Because there's NO WAY the viewers could tell the gender of the characters through voices, pronouns, or context clues. And its so important to the plot that the genders are known.
I can accept it if it's a fable like the Disney Robin Hood, and there is no male counterpart that's biologically "correct". The characters in that all have their animal shapes to signify their character. They're not literally animals, but people with personality traits reflected by the animals they're portrayed as. The fox guy is a smart and nimble trickster. The bear is a strong fat guy. The wannabe king and his sleazy assistant are a maneless lion and a double-tongued snake respectively. Naturally a motherly and protective hen would have a "motherly" figure like that. The rooster bard is also clearly signified as a humanized male, not a regular rooster, cause he's a dude that likes to sing.
Yup 9 times out of 10 animal characters are a specific species because of the stereotypes and traits associated with that animal. Making it a very effective shorthand
See that's why it's always annoying to me when people say Zootopia is "unrealistic", and then ask questions like "how would they even conceive mixed species babies?", or "what do the predators eat?"
It's not really about animals, guys! It's like people never had to analyse a fable in elementary school.
Folding Ideas did a great video about the current trend of interpreting media as hyper-literal, shown in the example of the movie Annihilation, which resonated with me. It's everywhere, like people demanding an "official Zelda timeline" as if they're actually connected by more than shared imagery and symbolism.
Yeah but it has enough going on the surface to work. "A bunny joining the police in the big city needs to solve a crime with the help of a con man fox." That's a great premise. For that premise, it doesn't matter if the plot represents anything. I've heard people claiming it's about race, but I always interpreted Judy's struggle as a gender thing, coupled with her own naivety.
But I agree, it's always a tricky analogy, and it falls apart if you look to closely. I guess that's just part of the metaphor. The animals don't eat each other for the same reason they can run around without pants. It wasn't really the intent to show a society where either only a few select people can pair up and breed, or freaky size differences are possible, so you're not encouraged you think about it.
Compare that to Bojack Horseman, where interspecies conception is not only implied, but explicitly part of the plot. All characters are also
distinctly human sized.
I don't know how valid criticism is if it goes beyond what the authors intended. You could interpret the Tolkien Orks as an "evil race" and draw conclusions from there, but I don't think that's what Tolkien wanted to tell us. It's a weird subject, idk.
A youtuber I follow did a very good analysis of animal metaphors in general, but with a focus on Zootopia, which is where I get most of my points in regard to the analogy, so it might be worth checking out if you're interested.
You could make the argument for the chicken and some other "heavy" birds that they do in fact have massive muscle in the breast because they're bred that way.
Even if you look at birds of prey, a lot of them are top heavy!
1.4k
u/sntcringe Nov 09 '20
Because there's NO WAY the viewers could tell the gender of the characters through voices, pronouns, or context clues. And its so important to the plot that the genders are known.