Animation Source Forums

Don't look now, but I think we're an endangered species. You do give me an idea for a character, though.


True, but we are talking about a Disney movie here. Nobody ever said silliness wasn't a possibility (just look at Frozen).

Personally, I have my own view about fictional worlds. It's not codified or anything, but one might call it Conservation of Reality. Simply put, if something has not been specifically indicated to be different between a fictional world and the real one, then it's safe to assume that the rules from the real world relating thereto also hold true in the fictional one. For example, there's no sign of fairies in Zootopia, so it's safe to assume they don't have them there.

Come to think of it, The Wild shipped a squirrel with a giraffe, and that was purportedly set in the real world.

Oh don't get me started on that Disney disaster. lol I might get into trouble just for, you know, expressing my opinion.


What you're looking for is already officially "codified" in terms of literature and how it is interpreted and analyzed. It's referred to as "suspension of disbelief", and it is defined pretty much the way it ought to be (I've written about this in the crossovers fan fiction writing guide I created a few years ago on here, though I accidentally referred to it as "suspension of belief"): http://www.mediacollege.com/glossary/s/suspension-of-disbelief.html...one of the most fundamental concepts of this being, as quoted from the link:






Yes, but that's a completely different fictional universe...one, obviously, where the rules for the suspension of disbelief have obviously been thrown quite dismissively right out the window. I mean, have you even seen the Rotten Tomatoes rating for that (if we're talking about the same movie)? https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wild/ I haven't ever seen it (because I have zero interest in such things), but if the comments by raters are to be taken at face value, I am sure glad I never wasted my time to do so. And I REALLY hate very obvious rip-offs of existing movies...even of movies I wouldn't normally see. It's shocking to me that several very well-known actors took part in such a production.

Isn't it funny how a movie supposedly all about tolerance can have such intolerant fans? Talk about unclear on the concept, right? But yeah, the less said there the better.


I'm not surprised that it's already been codified, and yes, you make my point pretty well.


That's true. I actually considered a fanfic just to iron out the squirrel/giraffe silliness, though I ultimately found better movies to give the same approach (Stuart Little 2, for one).

Since some people tend to gloss over long replies to others' posts, I decided to point this out in a separate post: as a writer, I think one could get much more mileage out of Nick and Judy's particular brand of chemistry if they had separate love lives and each took playful jabs at the other's, rather than having a unified love life (I've seen one or two fanfics where such banter was attempted with them dating or even married, and it tended to get risque. Not saying Disney flat-out wouldn't go there, but is that really what anyone sane wants?).

To give an example from my own works in progress (partly because I've already tried and failed to find similar concepts by other writers), I have a vixen OC who hits it off with Nick. As I have it in mind right now, he and Judy pull her over for distracted driving when she gets a little too into her music on the highway. Later she and Nick cross paths by chance, and somewhere along the line Judy mentions to Nick that she saw him driving her (the vixen's name is Taeilia, btw) around. The resulting exchange is something like this:

Nick: And just what's wrong with that? This way she doesn't get in trouble for distracted driving.
Judy: [smirking] Okay, so who's taking care of your distracted driving?

Further humor may ensue with the two ladies occasionally teaming up to playfully pick on Nick, and with Taelia adopting the habit (learned from Judy) of calling him "Junior Detective," or just "Junior" for short. Now the name game worked well enough with Judy doing it herself, but do you see where I'm going with this? The idea of adding characters also opens up fun options such as girls' or guys' nights out, where writers could play a more fraternal angle.

I've seen one similar approach by another writer with Judy finding a prospective date of whom Nick disapproves, but in that one Nick's jealousy is his main motivation so I don't think it's quite as well pulled off as it could be.

See, now this is how I see their "relationship". Two buddy cops, and friends--with a common experience from their youth...of being bullied--Nick by prey animals, and Judy by predator animals. And both, as children, wanting so much to do good in life and for others, and be positive contributors to society. Only the end results of those youthful experiences are where their two lives diverge...Judy stays the course and holds true to her dreams. Nick, on the other hand, allows the terrible experience he went through to derail his goals, and he turns inward and jaded, towards darker and more selfish pursuits.

But there's plenty of potential for humor and playful snark (as initiated in the closing scene of the movie, while they're both on patrol), a strong bond of loyalty and friendship, etc. It would remind me of the best male-female buddy cop teams (including Benson and Stabler from "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit", and even private detectives Maddie Hayes and David Addison from the 1980s series "Moonlighting"...which starred Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis in those roles). This will be SO much better than the directors and writers, for any possible sequel, giving in to a certain element of the fandom and giving the two of them a romantic relationship. Which would utterly ruin it in my opinion...

...aaaaaand, since I consider myself quite sane, I certainly don't want any possible sequel(s) ruined by an inter-species romance! XD There is some hope of course (thank GOODNESS)...see below...






To address the topic more generally (and everyone involved or at least reading through it), I'd like to offer these screen caps from one of several recent interviews with Byron Howard and Richard Moore, two of the primary directors (and writers) of the movie. And how THEY answered fan questions pertaining to issues addressed in this topic. Their answers should be considered the final word on this, as they WROTE and directed the darned thing! (These were posted on an interview transcript on Quora):

...aaaaaand silence. Nothing like some scientific reasoning, even from Hollywood directors (rare though that may be) to quash alternative theories...of all kinds. ROFLMAO

Personally, I couldn't be more relieved that they said what they said. For the most part.

Oh me too. Their responses give me hope that they won't fall for the shipping fandom of these two. It would be a real deal breaker for me if that was ever to be the case! I like them much better as close friends.

Rather a relief - and it makes me hopeful that the sequels will contain the kind of witty banter I've been imagining.

You and me both.

I should clarify that what I meant about something no sane person would want was the prospect of witty, light banter getting bogged down in needless innuendo - although the inter-species thing is also of dubious sanity.

How very politically expedient (in terms of political correctness) for you to say that. lol

But it does make more sense the more serious way around. Because inter-species mating is not only of dubious sanity, but is biologically and scientifically a near impossibility (and indeed is an impossibility in most cases).

Buuuuuuuut this community will be what it is...

I can see them as both and I don't mind them as a pairing. Actually I see a strong love relationship hint at the end (Nick: "you know you love me" Judy:"(...) yes, I do.").
I'm NOT even gonna take up topic of interpecies breeding because I think it's absolutely not possible in Zootopia world, however in a world like this, I think it's also hard to believe that all animals keep only to their own species. There is even a subtly-added married gay couple (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/05/11/th ... missed-it/ Note - they are different kind of gazelles), so yeah I don't think that interspecies love is a problem in Zootopia.

That quote is sending a false message to a lot of people. While they may love one another, it's only platonic. It has nothing to do with romance what-so-ever. But I suppose that quote could also have been a sarcastic remark, though I don't believe that was the case.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/platonic_love.htm

As for the homosexual characters, I could see Clawhauser being gay, though I don't know about the antelopes. Just because they share the same last name, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're a couple. I'm not disagreeing here, but just wanted to add that they could either be siblings (even if they are not the same species) or cousins. I don't know why they would be living in the same place, though I suppose it could happen.

I'm not sure what homosexuality has to do with this topic, but I'm just going to go with logic and what the directors say.

It still sounded a bit too suggestive to me. As I said, I don't mind them being just freinds neither. I'm very neutral about their relationship, but I'm saying there are both posibilities.
As for the "gay couple" (since there's no official explanation except surnames, I'm not saying they are 100% confirmed couple) - just a little example that love doesn't need to be limited to the same species or about making babies. People are often arguing that Judy and Nick can't be a couple because their species can't breed. But they don't have to.