Your line about saving the fandom is missing the point; I don't think you understand my viewpoint. The way I see it, I'm a furry because I like Zootopia. What effect it would have on the fandom just ... doesn't even interest me. Now, I am interested on what effect the fandom might have had on it. We're coming at this from different directions; you're interested in "who furries are," while I care "what furries do." To me, one of the things furries do is get excited about, watch and love children's cartoons about anthropomorphic animals (and the idea that this excitement and love may have caught the attention of a monolithic corporation is interesting to me).
That's why I believe, even if you don't, that you don't like Zootopia because it's not about you, and like Fursonas because it is (and note, you haven't actually seen either movie). Because to you, furry is about finding an identity and building a community. You may argue, perhaps validly, that those two pursuits are nobler than simply "finding, watching and discussing talking animal cartoons", but, on the other hand, I would point out the furry fandom is hardly a well-respected community by outsiders, and is fractious and cliquey to insiders, while I would like to point out that "finding your identity" is a quest for self, i.e. a selfish quest (and, anyway, there's probably better ways to find your "true self" then pretending to be a civet on the Internet).
To get back on topic, we are examples of two types of furries (with, admittedly, various levels of hybridization between the two), and this documentary managed to schizophrenically alienate them both; "lifestylers," while they should be pleased that the movie (unlike Zootopia) is specifically about them, are angry about the very act of documentation, because it puts the "lifestyle" at risk, by exposing some of the more embarrassing parts, and "fans", who should be pleased by the exposure, even (and maybe even especially) controversial exposure, as it drives curiosity, and therefore a potential path to a larger audience for the artforms celebrated by these fans, but angers them by focusing on an extremely narrow and already well documented subset of those artforms (fursuiting) while completely ignoring anything else (writing, visual art, animation, comics, etc., etc.).
In other words it is selling the part of fandom that doesn't want to be sold, while ignoring the products of the part of the fandom that does.
Your line about saving the fandom is missing the point; I don't think you understand my viewpoint. The way I see it, I'm a furry because I like Zootopia. What effect it would have on the fandom just ... doesn't even interest me. Now, I am interested on what effect the fandom might have had on it. We're coming at this from different directions; you're interested in "who furries are," while I care "what furries do." To me, one of the things furries do is get excited about, watch and love children's cartoons about anthropomorphic animals (and the idea that this excitement and love may have caught the attention of a monolithic corporation is interesting to me).
That's why I believe, even if you don't, that you don't like Zootopia because it's not about you, and like Fursonas because it is (and note, you haven't actually seen either movie). Because to you, furry is about finding an identity and building a community. You may argue, perhaps validly, that those two pursuits are nobler than simply "finding, watching and discussing talking animal cartoons", but, on the other hand, I would point out the furry fandom is hardly a well-respected community by outsiders, and is fractious and cliquey to insiders, while I would like to point out that "finding your identity" is a quest for self, i.e. a selfish quest (and, anyway, there's probably better ways to find your "true self" then pretending to be a civet on the Internet).
To get back on topic, we are examples of two types of furries (with, admittedly, various levels of hybridization between the two), and this documentary managed to schizophrenically alienate them both; "lifestylers," while they should be pleased that the movie (unlike Zootopia) is specifically about them, are angry about the very act of documentation, because it puts the "lifestyle" at risk, by exposing some of the more embarrassing parts, and "fans", who should be pleased by the exposure, even (and maybe even especially) controversial exposure, as it drives curiosity, and therefore a potential path to a larger audience for the artforms celebrated by these fans, but angers them by focusing on an extremely narrow and already well documented subset of those artforms (fursuiting) while completely ignoring anything else (writing, visual art, animation, comics, etc., etc.).
In other words it is selling the part of fandom that doesn't want to be sold, while ignoring the products of the part of the fandom that does.