News: Jan 07, 2025 Show

Jan 7th: Small update to the Uploading Guidelines today: We now no longer allow paintovers of AI generated content. Or in other words AI generated content that has been edited to some degree by humans.

Dec 1st: If your account has been hit in the most recent ban wave of compromised accounts please reach out to us at management[at]e621.net and we'll help you get your account back.
If you've already contacted us give us a moment to get to you, though if it takes longer than a day for us to get back to you do feel free to reach out again!
Dec 2nd: If you got got and suddenly aren't able to see any of our exquisite selection of sausage and taco posts double check that Safe Mode is disabled in your account settings (Account -> Settings -> Safe mode [right above the blacklist text box]).

We still have a Discord server, come talk to us!
Want to advertise on e621? Click here!
Are you an artist uploading your own art to e621? Get verified now!

nick wilde (zootopia and etc)
Blacklisted (0)
Disable All Filters
  • Comments
  • Despite how shocking the concept of shock collars would have been if they saw their way to the final movie we enjoyed in the theaters, it still baffles me why Disney chose to scrap the concept of the collars. Kids these days, they don't know what a real scare from a movie is. Plus it would make for some pretty intense and interesting concepts that are not present in the movie.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 46
  • FantasiIFrittFall said:
    Despite how shocking the concept of shock collars would have been if they saw their way to the final movie we enjoyed in the theaters, it still baffles me why Disney chose to scrap the concept of the collars. Kids these days, they don't know what a real scare from a movie is. Plus it would make for some pretty intense and interesting concepts that are not present in the movie.

    Some writers said that shock collar was too "in the face" and unrelatable to the real world. I think the proper way to tackle this would be to start out with a relatively utopian setting before everything goes to shit, culminating in the use of shock collars, but the runtime would exceed well over 90 minutes so simpler premise.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 49
  • ChristopherWolf said:
    And the talking animals apparently weren't.

    Someone finally said "Gee, a movie with an oppressed caste that isn't allowed to get excited or even defend themselves in any way without being shocked into submission is a bit dark for a Disney movie." And they were right.

    It's a shame we lost Wild Times and Honey in the deal, though.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 33
  • Frankly, I have a much easier time believing that predator and prey would try to coexist of their own accord than the predators subjugating themselves like this.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 7
  • RobDollar said:
    Frankly, I have a much easier time believing that predator and prey would try to coexist of their own accord than the predators subjugating themselves like this.

    'subjugating themselves'. its cute that you think they would have a say in any subjugation. From the film we know that 'prey' outnumber 'preds'... by a HUGE amount. The preds wouldn't get a damn say in their subjugation. Because thats how subjugation works. by force.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 8
  • zenkitamura said:
    From the film we know that 'prey' outnumber 'preds'... by a HUGE amount.

    Yes, and would you know that if Bellwether didn't just outright SAY it? I'd wager that wouldn't exactly be common knowledge, especially in the earliest days of their civilization.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -3
  • RobDollar said:
    Yes, and would you know that if Bellwether didn't just outright SAY it? I'd wager that wouldn't exactly be common knowledge, especially in the earliest days of their civilization.

    Are you really trying to argue an outsiders viewpoint on a matter of internal politics and interspecies relations? THEY would know it easily, because THEY live in the damn world.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 2
  • RobDollar said:
    Yes, and would you know that if Bellwether didn't just outright SAY it? I'd wager that wouldn't exactly be common knowledge, especially in the earliest days of their civilization.

    Actually, a higher prey-to-predator ratio is accurate to real life. More prey = more food. More predators = less food to go around.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 14
  • FantasiIFrittFall said:
    Despite how shocking the concept of shock collars would have been if they saw their way to the final movie we enjoyed in the theaters, it still baffles me why Disney chose to scrap the concept of the collars. Kids these days, they don't know what a real scare from a movie is. Plus it would make for some pretty intense and interesting concepts that are not present in the movie.

    You kind of answered your own question. Can you imagine being a parent and having brought your child to see a fun, cute animation, only to then have to try to explain the concepts that are involved in the idea of there being shock collars on all the predators?

    Can you imagine the fallout and lost sales because of that getting around? All the outcry over concepts of racism and social segregation? Now stop for a moment and remember this isn't a movie that was meant to scare children or provoke thoughts in adults. It was simply a fun concept about how animals night form a society and the hijinx they get up to.

    Asking for Disney to try to scare kids in order to... what? Kids don't need to be scared by stuff like this. From a purely adult, furry mentality it *might* have made sense to give the movie some grittiness. But at the end of the day, it wasn't meant to have any grittiness or engender fear.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 10
  • ChristopherWolf said:
    And the talking animals apparently weren't.

    Misssing the point I see. Talking animals was the concept. Intelligent, talking animals forming a society and a city, then 'doing stuff'. You're probably a furry if you're looking at this; how old were you when you saw your first furry character? Eating cereal? Watching a Geico commercial? Did you never play 'horsie' with your dad or mom? Never get a 'piggy back ride'? Animal anthropomorphism is easy for kids to relate to.

    Now try explaininf intense social situation like one type of animal being forced to wear collars that hurt them in order to be part of the larger society, with all that that concept entails. Hopefully, you can see how that would be much, much harder.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 8
  • zenkitamura said:
    'subjugating themselves'. its cute that you think they would have a say in any subjugation. From the film we know that 'prey' outnumber 'preds'... by a HUGE amount. The preds wouldn't get a damn say in their subjugation. Because thats how subjugation works. by force.

    This makes no sense. And as you put it, it's 'cute' that you think preey would subjugate predators due to numbers. Predators at their very basic level are bigger, stronger and come with built in weapons for preventing their own subjugation. The concept that numbers would really factor into it is silly as well.

    Consider this: How did the prey GET so numerous? It's because, just as in RL, the predators willingly stopped preying on them, so their numnbers grew. If they hadn't done this, the natural balance would have continued, and the number of prey animals would be reduced, along with an increase in the number of predators. When there is a surplus of food, young ones tend to thrive.

    The fact is, the predators willingly turned to other food sources to feed themselves, allowing both for the prey types to rapidly increase in number, and to allow themselves to socialize with said prey without constant fear. ...And if you think of it, even with that being the case, the mayor was STILL afraid enough of them to try framing them as mindless killers.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 5
  • zenkitamura said:
    Are you really trying to argue an outsiders viewpoint on a matter of internal politics and interspecies relations? THEY would know it easily, because THEY live in the damn world.

    Yes I am. Same as you, and everyone else commenting here. Most prey animals don't have offensive capabilities. If most prey animals rely on hiding, camouflage, and the like to survive, it's not that much of a stretch to imagine they'd see the PREDATORS as having the upper-hand, regardless of numbers.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -5
  • chaopz said:
    Some writers said that shock collar was too "in the face" and unrelatable to the real world. I think the proper way to tackle this would be to start out with a relatively utopian setting before everything goes to shit, culminating in the use of shock collars, but the runtime would exceed well over 90 minutes so simpler premise.

    In my eyes thats just a lazy excuse to avoiding the shock collars. Sure, they would be unrelated to our world, but shock collars would not appear alone in a movie. If they were to have the shock collars in any actual movie, they would almost most certainly have made it be so that the shock collars is just the tip of the ice berg that is the hatred prey would have towards predators. They would not even have to resort to starting out with an utopian setting. There are so many ways they could have made the shock collars relatable to our real world. Shock collars would just be a safety measure intended to keep the predatory population in check. What would relate the story to our world, would be the attitudes and opinions the prey population would have towards the predators.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • this reminds me of that one south park episode where Cartman gets the shock chip embedded in his brain and gets super powers from swearing.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
  • FantasiIFrittFall said:
    Despite how shocking the concept of shock collars would have been if they saw their way to the final movie we enjoyed in the theaters, it still baffles me why Disney chose to scrap the concept of the collars. Kids these days, they don't know what a real scare from a movie is. Plus it would make for some pretty intense and interesting concepts that are not present in the movie.

    Im sorry but have you even watched the jungle book remake? a friend took her grand kids to see it and they were horrified as was everyone else!

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • sergal239 said:
    Im sorry but have you even watched the jungle book remake? a friend took her grand kids to see it and they were horrified as was everyone else!

    I have not seen that movie and I got no intention of seeing it in the theater. I will probably wait for it to be released on Blu-ray. I am not wasting my money on watching a Hollywood remake of a movie that already exists.

    And my point still stands. Kids takes no harm from being scared. In fact, scary and borderline horrific movies or other forms of medias are the kind of experiences which children remembers the most. A notorious example of this from my own country, is the infamous live action musical of Captain Sabertooth that was set up back in 2000. That thing was a fucking monster, it contained a ton of pyrotechnics, tons of villains and a witch, and it was literally made to scare the living craps out of the kids. In fact, it was so scary, that many parents found it necessary to leave the show halfway through. Despite the play being heavily criticized and dozens of complaints, and even demands for refunds, the show remains unrivaled in terms of its legacy. Numerous plays with a lower scare-factor has since been made and played, but none of them can even come close to the fame and attention that the 2000play managed to gather up.

    So yeah. Despite how controversial it can be, in my opinion, being scared is nothing bad for children.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • Bellweather's regime was probably aiming for this in the "bad ending".

    FantasiIFrittFall said:
    And my point still stands. Kids takes no harm from being scared. In fact, scary and borderline horrific movies or other forms of medias are the kind of experiences which children remembers the most.

    "Fairy tails do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed." โ€“ G.K. Chesterton

  • Reply
  • |
  • 5
  • chaopz said:
    Some writers said that shock collar was too "in the face" and unrelatable to the real world. I think the proper way to tackle this would be to start out with a relatively utopian setting before everything goes to shit, culminating in the use of shock collars, but the runtime would exceed well over 90 minutes so simpler premise.

    Yet somehow they think a movie that pretends that cops don't ever target minority groups or treat them as criminals somehow is?

  • Reply
  • |
  • -5
  • lionmark23 said:
    Yet somehow they think a movie that pretends that cops don't ever target minority groups or treat them as criminals somehow is?

    Gonna be a yikes outta 10 from me chief.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -1
  • chaopz said:
    Some writers said that shock collar was too "in the face" and unrelatable to the real world. I think the proper way to tackle this would be to start out with a relatively utopian setting before everything goes to shit, culminating in the use of shock collars, but the runtime would exceed well over 90 minutes so simpler premise.

    Honestly i think they should make a more adult / young adult oriented show that dives into the darker aspects of the zootopia world seperate from the movie

  • Reply
  • |
  • 2
  • lionmark23 said:
    Yet somehow they think a movie that pretends that cops don't ever target minority groups or treat them as criminals somehow is?

    uh no, that was a major part of the movie, discrimination and racism in law enforcement and society, etc, that was the biggest theme in the movie, aswell as stuff like narcotics abuse, organized crime, government corruption, it was definitely pretty blatent about police injustice

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
  • Over 18?

    You must be 18 years or older and agree to the terms of service to access this website.

    Content that is commonly considered objectionable is blacklisted by default. You may remove tags from this blacklist using the corresponding menu item.