The funny thing is that Nick WAS originally meant to be the protagonist, but this was changed because he was too cynical of a character to make the audience want to save the city and not just him. I have to agree that, for what the final film was, Judy fit the role a lot better. That said, if there is a sequel (and there is certainly room for one), I would definitely like a shift of focus onto Nick, and by extension, Finnick. I think him having to deal with all of these massive changes to his life, now that he\'s suddenly on the other side of the law, would be even more interesting.
Really don\'t get why you thought it needed birds and reptiles though. What, the entire class of Mammalia isn\'t diverse enough for you?
Not enough for the predator/prey dynamic, or at least, that dynamic wasn\'t as well-thought out as it could have been. For example, bovine are actually omnivores. They\'ve been known to eat small birds and whatnot. Then of course back to birds and reptiles, we know very little about how they fit into this society. I mean, for one thing, given the amount of research the filmmakers did, it seems odd that somehow birds, given their smarts, apparently did not achieve human-level sentience. After all, the whole premise of Zootopia is that humanity never happened.
Onto Nick, he could have been like a villain protagonist, and one of the ways those work is that they become the heroes. Take Charlie B. Barkin for example, he worked and in any other cartoon, including Zootopia, he\'d be a villain.
Considering how insanely difficult it would be to implement birds and reptiles into the city, having a radically different lifestlye from every other resident, I would think that even if they DID exist, they\'re much better off having their own cities instead of trying to live in a mammal one. That\'s not so much segregation as accommodating physical needs, the same reason why residents of Tundratown probably don\'t visit Sahara Square very often. There are 64 different animals created for the movie. You need exactly two to make this premise work. If the entire population of Zootopia was foxes and bunnies, it still could\'ve worked, it just wouldn\'t have been nearly as interesting.
That role might\'ve been good for Nick, I\'m not arguing that, I just think the final version was better.
You can take those forgettable pieces of half-baked, off-brand fluff, and you keep \'em. Entertaining any kind of comparison of quality between Disney and/or Pixar, and Dreamworks and/or other third-rate animation producers, isn\'t something any person over the age of ten ought to be wasting their time on. That\'s a surefire sign to begin hopping out of a review if e\'er there was one. Thanks for the early warning. If I were any less professional I\'d have quit reading there but here we are. Thanks for nothing.
Bastard 1, I\'m going to blunt, shut up. You really don\'t know what you\'re talking about. Berseker 88, you\'re forgetting that mammals live not only with other mammals, but with reptiles and birds as well, and bugs but apparently bugs are non-sentient in Zootopia so there\'s that. Point is that bird citizens in the rainforest district would do just as fine as their real world counterparts, for an example.
Not so sure about that. Real life birds and mammals living together in the wild is one thing. Sentient birds and mammals sharing an urban environment that\'s expected to accommodate their every need while not getting in each other\'s way is another.
It can still work Berseker; all it takes is the right amount of imagination.
I mean...I can\'t argue that. It\'s just that this movie has such a supreme abundance of imagination already that I find complaining about any lack of it to be a bit nitpicky.
You lost me a Frozen being a disappointment, which leads me to believe you may be full of shit.
This isn\'t the only review to favorably compare Zootopia to Frozen. The first line of marinahat\'s review derides Frozen as \"simplistic\" for saying that \"love conquers all.
I wouldn\'t go so far as to suggest that The Real Yuma is \"full of shit,\" but as someone who definitely enjoyed Frozen, I disagree with the assertions made about it, and found them to be largely unnecessary, since the review is about Zootopia, not Frozen. Perhaps those who disliked Frozen for the reasons the reviewer did might find this useful, but it\'s hardly useful to those who haven\'t seen it, or those who liked it (quite a large group, perhaps more so than TRY realizes).
Berserker, it\'s not about a lack of imagination, but the fact is that more would have only improved it. Valonia, I barely even mentioned Frozen.
Again, I can\'t really say otherwise. I just didn\'t find it necessary, that\'s all.
Bastard 1, comments like yours are part of the reason Disney fans get a bad reputation. Try to actually watch any of the successful Dreamworks films (Kung Fu Panda, How To Train Your Dragon, Prince of Egypt, Shrek 1 & 2, The Croods) etc. before you call them 'forgettable'. Or alternatively watch Chicken Little, Home on the Range or Cars 2 before claiming Disney/Pixar 'always' does better. Christ.
Hey wait, Lancelot, which films were those Disney/Pixar films competing with though?
\"It can still work Berseker; all it takes is the right amount of imagination.\"
But the question is \"what would the point be?\" If you introduce too many dynamics it runs the risk of interfering with the story. As it is, the movie is extremely tight, which works in its favor. Adding details just for the sake of adding details can bog down a movie and get in the way of the plot and themes.
Fanfiction I hate.
Pannic, if anyone can add more details without it getting in the way of plot and themes, it\'s Disney. Besides, think about this: what would happen to those who are both predator and prey (yes, there are even mammals that fall under both categories). Would they not be outcasts, rejected by both sides?
if anyone can add more details without it getting in the way of plot and themes, it\'s Disney.
That\'s... not an answer. At all. A movie like this doesn\'t include shit unless it furthers either A. the story, B. the humor, or C. the marketing. Your suggestion that they add more animals or put more details in with regards to animals that are both predators and prey (by the way, the movie had very, very little with regards to predators discriminating against prey, meaning your question doesn\'t really hold a lot) means you would have a radically different plot. To wit, you would need a third main character, which makes things a lot more complicated when you\'re writing a buddy cop movie, a genre that generally tends to focus on two main characters who bounce off of each other. Having three main characters means you have to divide more time between them, as well. It doesn\'t just take \"some imagination,\" it would take considerably drastic re-writes.
Fanfiction I hate.
Plus, the movie already HAD drastic rewrites, for the better I might add. Note the large amount of characters and locations that had to be removed just to make the actual movie work. There\'s a limit to how much you can add before things start getting seriously cluttered, and two more entire classes of animals is adding a LOT.
Gee Pannic and Berserker, way to not look at the whole thing. You both overlook that my suggestion wouldn't necessarily end up as a long sequence. It could have been placed in the movie as a short segment during the predator/prey tension high point. After all, it's worth noting that the Belly of the Beast part was quite short, and I dare say, it was too obvious that Nick and Judy would make up.
Um...duh? Unless you\'ve never seen a movie before, of course you knew that Nick and Judy were going to make up. That didn\'t make the actual scene any less touching. I agree that it perhaps could\'ve been a bit longer, but that is not the way to do it. What I thought could have been added was more time with Judy and her folks. You know, an actually meaningful addition to the plot.
If it\'s not going to be a long sequence, then what\'s the point? You don\'t show something as huge as another class of animals and just leave it as a ten-second clip or something. Especially when that kind of thing still could have added MONTHS to the production time! Talk about a massive waste of the animation budget too, which you seem to think is endless. Either save it for another movie/spinoff or don\'t do it at all. Yes, it would have been cool. No, it would not have been worth it, or even feasible.
I swear, if you respond with another cop out answer like \"If anyone can do it, Disney can\" or \"It just takes more imagination\", I\'m done. -_-
Leave a Comment:
A hop up from Frozen
Let me start out by saying that Frozen left me so disappointed that I actually saw the leaked version online before watching it in theatres. Both ended up looking superior to Frozen. Well, that's enough harping on Frozen for now, onto the actual review.
This movie is without a doubt a good one, perhaps even a great one. This is the best that I have seen from the new Disney, or at least the best computer-animated film I've seen from them.
The first thing to note is that although it's well-animated, I've seen superior animation. However, what it lacks in flair it makes up for in design. The production design is astounding, and this is best showcased during the train ride to Zootopia. Then there's also character design, the animals are designed to great detail, every furry bit. There's even a 2D aesthetic to some of the characters' design, like the pigs who like much like 3D versions of the pigs from HOTR.
Zootopia has taken cues from Kung Fu Panda. Judy fails at the police exams at first, then after a (short) training sequence, she manages to use her bunny abilities to make up for small size. And then there's her parents unintentionally giving her the answer she needed. However, Judy and the police exams, it isn't as strong as Po mastering kung fu. The training sequence is significantly shorter and it doesn't show her trying to build on her strengths as Shifu did with Po.
Judy Hopps is a very likable protagonist. She's well-written, relatable, idealistic, and never once comes off as obnoxious. Nick Wilde has Jason Bateman's acting to his credit, a sarcastic demeanor with charm and wit to it. The two make a great duo whether they're actually working well together or not. However, after seeing Nick's backstory I'm left wondering whether or not Nick would have made a better protagonist.
The script was constructed quite well and Byron Howard added a balance to Rich Moore. The latter's resume includes very non-Disney stuff.
As good as the movie is, it's not without its shortcomings. Finnick should have been developed more. Even the season 4 finale of Boondocks gives more time for Tiny Lister to shine. The villain is under-developed. We never get a complete sense of who they are. Adding a backstory would have fixed this, perhaps make the villain a Shadow Archetype to Judy? The villain isn't a simple one like Ratcliffe. Zootopia is predictable at times and not without its share of cliches, which do include the Godfather references (these things are as overused as parodying The Matrix). Then there's the themes. Honestly, they would have been stronger if there were at least sentient birds and reptiles.
Not a big thing, but although Michael Giacchino's score is good, I would have gone with Alan Silvestri or Randy Edelman.
While Zootopia definitely has more of that Disney magic than Frozen, Wreck-It Ralph, and even Tangled, I still prefer the competition to Disney. Give me Cloudy, Panda, Despicable Me, even Metegol and Mune any day.