Actually, Avatar is one of those things I describe in my essays as being in the Anthro ring that circles just outside The Furry Umbrella. ALFs can be a hard call, but if a fan wants to reach out and pull one under the umbrella, that's ok for them. It doesn't have to effect how anybody else views the situation. But, if we find a substantial portion of the community doing that, a researcher like myself can't ignore it without demonstrating bias.
Notice I also made it a point to make clear that what the fans demonstrate the Furry interest to encompass doesn't have to make sense. For example, dragons and unicorns isn't logical, nor are morphs. While a number of insect derived aliens in Star Wars are logical, but not widely demonstrated as a subject of great interest in the fandom.
Avatar strikes me as illogical as well. But then, maybe I'm not looking closely enough at the Avatar species. Or, maybe like Elfquest, there's something about the spiritual aspect of Avatar that appeals to some Furries.
Of course, then you could get into, "Is spirituality a logical aspect of The Furry Interest." I can see where there's a historical precedence for it, but I think most people who aren't historians wouldn't. While those who are into Furry primarily for spiritual reasons probably don't give a flip whether it's logical or not.
Still, why anyone would think Avatar is more Furry than Fantastic Mr. Fox is beyond me. My guess is that which is more Furry had nothing to do with the difference in acceptance of the two films. I think it was more that one was a Hollywood blockbuster and the other was stop motion animation. And no matter how well you do stop motion animation in this day and age, it just won't be able to compete with the standards viewers have become accustomed to.
Actually, Avatar is one of those things I describe in my essays as being in the Anthro ring that circles just outside The Furry Umbrella. ALFs can be a hard call, but if a fan wants to reach out and pull one under the umbrella, that's ok for them. It doesn't have to effect how anybody else views the situation. But, if we find a substantial portion of the community doing that, a researcher like myself can't ignore it without demonstrating bias.
Notice I also made it a point to make clear that what the fans demonstrate the Furry interest to encompass doesn't have to make sense. For example, dragons and unicorns isn't logical, nor are morphs. While a number of insect derived aliens in Star Wars are logical, but not widely demonstrated as a subject of great interest in the fandom.
Avatar strikes me as illogical as well. But then, maybe I'm not looking closely enough at the Avatar species. Or, maybe like Elfquest, there's something about the spiritual aspect of Avatar that appeals to some Furries.
Of course, then you could get into, "Is spirituality a logical aspect of The Furry Interest." I can see where there's a historical precedence for it, but I think most people who aren't historians wouldn't. While those who are into Furry primarily for spiritual reasons probably don't give a flip whether it's logical or not.
Still, why anyone would think Avatar is more Furry than Fantastic Mr. Fox is beyond me. My guess is that which is more Furry had nothing to do with the difference in acceptance of the two films. I think it was more that one was a Hollywood blockbuster and the other was stop motion animation. And no matter how well you do stop motion animation in this day and age, it just won't be able to compete with the standards viewers have become accustomed to.