Sorry for keeping you in suspense. Out of town last week.
I'll probably be repeating that one for a while. I wasn't disappointed. I was pissed off. Still am. I mean, Avatar was not only not the best furry movie in 2009, it wasn't even the best movie in which a human turns into an alien in 2009. And, like I said, there's really no opportunity to make it up this year. So, I'll probably be ranting and whinging about this for a while. But Avatar versus Fantastic Mr. Fox is a better illustration of my, uh, rubrik than any two movies this year.
I thought I was clear on Alpha and Omega and The Owls of Ga'Hoole; both are mid-level. Ranking this year's five, those two are mid-level (and I probably only gave Alpha and Omega the edge because of an admitted bias for mammalian characters. I'll cop to that.), the Narnia movie is also mid-level, but not quite as high, with How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 marginal. Of those two, I'd give How to Train Your Dragon the edge as "furrier," because I am more biased to the "animal," rather than the "anthropomorphic" part of the definition.
Which brings me to the next post (I'm just going to do a three in one, so work with me here), which is to ask what is so wrong with the definition of furry fandom as "a fandom of anthropomorphic animals?" That, as far as I know, is the working definition. It was what I was sold on. I didn't know there was any real discussion on this. If it's changed, why didn't I get the memo? I usually check my spam box before I delete it, just in case ...
As far as "slightly less furry" versus "slightly more furry," if that was the case, I'd be ecstatic. But it wasn't last year. And it won't be that way for quite a while. Because there's just not furry movies. When only three studio movies with a majority of the cast consisting of fully anthropomorphic characters came out last decade, we can not afford to give our awards to Avatar. If Fantastic Mr. Fox sucked balls, that would be different. But nobody's argued that. And I doubt anybody will.
I guess I get your point, though. We can't let appearances get in the way of quality, can we? So, I suppose it was a good thing the furry fandom was able to put issues of furriness aside and vote for the "better movie." Yes, Fantastic Mr. Fox was such a freaking juggernaut, Avatar didn't really have a chance. It was David versus Goliath. Avatar pulling out the victory was such an enormous victory for the little guy.
Really.
I am not being sarcastic at all.
Okay, third post. Speaking of juggernauts, I just keep going, don't I?
Anyway, that's not actually why I hate Pixar. (I mean, it didn't help.) Year after year, Pixar wins the title of "best reviewed" movie. What was the movie that started that trend? Not Cars, which didn't win the best animated movie Oscar against Happy Feet. It was the next movie that really did it for Pixar. What was that? Ratatouille. You know, the movie that ends with a monologue praising media critics.
Short of bribing critcs, that is the most obvious way to get good reviews (and therefore plenty of Oscars) ever tried. No more losing to penguin movies for Pixar. Ratatouille is a bad movie. In the moral sense. The worst part is that, of course, it freaking worked without anyone actually apparently noticing it.
"Annual Anthropomorphic Literature & Arts Awards" is just a pretensious title. If the awards were really about the best "anthropomorphic literature," do you think Kyell Gold would really have that many of them? The answer is no; the awards would go to some posthumanism/transhumanism science fiction, not gay tiger football, the novel.
Its the furry awards.
Probably the confusion comes here from me using the words "anthropomorphic" synonomously with "furry," which, in retrospect, is stupid. Personally, I'm more into the "animal" ... I already said that. I think "anthropomorphic" media is way too vague to deserve an award. Its just pretension, is all it is (personal hypocrisy noted).
Sorry for keeping you in suspense. Out of town last week.
I'll probably be repeating that one for a while. I wasn't disappointed. I was pissed off. Still am. I mean, Avatar was not only not the best furry movie in 2009, it wasn't even the best movie in which a human turns into an alien in 2009. And, like I said, there's really no opportunity to make it up this year. So, I'll probably be ranting and whinging about this for a while. But Avatar versus Fantastic Mr. Fox is a better illustration of my, uh, rubrik than any two movies this year.
I thought I was clear on Alpha and Omega and The Owls of Ga'Hoole; both are mid-level. Ranking this year's five, those two are mid-level (and I probably only gave Alpha and Omega the edge because of an admitted bias for mammalian characters. I'll cop to that.), the Narnia movie is also mid-level, but not quite as high, with How to Train Your Dragon and Toy Story 3 marginal. Of those two, I'd give How to Train Your Dragon the edge as "furrier," because I am more biased to the "animal," rather than the "anthropomorphic" part of the definition.
Which brings me to the next post (I'm just going to do a three in one, so work with me here), which is to ask what is so wrong with the definition of furry fandom as "a fandom of anthropomorphic animals?" That, as far as I know, is the working definition. It was what I was sold on. I didn't know there was any real discussion on this. If it's changed, why didn't I get the memo? I usually check my spam box before I delete it, just in case ...
As far as "slightly less furry" versus "slightly more furry," if that was the case, I'd be ecstatic. But it wasn't last year. And it won't be that way for quite a while. Because there's just not furry movies. When only three studio movies with a majority of the cast consisting of fully anthropomorphic characters came out last decade, we can not afford to give our awards to Avatar. If Fantastic Mr. Fox sucked balls, that would be different. But nobody's argued that. And I doubt anybody will.
I guess I get your point, though. We can't let appearances get in the way of quality, can we? So, I suppose it was a good thing the furry fandom was able to put issues of furriness aside and vote for the "better movie." Yes, Fantastic Mr. Fox was such a freaking juggernaut, Avatar didn't really have a chance. It was David versus Goliath. Avatar pulling out the victory was such an enormous victory for the little guy.
Really.
I am not being sarcastic at all.
Okay, third post. Speaking of juggernauts, I just keep going, don't I?
Anyway, that's not actually why I hate Pixar. (I mean, it didn't help.) Year after year, Pixar wins the title of "best reviewed" movie. What was the movie that started that trend? Not Cars, which didn't win the best animated movie Oscar against Happy Feet. It was the next movie that really did it for Pixar. What was that? Ratatouille. You know, the movie that ends with a monologue praising media critics.
Short of bribing critcs, that is the most obvious way to get good reviews (and therefore plenty of Oscars) ever tried. No more losing to penguin movies for Pixar. Ratatouille is a bad movie. In the moral sense. The worst part is that, of course, it freaking worked without anyone actually apparently noticing it.
"Annual Anthropomorphic Literature & Arts Awards" is just a pretensious title. If the awards were really about the best "anthropomorphic literature," do you think Kyell Gold would really have that many of them? The answer is no; the awards would go to some posthumanism/transhumanism science fiction, not gay tiger football, the novel.
Its the furry awards.
Probably the confusion comes here from me using the words "anthropomorphic" synonomously with "furry," which, in retrospect, is stupid. Personally, I'm more into the "animal" ... I already said that. I think "anthropomorphic" media is way too vague to deserve an award. Its just pretension, is all it is (personal hypocrisy noted).