”, which has international animation-industry offices gasping because of its $46,000,000 box office on its first weekend alone – in China alone. Produced entirely inside China by a Chinese studio – but look at who directed it. Is China raiding DreamWorks Animation for personnel, or is this an unofficial friendly collaboration? DreamWorks is working strongly on getting Chinese partnership; look at “Kung Fu Panda 3”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbhsvxqoCG4
Here are some more Chinese furry 2015 releases; trailers and posters. Note the English language in the trailers; someone is hoping for U.S. releases, or at least U.S. direct-to-DVD sales.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQJMJjyF1wE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypG0ubVPx4U
http://movie.douban.com/trailer/175598/#content
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqovlTzY2_U
https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/wXKJ2iqEw8fgoY8tfv8QPigOPlh.jpg
This isn’t furry, but it’s about anthro door gods statuettes; the little ceramic (usually) cheap good-luck figurines that most Chinese homeowners have to protect their homes from bad luck.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBY_OJbPWX0
Fred Patten
This isn't really Chinese, and it isn't really a movie. It's a trailer for a video game. But don't we wish that there really was a movie!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvYXoyxLv64
Fred Patten
Grrr. One of these trailers has been taken down already. Okay, so here's the whole movie, then -- in Chinese; sorry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuzoIrWLfOc
Fred Patten
Post new comment