DAK “Zootopia” is being created for the Tree of Life theater

[marxoo]

Maybe I haven’t seen the movie in a while but how do we make the leap that Predators = minorities?

Because unfortunately, some people need their fictional metaphors to be spelled out for them exactly like real life for it to be relatable for them.

Kids are smarter than that. They’re going to understand that the predators and prey evolving to treat one another better doesn’t reflect poorly on them as a minority. They understand the meaning and relate to the characters’ arcs fine. Nothing about this attraction (or the sequel) will cause any subliminal harm.

That’s why people saying “Zootopia is problematic” upsets me, even if someone who likes the movie is pushing that. I feel it’s spreading an unfair misconception of what it truly accomplishes as an anti-systemic-bias piece of art.

 

[Professortango1]

Those problems you’re referring to DON’T EXIST IN THIS STORY. What is it going to take to get you to see that all of the issue with the animals aren’t meant to be a direct mirror on reality? There is nothing problematic here.

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you appreciate Zootopia 1, but you’re also accusing it of something it doesn’t even do.

But these problems do exist within the story. Hence the videos and articles linked. The movie leans into it. It's not like people trying to push a consent narrative into Snow White, Zootopia sets out to make statements about racism and falls into making some racist statements itself.

 

[DisneyHead123]

I know when I saw the movie in 2016, the allegory was pretty clear and the problematic parts of the allegory were readily apparent. Luckily I also found the movie to have good animation and great voice acting so I appreciated it despite its problems.

So I’m clear… are you arguing that Disney intentionally created a movie with the underlying theme you’ve described? Like they knew the theme was what you described (I’m not even retyping it) and said “Sounds good to me!” Or, alternately you think Disney animators are so deeply racist that’s how they feel and it accidentally slipped into the movie?

I just feel like if you actually think that about Disney animation (which I don’t) you should be beyond horrified and never watch another of their movies until the commit to change. That’s not an accusation I think you can throw out lightly enough to still say it’s a good movie and you enjoyed it. If you think that’s the message you should legit never, ever watch it again.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So I’m clear… are you arguing that Disney intentionally created a movie with the underlying theme you’ve described? Like they knew the theme was what you described (I’m not even retyping it) and said “Sounds good to me!” Or, alternately you think Disney animators are so deeply racist that’s how they feel and it accidentally slipped into the movie?

I just feel like if you actually think that about Disney animation (which I don’t) you should be beyond horrified and never watch another of their movies until the commit to change. That’s not an accusation I think you can throw out lightly enough to still say it’s a good movie and you enjoyed it. If you think that’s the message you should legit never, ever watch it again.

Why is doing it unintentionally and not knowing how it ties to old racist claims not an option?

 

[UNCgolf]

So I’m clear… are you arguing that Disney intentionally created a movie with the underlying theme you’ve described? Like they knew the theme was what you described (I’m not even retyping it) and said “Sounds good to me!” Or, alternately you think Disney animators are so deeply racist that’s how they feel and it accidentally slipped into the movie?

I just feel like if you actually think that about Disney animation (which I don’t) you should be beyond horrified and never watch another of their movies until the commit to change. That’s not an accusation I think you can throw out lightly enough to still say it’s a good movie and you enjoyed it. If you think that’s the message you should legit never, ever watch it again.

I don't think it's either of those -- I think the argument is that they were trying to tell a story about racism being bad but inadvertently included some potentially racist things.

I'm not making that argument, just wanting everyone to be on the same page.

More importantly, none of that really matters as to why Zootopia doesn't belong at Animal Kingdom.

 

[Professortango1]

So I’m clear… are you arguing that Disney intentionally created a movie with the underlying theme you’ve described? Like they knew the theme was what you described (I’m not even retyping it) and said “Sounds good to me!” Or, alternately you think Disney animators are so deeply racist that’s how they feel and it accidentally slipped into the movie?

Neither. I think it was made with good intentions. Song of the South and The Princess and the Frog both were made with good intentions but ran into issues where the films invertedly played into problematic racial arguments and ideas.

I work in theatre and a few years ago a very nice, but older, white director directed A Christmas Carol and cast the show with color-blind casting. Totally fine. But when interviewed, she kept talking about how progressive she was because she cast black actors in roles they wouldn't normally be cast in, "like Hamilton", and that it's so great that black people are able to play roles they would never be able to play if the show was being presented accurately. Needless to say, the interview made some of the people in the cast a bit uncomfortable as it was accidentally falling into a well-intentioned but fumbled message on inclusion and diversity.

Not a 1:1 comparison, obviously, but just trying to illustrate that something can be problematic without an intention to be or without the problematic elements being evidence of something sinister beneath the surface. The four white men who helmed Zootopia's writing and direction were trying to tell an empowering story about community and how racism is used to divide us, but they kind of fumbled the ball a few times.

 

[Ayla]

Because unfortunately, some people need their fictional metaphors to be spelled out for them exactly like real life for it to be relatable for them.

Kids are smarter than that. They’re going to understand that the predators and prey evolving to treat one another better doesn’t reflect poorly on them as a minority. They understand the meaning and relate to the characters’ arcs fine. Nothing about this attraction (or the sequel) will cause any subliminal harm.

That’s why people saying “Zootopia is problematic” upsets me, even if someone who likes the movie is pushing that. I feel it’s spreading an unfair misconception of what it truly accomplishes as an anti-systemic-bias piece of art.

That's a whole lot of words to say "I DON'T LIKE THEIR OPINIONS!!!!!!"

 

[marxoo]

Neither. I think it was made with good intentions. Song of the South and The Princess and the Frog both were made with good intentions but ran into issues where the films invertedly played into problematic racial arguments and ideas.

I work in theatre and a few years ago a very nice, but older, white director directed A Christmas Carol and cast the show with color-blind casting. Totally fine. But when interviewed, she kept talking about how progressive she was because she cast black actors in roles they wouldn't normally be cast in, "like Hamilton", and that it's so great that black people are able to play roles they would never be able to play if the show was being presented accurately. Needless to say, the interview made some of the people in the cast a bit uncomfortable as it was accidentally falling into a well-intentioned but fumbled message on inclusion and diversity.

Not a 1:1 comparison, obviously, but just trying to illustrate that something can be problematic without an intention to be or without the problematic elements being evidence of something sinister beneath the surface. The four white men who helmed Zootopia's writing and direction were trying to tell an empowering story about community and how racism is used to divide us, but they kind of fumbled the ball a few times.

No, no they did not fumble anything. I know that you don’t find it sinister and that you find the film enjoyable, that’s not in dispute with me. I guess my issue is how you keep using the word “racism” as the one way to interpret the metaphors in this film.

Like, I’ve pointed out to you multiple times how a variety of groups of people were able to relate to the characters and the story, and you keep ignoring that and acting as if the filmmakers inadvertently insulted minorities. This is why I always say “the author lives” over the contrary, because they already explained the animals don’t represent any particular group.

It’s blatantly evident, the animals are not coded to any IRL identity. Judy is not a stand in for a white person, or a black person, she’s a bunny. Byron Howard flat out said “other bunnies don’t care if you call them cute, that’s her preference.” Same with Nick, yes, a minority can relate to the discrimination he deals with, but he’s not black. He’s a fox. Likewise, Chief Bogo is not black or white or any real group’ stand in, and neither is the otter lady that Judy hugs . It doesn’t matter if their actors are black, they are bottom line, a buffalo and an otter. I think it’s a testament to the writing that kids and parents don’t have those sorts of hang ups when talking about it.

 

[marxoo]

Why is doing it unintentionally and not knowing how it ties to old racist claims not an option?

Because the story doesn’t do that, since none of the characters are coded to any particular group in real life. They don’t need to be specifically coded for it’s message to be effective.

To be honest (keep in mind I am a PoC, I don’t like having to throw that in, but, well), even if Nick and Judy *were* coded as black and white people specifically, (which they’re clearly not), I still wouldn’t consider it as that big an issue just because of the high quality of the writing.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because the story doesn’t do that, since none of the characters are coded to any particular group in real life. They don’t need to be specifically coded for it’s message to be effective.

To be honest (keep in mind I am a PoC, I don’t like having to throw that in, but, well), even if Nick and Judy *were* coded as black and white people specifically, (which they’re clearly not), I still wouldn’t consider it as that big an issue just because of the high quality of the writing.

I’ve said nothing about anyone being coded to anything. They don’t need to be either for “certain groups have dangerous innate tendencies” to be problematic.

 

[marxoo]

I’ve said nothing about anyone being coded to anything. They don’t need to be either for “certain groups have dangerous innate tendencies” to be problematic.

But I’ve already explained the multiple reasons why in this very thread on how the metaphors in this film are harmless. If you hate the movie, I can’t do anything about that, but don’t act as if Zootopia is something that Disney has to either change or take away.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Why is doing it unintentionally and not knowing how it ties to old racist claims not an option?

I don't think it's either of those -- I think the argument is that they were trying to tell a story about racism being bad but inadvertently included some potentially racist things.

I'm not making that argument, just wanting everyone to be on the same page.

More importantly, none of that really matters as to why Zootopia doesn't belong at Animal Kingdom.

I guess I can see that angle - my thinking was more “If an author tells you their work 100% does not mean ___, and you 100% believe them, well, ok - their work doesn’t mean ____.” If you’re saying they accidentally picked up on something of an esoteric reference (I say esoteric because this is Disney, they’re not clueless about pop culture), then I see what you’re saying.

 

[networkpro]

I’ve said nothing about anyone being coded to anything. They don’t need to be either for “certain groups have dangerous innate tendencies” to be problematic.

Is it code talk to describe obligate carnivores that must eat meat coexisting with obligate vegetarians ? Nope, it's just facts. Using an alternative vocabulary to gloss over intent in favor of implied nuance however is suspect.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Neither. I think it was made with good intentions. Song of the South and The Princess and the Frog both were made with good intentions but ran into issues where the films invertedly played into problematic racial arguments and ideas.

I work in theatre and a few years ago a very nice, but older, white director directed A Christmas Carol and cast the show with color-blind casting. Totally fine. But when interviewed, she kept talking about how progressive she was because she cast black actors in roles they wouldn't normally be cast in, "like Hamilton", and that it's so great that black people are able to play roles they would never be able to play if the show was being presented accurately. Needless to say, the interview made some of the people in the cast a bit uncomfortable as it was accidentally falling into a well-intentioned but fumbled message on inclusion and diversity.

Not a 1:1 comparison, obviously, but just trying to illustrate that something can be problematic without an intention to be or without the problematic elements being evidence of something sinister beneath the surface. The four white men who helmed Zootopia's writing and direction were trying to tell an empowering story about community and how racism is used to divide us, but they kind of fumbled the ball a few times.

Forgot to quote you in the above comment but that would be my response to what you’re saying as well.

 

[networkpro]

I guess I can see that angle - my thinking was more “If an author tells you their work 100% does not mean ___, and you 100% believe them, well, ok - their work doesn’t mean ____.” If you’re saying they accidentally picked up on something of an esoteric reference (I say esoteric because this is Disney, they’re not clueless about pop culture), then I see what you’re saying.

I believe that wraps back around to a key argument about Zootopia, it's not about animals doing animal things within a natural habitat context, it's about anthropomorphic animal like creatures with attributes only used as plot devices in human societies using a common vocal communication medium.

 

[Professortango1]

I guess I can see that angle - my thinking was more “If an author tells you their work 100% does not mean ___, and you 100% believe them, well, ok - their work doesn’t mean ____.” If you’re saying they accidentally picked up on something of an esoteric reference (I say esoteric because this is Disney, they’re not clueless about pop culture), then I see what you’re saying.

In my example from my own life, the director would tell you that she wasn't being problematic. The people of color in the cast disagreed. People can be problematic without a conscious effort to. Even while trying to say something positive.

And the filmmakers chose to make drug references in the film which tie to our lives. They chose to use phrases like "token" and "why don't you go back to the jungle" and "that's our word." They chose to make a film that discusses racism and make it clear that is what they were doing. But then by applying those ideas to animals in a prey/predator world, they failed to realize the full weight of what they were saying.

 

[Professortango1]

Because the story doesn’t do that, since none of the characters are coded to any particular group in real life. They don’t need to be specifically coded for it’s message to be effective.

To be honest (keep in mind I am a PoC, I don’t like having to throw that in, but, well), even if Nick and Judy *were* coded as black and white people specifically, (which they’re clearly not), I still wouldn’t consider it as that big an issue just because of the high quality of the writing.

I think what you're not grasping is that art is subjective. You can find nothing problematic with the film. That's 100% okay. Others can analyze the film and based on their perspective, they can find it problematic. I just had a full deep dive into this with Rocky Horror and trying to figure out how the material had aged for a modern audience.

Like for me, I cannot enjoy The Greatest Showman due to both the sanitization of Barnum and also the needless and completely fictional vilification of Jenny Lind, a real woman who's name is drug through the mud to make the real-life problematic Barnum far more sympathetic. Others love the movie because that doesn't bother them. I don't think they are wrong in enjoying the film as a fun diversion, but as someone who understands the history and what they are doing to it, it's an issue I cannot overlook, and it impedes my full enjoyment.

So yes, Zootopia can be problematic with its metaphors of racism and also be totally beloved by people of color. Both can be true.

 

[Advisable Joseph]

So yes, Zootopia can be problematic with its metaphors of racism and also be totally beloved by people of color. Both can be true.

No, if the problem is only in academia and the Internet, it is academia which has the problem, not Zootopia or Disney. You're applying the wrong framework.

There is a major difference between loose "allegory" (vague thematic similarity) and strict allegory, which I think your sources are ignoring to be provokative.

Also, the discrimination aspects owe much to Dr. Shakti Butler, who was considered Black growing up (see here and here) and her World Trust organization, which still uses Zootopia as an example of their work.

Prey going savage doesn’t include them trying to eat others.

Tell that to Judy's mom's arm, which became a rabbit snack!

...about animals doing animal things ..., it's about anthropomorphic animal...

Things can be both. See Ranger Rick.

 

[Professortango1]

No, if the problem is only in academia and the Internet, it is academia which has the problem, not Zootopia or Disney. You're applying the wrong framework.
.

I would think most analysis of art would fall under academia. The rift we see between casual viewers and seasoned critics in terms of RT scores illustrates that the general public is often not concerned with the deeper meanings in a film.

 

[communicorn96]

Whether any individual thinks the messaging is convoluted or ill-conceived the film's global box office was over a billion carrots.

It's easy to see why Disney would continue investing in it.