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

[Professortango1]

Keep in mind Zootopia was the Best Animated Feature in the African-American Film Critics Association Awards 2016.

Also, Disney likely ran surveys about this topic, so any apparent offensiveness is mostly an Internet and academia phenomenon, people watching the movie with the wrong frame of mind being amplified by echo chambers.

Don't worry.

EDIT: I think this is still on-topic because it goes to the suitability of Zootopia for US Disney Parks.

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.

 

[MisterPenguin]

It's a deep dive into atavism.

 

[marxoo]

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.

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.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They literally say in the movie that all species can go savage. It was just used against the predators only. You not understanding the message of the movie kinda strengthens the movies point imo.

All animals going savage has the same overall effect. It’s similar to someone being drugged. Judy’s uncle attacked her mother and went crazy.

The Animals “primal” state is just how they naturally behave in the wild and anyone who knows herbivores knows they can be just as viscious as predators.

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

 

[mickEblu]

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

 

[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.