Though what is your definition of anthropomorphism?
The question is not "what is my definition of anthropomorphism." Your definition is the same as mine.
The question is "what is my definition of furry?" The furry fandom consists of fans of "anthropomorphic animals," by the common definition. That's why I don't count Avatar as furry; no specific animals (either real or fictional) are anthropomorphisized in that movie. In How To Train Your Dragon, there are animals, but they aren't specifically anthropomorphic. Now, in the first movie, the aliens are "vaguely" animal like, and the dragons in the second movie are "vaguely" anthropomorphic, but only vaguely, so their "furry" quotient is low.
As compared to say Fantastic Mr. Fox, which has a high "furry" quotient in that the animals portrayed have a high "anthropomorphic" level, both in characterization and form. Additionally, the anthropomorphic animal characters are numerous and important. I like to throw in "adult" to my definition, and Fantastic Mr. Fox does lose points there; it's still a kid's movie. But, my point is, Fantastic Mr. Fox had a much higher "furry" quotient then anything in the last decade (with the exceptions of Kung Fu Panda and Chicken Little, which both lacked human characters, though they both had even lower "adult" scores); furthermore it was a good movie. It should have won the Ursa Majors last year hands down.
Instead, Avatar, which had a much lower "furry" score, won. At this point, quality of movie isn't an issue (though Fantastic Mr. Fox was, in my opinion, the better movie, period, as well). This year, however, I'm willing to give the movie with the low "furry" score the nod because its competition is only middle level (or lower) "furry" of much lower quality.
Though what is your definition of anthropomorphism?
The question is not "what is my definition of anthropomorphism." Your definition is the same as mine.
The question is "what is my definition of furry?" The furry fandom consists of fans of "anthropomorphic animals," by the common definition. That's why I don't count Avatar as furry; no specific animals (either real or fictional) are anthropomorphisized in that movie. In How To Train Your Dragon, there are animals, but they aren't specifically anthropomorphic. Now, in the first movie, the aliens are "vaguely" animal like, and the dragons in the second movie are "vaguely" anthropomorphic, but only vaguely, so their "furry" quotient is low.
As compared to say Fantastic Mr. Fox, which has a high "furry" quotient in that the animals portrayed have a high "anthropomorphic" level, both in characterization and form. Additionally, the anthropomorphic animal characters are numerous and important. I like to throw in "adult" to my definition, and Fantastic Mr. Fox does lose points there; it's still a kid's movie. But, my point is, Fantastic Mr. Fox had a much higher "furry" quotient then anything in the last decade (with the exceptions of Kung Fu Panda and Chicken Little, which both lacked human characters, though they both had even lower "adult" scores); furthermore it was a good movie. It should have won the Ursa Majors last year hands down.
Instead, Avatar, which had a much lower "furry" score, won. At this point, quality of movie isn't an issue (though Fantastic Mr. Fox was, in my opinion, the better movie, period, as well). This year, however, I'm willing to give the movie with the low "furry" score the nod because its competition is only middle level (or lower) "furry" of much lower quality.
And I have a hate-on for Pixar. Long story.