Animation Source Forums

Yes, but all of the animals, even if they are homosexuals, stay within their own species. I believe that Byron had thought about mixing animals (correct me if I'm wrong) at one point, but their research proved that animals of different species stay in one group. And I do believe they wanted to take a realistic approach to this film.

I don't get the argument for Clawhauser being homosexual; I wouldn't be surprised about Disney putting that in, but he clearly had the hots for Gazelle.

The way he talks, and the tone of his voice, makes him seem like a homosexual character. Whether or not that's the case, I don't know. As for Gazelle, I think he's just a huge fan of her. There's also Bogo who appears to enjoy her content.

I personally think this is just very suggestive of a deepening bond of friendship...a platonic one. In English (and especially American English) slang, "you know you love me" is just playful banter between friends. USUALLY friends of the opposite sex. Even relatives. But it can also be used between two people engaged in a romantic relationship. I don't think there is a sexual connotation in it. I just think people are reaching because they really want Nick and Judy to have a romance. However, it is obvious that Byron Howard (who is openly gay, which is perfectly okay) and Richard Moore made it very clear that there is nothing between them of a romantic nature, and simply couldn't be with any degree of depth, because they could never consummate that relationship.



Pink. Ugh. Again, this is reaching. Majorly. Just because people want something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so.

While I think it's quite probable--given Clawhauser's flamboyance--that he is meant to be a homosexual character, I still THINK, however, even as your linked article says, "Clawhauser, who works as a dispatcher at the Zootopia police department, is portrayed as camp and effeminate, though his sexuality is never confirmed."


I think that may be little more than him being a rabid fan of Gazelle. It is not unusual for homosexuals to be fans of pop stars of the opposite sex.

---------------------------------

But back to the rest of the "Pink" reference...

And as far as Bucky and Pronk are concerned, while it certainly may be suggestive that the two are a homosexual married couple (since they seem to share a hyphenated last name, and also appear on the surface to possibly be different species), even your link said, "Though their living situation is never explicitly confirmed on screen, eagle-eyed viewer have spotted a tiny confirmation that the characters are married. The film’s credits list them as Bucky Oryx-Antlerson and Pronk Oryx-Antlerson – with their double-barrelled last name appearing to suggest that the pair tied the knot to live unhappily ever after.", it COULD just be a bromance. Because, again, there is no confirmation even on Disney's Wikia page for the two very minor characters (http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Bucky_and_Pronk_Oryx-Antlerson). And Byron Howard (who, again, is openly gay) did voice Bucky. So maybe it's a nod to the homosexual community. And that's okay.

The thing is, the only place where it is inferred that the two are different species is on the Disney Wikia page for the movie (linked above). Not even the official credits, nor the imdb.com page for the movie, lists their species. And it is, in fact, possible that they could simply be brothers of the same species, and both oryx. Why? Well, the oryx antelope species (and subspecies) can have straight, scimitar-shaped OR spiral-shaped horns. And in the real world, even oryx in the same subspecies have unique markings (as do both Pronk and Bucky...who are the same color)...note the color drawing in the link (which is an accurate taxonomic drawing): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx#Ecology

So am I arguing that they aren't gay or a married couple? No. I'm simply saying that it hasn't been proven, nor even officially stated by the production team, or Disney itself, that they are two different species, or married, or gay (or anything else). It's been left open and unresolved.

I differ, however, with the LGBT community's excuse-making about homosexuality in animals (as noted in that same article, and since the door was opened, I'm going to follow it). Once again, this is humanity totally misunderstanding animal behavior and assigning human behavioral characteristics to it. Bonobos sometimes engage in same-sex intercourse as a tension reliever. They are also a much more peaceful species of ape because of it. It's not a love-based, same-sex attraction thing. It is used solely to diffuse hostility and stress in a troop. In other animals (even in dogs), it can be caused by simple dominance displays, or even a rather rough and (even in dog etiquette), in-your-face way of pushing for a response from another animal to hopefully initiate play...or at least SOME reaction. Which is not necessarily a good thing. In dogs, it can lead to aggression and even outright fights. It's NOT homosexual in nature. No matter how the left, or the LGBT community, would like to put a spin on it. And I will leave it at that, because I have nothing against the LGBT community, or the left, except when they try to use things like this to fuel a socio-political fire or to justify certain things to those who oppose their beliefs or lifestyles.

Not totally sure this is the place for discussing how the LGBTQ community and the "left" is allegedly "misinterpreting nature"... :/
This was a forum topic about Nick the and Judy pairing, can we please try to stay on topic?

I totally think there could be interspecies marriages. Love is often blind as they say lol.
I mean it's a fictional world and people will imagine as they will I suppose. Which is why the Nick and Judy pairing never bothered me. I don't have much of a reaction to it.

I think I've said about all I have to say about it in the context of the movie. I think pairing them would be a little too much and kill off too many good possibilities for too little good. Even if the Nick/Judy thing becomes canon, any fan fiction I do for the series will have them paired with OCs.

Not to fault Troll for doing so, but by providing a link that opens up a discussion of that topic and, thus, is an endorsement of those topics, it opens the door to discussion. Though I agree, socio-political discussions should not be broached here except maybe in the most general and mild sense, as they are a strong foundation of the movie's themes themselves. One cannot very well discuss this particular movie without bringing them up, even if only mildly. Otherwise we'll be dancing around what makes the movie what it is. And that will be very, very frustrating for a lot of people.


Everyone has their opinions on this. And that's okay. But "love is blind" does, after all, apply to humans, as it is a human aphorism...bound to the human world.

That being the case, wouldn't it be best to just stick to the themes as they are plainly a part of the movie (in which case I'm not sure that any of them touch on the relationship between Judy and Nick, whatever kind it may be), and avoid unnecessary and unwise speculation?

It probably would. Because otherwise we'll end up with a topic mired in argument and dissenting points of view, and very polarized opinion-making, then warnings, bans and topic locks being thrown around willy nilly. And I'm pretty sure nobody wants that.

But this movie does delve into those topics and, therefore, is (as even the Screen Junkies parody trailer called it) "a minefield".

Dealing with the main subject of this thread, I'm curious as to what people are calling "mixed signals" between Nick and Judy. There's the moment towards the end; the "You know you love me" bit of banter, of course, and I see one or two scenes which might be interpreted as potentially romantic, but if this is like most other situations of this kind that I've seen, I suspect that there are some bits I'm missing and some bits where people are making the facts fit their conclusions.

Bottom line: would anyone care to enlighten me as to scenes which they saw as mixed or romantic signals between Nick and Judy?

Think about it if their were paired. In the world of Zootopia could mammals of 2 different species be married? If so would they be paired? I don't know. If so maybe Zootopia 2 will be about Nick's and Judy's married life. Sure ones a Fox and the other the rabbit. But still maybe it could happen. If they ever wanted a kid. They would have to adopt a rabbit or a Fox kid.

Could you try to write a bit better? That was a bit of a mouth full to read... I mean no disrespect, but it's frustrating to have to stop and make sense of something.

I doubt that Byron and Rich would roll with the idea of pairing Nick and Judy (if they did, that would be a big deal breaker for me, and the idea seems boring and generic). If you look at the screenshots BaltoSeppala has provided on the matter, you will see that Byron only sees their friendship as just that. A close friendship. They also mention "going back to science". If something could be done in a way that makes sense scientifically, they would do it. As for adopting a child, that could happen, though I don't think it should. I'm a logical person, so I don't like to take things out of context. There is also NO evidence to suggest they have romantic feelings for one another. And besides what people want to believe because of what Nick said, they need to sit down educate themselves on the difference between romantic love and friendships.

That's already been resolved. Go back to page three of this topic, and then look about half-way down the page. You will see official answers from the movie's directors on this issue.

I read the thing that the directors of the film said. And that was cool that you've found that. We're you the one that asked that?

Nope. I just knew where to look. Thanks though.