So what's the /co/nsensus on this? Caught the film. Thought it was good, but given the gaps between films I expected more. Felt a little like a DVD sequel with a big budget
To expand, there were quite a few things that just didn't seem to work for me, but I'll concede my memory of the 1st isn't great. I wasn't a particularly big fan of the film retreading a lot of the same beats from the first film. Judy trying to prove herself again felt a little unnecessary as a plotline when it was so central to the first. And in practice it makes for her being a completely reckless terrible partner who doesn't listen to Nick's input at all and causes wanton destruction. It gets worse when she shuts off her earpiece while on an actual case. She veers on becoming unlikeable. It's just off and the film makes out more as if they're terrible to each other because Nick makes some snide remarks now and again. It makes their splitting up feel a bit forced, and again it happened already in the first. Also are they gonna fuck or whatThe moment to moment writing is mostly good, but I found the overall plot a little dull and lacking intrigue compared to the first one too. imo it had a similar problem to Frozen 2, where they start delving into the history of the land, but I never saw much of a reason I should be invested in said history when I only found out about it 20 minutes ago. Same with the villains, fun twist but none were particularly memorable. They stand out more for their renown brutality as opposed to anything we actually saw them do. Snake guy is cool, though his warming up with Judy scene was really cheesy. Podcaster chick's aight. Overall liked it, but I dunno, expecte more. I should note it's the first Disney film I've watched in years. I just struggle to see any way in which this film stood out. The first one did even when I was years late to watching it.
Oh wait it's called Zootopia everywhere else
>>151850822It's highly satanic because it has SNAKES. It0s just made to upset christians
>>151850822-2 grievences with the movie1, the main appeal for me with the first one was that it took worldbuilding seriously, which is something a lot of anthro worlds disregard as "its just a cartoon, don't think about it">The unity between species being birthed at a watering-hole, whith a zebra and lion tribes declaring peace?gold>The city center (city-hall, train-station, police-sation, museum) all around the same historic watering hole?Gold>Actually adressing that predators are carnevorous and omnivorous and can't actually survive on plants alone, and add non-sapient food-sources for them with Fish and Insects and now in the 2nd one even Crustaceans?GOLDwhiiich is the reason the second movie isn't that good. It's not bad, but I feel like they took too many liberties with how they could retcon things to force reptiles and snakes into the setting.There are too many mammal-specific languages in Zootopia "ladies and gentlemammals" "burning mammal festical" and the first movie uses "animal" and "mammal" as synonyms for "people"... but with the second movie retconning reptiles to be sapient too, it felt like mammals are all extreemely racist and dumb.This is suppose to a be a MODERN animal society, not just 1 magical city on the planet, there suppose to be hundreds of thousands if not millions of smaller cities, towns and villages all around the world, for specific species, like Bunnyburrow and Podunk is for Rabbits. And really NOBODY know anything about reptiles? Don't reptiles have internet and computers? Have a mammal really never stumbled on a snake youZoober or something? Or mammals are so condescending to reptiles they just day "dear ladies and gentemammals" like "dear fellow white americans". Its really hard to ignore or accept, and just makes the retcon more obvious. I really wish they would've ironed out this entire thing better. They sidewaved too many problems. -cont
>>151852291 (You)2, WildeHoppsI am a hardcore shipper, and while I appriciate a slow-burn romance, this is too slow. 9 years of waiting, was too much for the sequel only pick up 1 week after the first movie, and for it to end with another "up for interpretation" situation. Yeah, now Jared and the voice actors are all happy being coy saying "maaaybe zootopia3 can be about love" but was it really necessary to delay a confirmation, if you are teasing it like that already?The movie intentionally raises romantic tension with jelous boyfriend moments from Nick, with the symbolism with the hearts, love songs and locations and disguises, and then it DOESN'T RESOLVE that tension. Maybe a "first kiss" is really too soon, but couldn't we at least have a confirmation of some sort? Judy's parents calling Nick her boyfriend and her not correcting them or them living together without saying that they are "just roommates" or ANYTHING. Why did it have to be so damn ambiguous again?That detracts from the enjoyment of THIS movie in itself, because the resolution to it is now in the NEXT movie. That wasn't necessary. Even with a small confirmation that they are a couple, people still would've showed for Zootopia3 to see where the relationship goes, how will the famalies react, how will they adjust their work-life, do they keep it a secret from Bogo or is he allowing it? A confirmed romance would've raised even more questions that people would be excited to theorize about, instead of just being frustrated with it that we didn't get a confirmation. The movie is unrewatachable for me, because they wanted to please both the shippers and thoset that want platonic friendshipBUTWithout confirmation, you ONLY please those that want platonic friendship, they are the only ones that get what they want.
>>151851530Is this an actual thing people are complaining about
