Talk:Zootopia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016[edit]

The cinematographer section in the info box currently contains just "Thomas Baker". It should actually contain "Brian Leach, Nathan Warner, and Thomas Baker", who are listed in the credits of the film as Director of Cinematography: Lighting, Director of Cinematography: Layout, and Stereo Camera, respectively.


198.187.190.1 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MediaKill13 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2016[edit]


The cinematographer section in the info box currently contains just "Thomas Baker". It should actually contain "Brian Leach, Nathan Warner, and Thomas Baker", who are listed in the credits of the film as Director of Cinematography: Lighting, Director of Cinematography: Layout, and Stereo Camera, respectively.

The verified credits for the film can be found on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2948356/fullcredits/

Brian Leach is listed as the Director of Cinematography Lighting for Zootopia on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0494813/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr189

Nathan Warner is listed as the Director of Cinematography Layout for Zootopia on IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1063453/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr266

Brian Leach and Nathan Warner are also listed with the above titles in the credits for the film itself, at 1 hour, 37 minutes, 59 seconds in.

198.187.190.1 (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mooseandbruce1 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Stapleton's Zootopia[edit]

The release section mentions a number of alternative names for the movie as well as preexisting intellectual property that may have caused the name changes. One of these IPs is referenced as "a children's music album in the United Kingdom" and it's sourced to an article by The Guardian. That article does not mention the name of that album (though it's implied to be the same as the movie's original title) or who created it. Mauro Lanari has asserted that the creator is Sally Stapleton and sourced it to an image of the album cover, most recently here (with a Google Image Search result, no less). Since there's been some edit warring over this, I'm starting a discussion to see if 1) the name of the author is actually necessary information, 2) this is even the same album that The Guardian is referencing and 3) there are reliable, secondary sources that can back it up. Images and image search results aren't enough. clpo13(talk) 22:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's CERTAIN that is Sally Stapleton's Zootopia, I haven't found any reliable secondary source nor any article that connects this music album with the homonymous Disney movie. But it seems that this research doesn't interest any of you. So, a piece of information in less, and a secure piece. End of the edit war. -- (Mauro Lanari) 95.246.66.16 (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:V and WP:NOR. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gazelle's species[edit]

Do we have confirmation anywhere that Gazelle is supposed to be a Thomson's gazelle? She seems to be lacking the black stripes on the sides, which are characteristic of the Thomson's. The facial markings appear to be different as well. She could very well be a mountain gazelle, or another subspecies of the genus Gazella instead. 109.6.179.84 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of Zootopia?[edit]

Where have you gotten this info? I checked the main page and...is it even considered official? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorosilky5 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That nonsense was added by a sockpuppet of User:Diamese who every once in a while comes back to this article. Apologies. Sro23 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange...I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for letting me know about the scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorosilky5 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Acclaim[edit]

Zootopia is a critically acclaimed film! This has already been discussed and proof of such was provided and confirmed! I don't like to sound paranoid but I've noticed at several diffent sites where reviews are provided that "Kubo" fans are attacking Zootopia and saying that their film is the better. It doesn't take a genius to guess that edits like this are likely made by a Kubo and the two strings fanboy upset that Zootopia has a many more reviews on RT, a higher RT score of 98%, has made over one billion dollars world wide and will very like pick up an Oscar! Please edit and return to former state! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennonthefox (talk • contribs) 18:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to ad hominem. Also, it'd be better if you were to address the one who made these edits instead of throwing it out there, who, in this case, would be User:Popcornduff. Verified Cactus (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's posts like the first one here that make me glad I removed this article from my watchlist. Regardless, I've removed the unsourced puffery. Wikipedia is not the place to wage your fandom wars. Per WP:BURDEN, please do not re-add the unsourced content. We would need a source that explicitly says it received critical acclaim, and current citation does not say that. If it has received critical acclaim, it should be easy to find a source that says so. I would prefer that we just stick to the two review aggregators, though. That's why we have them there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should confess that though I've never heard of Kubo, it is nonetheless my favourite thing ever, and all my edits are indeed made with the aim of denigrating its rivals. Popcornduff (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/04/zootopia-reviews-roundup

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/?year=2016

Happy?

The last CLEALY has Zootopia listed as number 1 film of 2016! Now I'll ask again to stop playing or I'm going to go though and change other films that have been listed the same way because I feel they are not up to par. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lennonthefox (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not happy. Neither of those sources have the phrase "critical acclaim" in them. This is just more original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RT source has it listed as the best reviewed film of 2016 so far, which is something we could add. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of my claim have now been added. You can review them bellow. Lennonthefox (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single-purpose account [1] that is not here to contribute to Wikipedia but to push adoring, fannish edits onto this film, either for fannish reasons or as a publicist pushing it during awards season. WP:FILM simply does not use the hyperbolic phrase "critical acclaim" except in rare instances of consensus for legitimate classics that have stood the test of time, and even then only rarely. Half the films that get good reviews get some newspaper or website referring to that as "critically acclaimed", so these cites are meaningless. This is not Citizen Kane. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By making negative comments towards the film saying it "isn't Citizen Kane" it is clear you are not being neutrally with your edits and have some kind of bias towards the film. Plenty of sources were provided from a wealth of different sources all stating that Zootopia was a praised and a critically acclaimed film! At this point it doesn't much matter what is posted you will find a asinine and trivial reason so say it wasn't! I'm honestly left to wonder what is your problem with this film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.233.83.237 (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A photograph of James Cameron is irrelevant and off-topic[edit]

Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, Wikipedia is not a textbook. Wikipedia is not a textbook about filmmaking. I also note that User:Josephlalrinhlua786's edit summaries are inappropriate; he needs to review WP:CIVILITY. I have been threatened with blocking by various admins for edit summaries that were far less inflammatory. Furthermore, User:Josephlalrinhlua786 was recently temporarily blocked for copyright infringement, and he has been repeatedly cautioned for various things like a habit of numerous citations to known unreliable sources in violation of Wikipedia policy, such as Forbes Contributors (who are deprecated as unreliable sources because they do not go through the regular Forbes editorial process).

Turning back to the point: How much involvement did James Cameron have with this film? None. Which major film studio has he been attached to for many years? (Hint: It's not Disney!)

The only context in which it makes sense to discuss Zootopia together with James Cameron would be an article on the larger topic of box office blockbuster films---an article more appropriate for Wikibooks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First confirmed gay couple in a Disney animated film[edit]

It was confirmed on December 6 by Jared Bush that Zootopia characters Bucky and Pronk are indeed a married gay couple: https://twitter.com/thejaredbush/status/803836679425556480

Unfortunately some users here are trying their best to hide this information by claiming that Twitter can't be used as a credible source, even if it is used OFTEN!

This is a huge development for both Zootopia and Disney Animation!! Do no think you can hide your bias with editing excuses forever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.58.119 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to hide this information. We just need to wait for a WP:Reliable Source to cover this. We can't reference this to a tweet. Also, the tweet doesn't even support most of the text added. It says nothing about first ever (although seems reasonable that this would be true, we need to wait for a reliable source to report on this). --DynaGirl (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's discussion of the topic at [this reliable source. The article also includes a carefully-worded non-answer from Disney about whether it has or will feature explicitly gay characters. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use that source as one to confirm that the two are gay, since it doesn't actually confirm anything, just puts it as a huge maybe. JudgeRM (talk to me) 00:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Disney's official position seems to be to neither confirm nor deny. Jared Bush's tweet is a reliable source for Jared Bush's view on the subject, but not for Disney's view.-- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the first ever, but definitely one of the first ever. I would say that's relevance enough for inclusion. However Disney likes to keep their image clean and controversy free so I doubt they'll ever confirm/deny. Sro23 (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using the subject as a self-published source it should be OK to use Jared Bush's tweets as a source for his own views/opinions, though it does not directly reflect what Disney the corporation believes about it. The real issue are that these two characters are relatively minor to the story. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued removel of accolades![edit]

In two days I've seen two awards vanish! First off it was the Kansas Film Critics and now the AFI awards. Yet these same awards appear under other films I easily found here including AFI being listed in Inside Out's wiki.

And when I've tried to speak up on it I'm ignored and or my posts on the talk page are removed! When did Wikipedia become a place where vandalism was allowed and never questioned? Or is the some fan war out of jealously of what Zootopia gained in acclaim, box office and now awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:838A:CF00:C9A6:8CF7:6BDE:16E3 (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have a big fan of the movie, who IP hops to addresses including the above and 2a01:cb19:838a:cf00:b5eb:407a:f188:bd49. I'd like to get other editors' opinions on the propriety of using the hyperbolic term "critical acclaim." First, WP:FILM virtually never uses that phrase, and this article demonstrates one reason: Zootopia was critically acclaimed ... for an animated family film. You cannot possibly stack it up against Citizen Kane, City Lights, The Seventh Seal or La Strada. It's misleading and the phrasing gives it a false equivalency to movies that are genuinely critically acclaimed and not simply well-reviewed.
There are cites for "critically acclaimed", but you can find such cites for any movie that receives largely positive reviews. This kind of cheerleading is non-encyclopedic WP:TONE and used only to hype the film. Tell me: What does "critically acclaimed" say that "98% positive on Rotten Tomatoes" does not? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing nothing more than trolling! And using the system to your own biased reasons! I've taken a look around at other films released this year and not a single one of them that also has listed "critical acclaim" has had the issues that this film has! It is pretty clear that you have you are motivated only out of jealousy that this film was praised and did very well! I've seen this before and it's always a fanboy of another film that can't do anything else to change the reality but make edits to a film he loathes for no good reason! So friend you have at it! But don't think for a single moment that your childish behavior will change anything! As for me I wash my hands of Wikipedia! It has became so infested with trolls and misinformation that it can not be trusted as a source of anything more than opinions much less facts!
You win! So take your you and go home or pat yourself on the back. But reality doesn't change because of a edit. And I assure you others will look at this and question the integrity of this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:838A:CF00:F889:B2F:3AAA:7E19 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous editor should also have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - in short, this article shouldn't have certain awards mentioned just because another article incorrectly mentions them. Le Deluge (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't list every single award won by a film. Consensus is that the awards should have their own article, and minor awards are more the realm of something like the IMDb. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of awards. I'm also not a fan of "critical acclaim", as I said earlier, when this last came up. I agree with Tenebrae that it's too promotional and makes the encyclopedia sound like a fansite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, So what's the point of even calling this site and encyclopedia if it doesn't have in the most basic information listed such as awards? It's that important information? As for the rest, fair enough! But I demand to see evey other film treated with the same regard. Not doing so shows a un-neural approach and a bias against this one film. Start with The Jungle Book and Moana those two both come to mind! And as I said to your friend above you both don't have to worry, I'm done here! Wikipedia has become to infested with trolls that would rather push an agenda than the public see the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB19:838A:CF00:F889:B2F:3AAA:7E19 (talk) 22:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to stick around, I recommend reading this section regarding what Wikipedia is and what it is not - particularly the latter. --McDoobAU93 22:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO especially applies to articles like this where there are countless sources released and there needs to be a culling or limit of what is stated in this article. It cannot include everything. Now there are occasions where a list or a sub-article may be created, but there needs to be agreement. Articles on films that are less prominent with fewer sources can be more relaxed on what's included, because less content exists. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Buddy cop"[edit]

Concur with McDoob edit. Fox doesn't become a cop until the very end. It's an odd-couple cop-and-con-man or perhaps cop-and-street-entrepreneur. But they aren't cop buddies. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a franchise yet[edit]

Someone just tried to characterize Zootopia as a franchise, which is categorically incorrect. Disney can't even move the merch: there are only 16 items listed on the Disney Store Web site today for Zootopia, versus 96 for Moana and 206 for Frozen (which is already over three years old). Unless it can spawn a TV show, a theme park ride, or a sequel, Zootopia is not a franchise. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolcaesar: see also the TfD discussion related to the template. JudgeRM (talk to me) 21:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


In my opinion(i guess most of you will think it doesn't matter) is that the film was well revised except for its ending. The song Shakira performed wasn't very strong in topic and the chorus didn't even rhyme. If that was Shakira's best then they should have replaced that one or removed it completely, but even so would have ended the movie up with a similar state to Atlantis: The Lost Empire, absence of songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrakd002.302 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOTAFORUM for personal opinions: this is strictly about improving the article. This is why users think "it doesn't matter". You're welcome to use Twitter, Reddit or Facebook for your opinions :) WhisperToMe (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for Good Article Nominee?[edit]

Just wrapped up a quick B-class review on this article. IMO it's ready for a GAN. Is there a main contributor willing to take it there? MidnightObservation (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes ranking[edit]

This isn't right. How could Zootopia be below Moonlight in Rotten Tomatoes? It was number one and it won the Golden Tomatoes for Best Movie Overall and 2016 is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11F:EB30:3494:767F:C29D:8895 (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original ranking. It think it's important to know that Zootopia was the highest-rating film on Rotten Tomatoes before Moonlight took over. So this is a reason why this information was posted. https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-wide-release-2016/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit update[edit]

Good news. Disney won the dismissal of the Zootopia copyright lawsuit. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/disney-wins-dismissal-zootopia-copyright-lawsuit-1020026 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

An article from The Sun reports that Mark Smith is reprising his role as Officer McHorn in a sequel. I decided to add it to the article anyway because Michael Wallis, the voice of Sheriff in the Cars films, confirmed Cars 3 before Disney and Pixar made it public the next year. So, perhaps, there's some truth in this. Christianster94 (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit resolution[edit]

Looks like Goldman lost, with the judge saying there weren't enough similarities.

https://www.law360.com/articles/970276/disney-s-zootopia-and-writer-s-pitch-not-alike-judge

Gistech (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit formally dismissed[edit]

https://www.law360.com/articles/970276/disney-s-zootopia-and-writer-s-pitch-not-alike-judge

I don't have time to cite this in the article right now, so could somebody pop this in the "Lawsuit" section? Thanks. Gistech (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fan webcomic viral for anti-abortion themes[edit]

Recently, a fan webcomic, known as "I Will Survive", has gone viral on the Internet. The webcomic is very dramatic and deals with unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Does it deserve a mention here? Here are some news sources: https://www.romper.com/p/these-anti-abortion-zootopia-fan-comics-have-the-internet-simultaneously-loling-furious-7518926 https://www.avclub.com/somebody-s-out-here-writing-pro-life-zootopia-fan-comic-1821058810 72.204.22.52 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any of these websites. Is there no source of better quality that could hint if it's worth to mention such thing? J. N. Squire (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would this help? http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/12/this-zootopia-abortion-comic-explained.html 72.204.22.52 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiepdia doesn't link to copyright violations. This isn't parody or satire but fan art/fiction appropriating copyrighted intellectual property in order to tell a story. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. How come some fan works have their own Wikipedia articles? 72.204.22.52 (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give some examples? --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 06:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing. DonIago (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Police Misconduct[edit]

When trying to add a police misconduct category tag, a pair of jokers keep reverting edits. Not sure why "tells" is a good description of a crime boss having a henchman hold a suspect over a hole in the ice and threatening to "ice" the suspect, it seems both inaccurate and bizarre. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poq1410mRlo It does, however, seem like a good description of police misconduct, something that should be added to this page. Infocidal (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:OR personal opinions and is WP:NOTDEFINING as something widely attached to descriptions of this movie. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal opinion, it's in the clip linked. If you don't think the description is accurate, you can modify it. "Tells" is less accurate than what I wrote and whitewashing is no less a personal opinion. Infocidal (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Linked official article from Disney lists Mr. Big as both a mafia boss, friend of the police protagonists, and a killer. http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Mr._Big_(Zootopia) Not personal opinion.
Nope, don't see it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS in any case. Wikis are not reliable sources. DonIago (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao police brutality defenders are so staunch, their performative blindness even extends to children's films! Infocidal (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Article describing Mr Big's murderous character https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Twisted-Explanation-Zootopia-Great-Godfather-Reference-117147.html Ad copy from the official toy of the character "Meet Mr. Big and Koslov. Mr. Big is known as the most fearsome and shrewd crime boss in Tundratown. He commands respect, and when he feels disrespected, bad things happen – often at the bare hands of Koslov. The 4-inch polar bear figure has poseable arms, neck, and legs, and the shrew figure is 1-inch tall. This dreadful duo is a furrr-ful sight to behold!" https://www.walmart.com/ip/Zootopia-Kevin-and-Mr-Big-Small-figure/49262167
He's a cop, I thought he was a crime boss? Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see you didn't watch the clip that you didn't see. He is a crime boss that the cops turn to in order to torture a suspect and obtain both a confession and information from. Infocidal (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Police didn't torture anyone, unclear if they asked someone else to do so. Not mentioned in article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not mentioned in the article because DonIago reverted it, and it was to them that I was addressing the earlier links. Keep up. Infocidal (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I propose be added in place of "tells", as he does not tell but has the information coerced out of him by being held over an ice pool and threatened with death. "Nick and Judy team up with the crime boss Mr. Big, who has one of his henchmen torture Weaselton and threaten him with murder, until he confesses that the bulbs he stole were for a ram named Doug." It's a moot point, re: "Police Misconduct in Fiction", as I just noticed that earlier in the plot description it says Judy committing blackmail, which is a crime and therefore police misconduct. I do think the use of torture in a children's film is significant, and the language should be expanded. Infocidal (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geraldo Perez Stop reverting pages that you cannot read. Judy Hopps is the police officer in this film. From the plot description "Judy blackmails Nick into assisting her by covertly recording his confession to tax evasion." That Judy refers to the same Judy Hopps who is a police officer. Infocidal (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stop adding contentious content against concensus. She didn't demand money in return for not revealing something so didn't commit a crime, the wording was colloquial, not legal. Judy didn't torture anyone, Mr. Big did. This is a minor plot issue, this film is not about police misconduct and is wrong to categorize it as such. Geraldo Perez (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, that's not what blackmail means. There is an article about it on the online encyclopedia reading "Blackmail is an act, often criminal, involving unjustified threats to make a gain—most commonly money or property—or cause loss to another unless a demand is met. " This fits that definition which is why the word was used. Second, the tag is not for films that are about police misconduct but contain police misconduct. There is police misconduct in the film, both in the use of blackmail and standing by while a suspect is tortured for information. The tag needs to be there and the torture language should be added. Infocidal (talk) 07:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Judy wasn't a police officer at the time, since she resigned. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 12:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're also talking about a movie set in a fictional world. Unless an action is specifically stated as being police misconduct in the film, how can we know for certain whether it's considered police misconduct within that world?
In any case, as I said at the outset, what should be provided is a reliable source that discusses police misconduct in the film, not us as editors looking at the film and assuming that certain actions constitute misconduct. Hell, even within a single country on our own world there can be varying definitions of police misconduct. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

I've removed this film from controversy categories. AFAICS we're talking about one lawsuit that was dismissed. I don't believe that constitutes a controversy. Additional opinions are welcome here. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost pro forma for copyright legal action to occur on any popular work. Generally we cover it if notability is show by it being covered in multiple reliable sources. I'd be all for ignoring most of them as most have no merit. It is not really a controversy, just some people trying to extract money. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might not have anything to do with money. Something a lot of amateur story writers might not realize is that it's nearly impossible to come up with a completely original idea. That really clever and unusual idea you got that you'd bet no one has ever thought of before? It's very likely someone has, possibly many people. Creators who don't understand this may assume the worst when they see someone else making big bucks off of "their idea". mwalimu59 (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theme?[edit]

I think this section is crucial considering the film consisted of a direct social message. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt it as it focus on fears and prejudices of all sorts (some things based on the Civil Rights movement is one thing, but it doesn't make it O.J.: Made in America, LA 92 or 13th). Espngeek (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on whether Judy and Nick are romantically involved[edit]

My understanding is that it seems to be inconclusive or only hinted at (?) . Probably we don't have much to work with. It's related to a deleted scene where Judy's family presumes Nick is a boyfriend.

  • Snetiker, Marc (2016-06-03). "Zootopia deleted scene: Nick and Judy's romantic mix-up — exclusive". Entertainment Weekly.
  • "Zootopia's Nick And Judy Are Kinda Dating After All". CTV Sci-Fi. 2016-03-21.
  • Shamsian, Jacob (2016-06-30). "An awkward deleted 'Zootopia' scene shows what would've happened if Nick met Judy's family". Business Insider.
  • Grant, Stacey (2016-03-21). "Nick And Judy From Zootopia Are Kinda Canon After All". MTV.

WhisperToMe (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Plus removal[edit]

I tried to find an article about said removal of this film on both Google and Bing, but with no luck. Espngeek (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman's most recent lawsuit[edit]

So, not covered in the article is the fact that Gary Goldman refiled after the dismissal of his lawsuit in 2019. In June (2021), it was also dismissed.

Source: https://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2021/06/10/judge-dismisses-writers-suit-alleging-disney-stole-his-animated-film-idea/

This should go in the relevant section in the article. giftheck (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Bellwether: Ewe vs. Sheep[edit]

Not a native speaker, but I find it odd that Dawn Bellwether is described as an ewe, instead of just a sheep. Is this explicitly mentioned or important in the film?

There have been some jokes on the internet around this plot and the rhyming of "ewes" and "jews". The editor who introduced the term also has some history of (suspected) vandalisim, hence I'm asking if the term is indeed accurate. Cedric.reichenbach (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An ewe is a female sheep. Make sense to me. Skipple ☎ 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Twotopia" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Twotopia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 2 § Twotopia until a consensus is reached. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plot expansion[edit]

The recent attempted expansion of the plot summary by 104.37.211.92 (talk · contribs) is not only unneeded to understand the summary but is also a clear violation of WP:FILMPLOT. Nevertheless, if other editors feel that it is a benefit to the article, please chime in. DonIago (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point about the reporter[edit]

Usually I'm all for keeping things as concise as possible but in this case I think we ought to make it clear the reporter maneuvered Judy into saying what she did and that it wasn't her idea. The sheep keeps pressing the point until she says what she does, and said "reporter" is one of Bellwether's goons. Judy would not have just said that on her own. If someone disagrees we can remove it but this is just my opinion here. EEBuchanan (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Plot Rectification[edit]

I tried to add a bit more detail to the plot section, but it was reverted. I understand the reasons why, although I don't entirely agree with them and, in future, I will check the talk page first for such discussion. I'd like in particular for the "carrot pen" to be able to first be referred to as a "pen with a built-in recording device" as stating Judy recorded someone on her carrot pen fails to connect all the dots for a clear plot, but explaining this first allows for the second instance, with Mayor Bellwether, to simply be the pen as well. I also found the prose surrounding Doug's laboratory to be lacking enough detail to explain what had happened - it merely states they found Doug, took his serum and gun case and went to the ZPT, which overlooks a lengthy chase scene. At minimum, I believe something along the lines of "they fled Doug, in addition to two crony rams" would clear up and more fully summarise the scene. The Voivodeship King (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typically the best option in scenarios like these is to make an effort to tighten up other portions of the plot summary while adding your desired content, so that the net word count remains under 700. Are you asserting that you don't feel that's an option? DonIago (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category disputes[edit]

Does the category of rail transport films fit in the article? (in my defense, there were trains on the film: one upon Judy's arrival at Zootopia and the other at the climax) Espngeek (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant trivia. It absolutely does not belong. See WP:NOTDEFINING. It isn't mentioned in the article at all, let alone the lead so fails WP:CATVER as well. It is about as relevant as a film being about cars because the characters use cars to travel or about shoes as because a character wears them when they walk around. I really can't believe this is even being considered as it is so far beyond what should be included as a category for any article that isn't actually focused on trains either as a documentary or a major plot focus and made obvious in the article itself that that is the case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur; this isn't a film about trains, nor is it a rail transport film. DonIago (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ; I believe it is part of the latter. Espngeek (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant to the story. Method used to travel doesn't matter and doesn't impact the plot in any way. Could have used an airplane, bus or car and it wouldn't change anything. It is just a background detail, nothing more. The fact it isn't even mentioned in the article itself indicates the level of how unimportant this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of it, so you don't have to worry about it anymore. Espngeek (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there were trains on the film" I am not exactly impressed. You will find trains in any number of films set in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries, because they have been one of the most widespread systems of transportation since the Industrial Revolution. Their relevance to the film's plot is what matters for categorization. There are films where most of the plot revolves around travel by train, building a new railroad, or working on a train. And there are films where there are cameos of trains in a narrative which barely involves them. Dimadick (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zootopia&oldid=1211060252"