It's drawn pretty well actually. I wonder if the game will be any good though?
Back to the argument. Is anyone here actually preaching hate against gay people? I know I'm not. I said I dislike the stereotypical way some act, but that's more their mannerisms than their lifestyle. I could say the same about any stereotype, but maybe that's because they are usually played for laughs in media, so actually seeing it in real life, to me at least, can be a little annoying. Again that doesn't mean I hate them or all gay people. What's that phrase? When you assume you make an ass out of u and me?
Wow, what kind of forum have I joined? I hate furries as much as the next person, but leave gay people out of this. This thread is showing the scum side of the Sam & Max group and should be closed and deleted.
You should feel terrible.
Welcome to the forum. Believe me this is far from the norm but this is still a forum and discussion can and does happen, shockingly.
Also I noticed hypocasy in your post. It kinda begins when you typed the word hate and even more so when you used the word scum. Must feel good to judge people over the internet huh?
people got offended which got people offended which got people offended
i think
Ah, I see. The dreaded triple-offensor.
I don't see why people are so down on furries, honestly. I doubt anyone would want everybody knowing what they fantasize about in the darker hours of the night... or the middle of the day for that matter.
It's drawn pretty well actually. I wonder if the game will be any good though?
Back to the argument. Is anyone here actually preaching hate against gay people? I know I'm not. I said I dislike the stereotypical way some act, but that's more their mannerisms than their lifestyle. I could say the same about any stereotype, but maybe that's because they are usually played for laughs in media, so actually seeing it in real life, to me at least, can be a little annoying. Again that doesn't mean I hate them or all gay people. What's that phrase? When you assume you make an ass out of u and me?
Also:
Welcome to the forum. Believe me this is far from the norm but this is still a forum and discussion can and does happen, shockingly.
Also I noticed hypocasy in your post. It kinda begins when you typed the word hate and even more so when you used the word scum. Must feel good to judge people over the internet huh?
Hey, I just put on my judge glasses and there I go. This was originally a thread about a furry game featuring Sam & Max that people were trying to pull in a profit from. I don't really see why you had to go off on your rant about gay mannerisms; there was no call for it.
Anyway, this thread has done what it was supposed to do: get the game removed. This thread is now obsolete.
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
Hey, I just put on my judge glasses and there I go. This was originally a thread about a furry game featuring Sam & Max that people were trying to pull in a profit from. I don't really see why you had to go off on your rant about gay mannerisms; there was no call for it.
Anyway, this thread has done what it was supposed to do: get the game removed. This thread is now obsolete.
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
I was totally gone when we started talking about gay people, so I didn't start it.
When I talked about gay people, I said that people should stop hating them so much and live their godamn life.
Only thing I connected hate with was with furries.
Hey, I just put on my judge glasses and there I go. This was originally a thread about a furry game featuring Sam & Max that people were trying to pull in a profit from. I don't really see why you had to go off on your rant about gay mannerisms; there was no call for it.
Anyway, this thread has done what it was supposed to do: get the game removed. This thread is now obsolete.
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
I think you'll find I can stay here if I want :P
Also rant about gay mannerisms? Good sir/madame you make it sound like I was foaming at the mouth when I typed my posts. And you keep missing the point that it's silly flamboyant mannerism that I DISLIKE. Not hate, but dislike. I have never once said I hated Gay people, why should I? As long as anyone doesn't do anything to me that I don't want them to they can do whatever they want within the lines of the law. But the really loud flamboyant ones, it's like watching a stereotype come to life, it's bizzare and interesting up to a point, then it just grates. Saying that though, of all the gay people that I know, I've never met any like that... huh, maybe it IS just the stereotype I hate?
Besides you and Bonefreak are pretty much proving my point about hypocrasy. You'll both brook no critasism of any kind any Gay people, but you're absolutly fine with lumping hate on furries. Seems that it's perfectly ok for you to hate a group of people unless that culture is one you belong to.
And anyway, you're both missing the point. This is a discussion... D I S C U S S I O N. People say what they think and you can express your god/maker given right to disagree, but you can't think to censor what others think.
Besides you and Bonefreak are pretty much proving my point about hypocrasy. You'll both brook no critasism of any kind any Gay people, but you're absolutly fine with lumping hate on furries. Seems that it's perfectly ok for you to hate a group of people unless that culture is one you belong to.
I don't really care about what you're saying, but such egregious disregard of spell check grates on me.
Edit: I went and read through a bit of this thread, and want to correct one misconception: looking at drawn porn of children is a crime in the US. Not sure how the conversation got there but... yeah.
Anyway, with the Dutch Gay Parade in the past I just read the newspaper (yeah, in the evening), and there was already a column and a send in letter agreeing with me.
Well I know more than one person thinks that. I've heard that so many times growing up even. "Man, I'd wouldn't have troubles with gay people if they would just quit being limp writsted sissies" or whatever. idk
its kinda like the whole thing where people go like: oh i dont think gays should be allowed to marry, and its ok, because i have a gay friend who agrees.
Also rant about gay mannerisms? Good sir/madame you make it sound like I was foaming at the mouth when I typed my posts. And you keep missing the point that it's silly flamboyant mannerism that I DISLIKE. Not hate, but dislike. I have never once said I hated Gay people, why should I? As long as anyone doesn't do anything to me that I don't want them to they can do whatever they want within the lines of the law. But the really loud flamboyant ones, it's like watching a stereotype come to life, it's bizzare and interesting up to a point, then it just grates. Saying that though, of all the gay people that I know, I've never met any like that... huh, maybe it IS just the stereotype I hate?
Besides you and Bonefreak are pretty much proving my point about hypocrasy. You'll both brook no critasism of any kind any Gay people, but you're absolutly fine with lumping hate on furries. Seems that it's perfectly ok for you to hate a group of people unless that culture is one you belong to.
And anyway, you're both missing the point. This is a discussion... D I S C U S S I O N. People say what they think and you can express your god/maker given right to disagree, but you can't think to censor what others think.
Calm down, bro. That's not what I was saying.
I think you're missing the point from my post entirely. Which was "why are you straying from the original topic? The game's gone now."
And I was saying everyone should leave this thread, not just you, sir.
I don't really care about what you're saying, but such egregious disregard of spell check grates on me.
Sorry! It's not usually that bad, but I also used to have a dicitionary addon for firefox that would tell me when I messed up and I've not gotten around to installing it again.
I think you're missing the point from my post entirely. Which was "why are you straying from the original topic? The game's gone now."
And I was saying everyone should leave this thread, not just you, sir.
Good day
If we had to make a new topic every time a topic changed direction the forums would be flooded with useless crap, much like this topic has become. Still at least it's confined to this topic...
And yeah I can't see this lasting much longer, mostly because I'm bored of it now. But we need something to do to stem the gap before episode 5!
We need some kind of argument thread. Whenever a thread starts to break down into an argument, the conversation automatically shifts to that thread...
If there were an argument thread I can assure it would be the most civil place you ever laid eyes upon, they're only good when they're cultivated naturally in the wild
Somehow I think they'd have a hard time taking Telltale to court considering they don't want their fan's money and never released the second half of the series on DVD.
Someone who likes anthromorphic animals (basically animals that act like humans, walking on 2, and wearing clothes etc.) style. Basically if you like many Disneyfilms you already fit the description.
They are anthromorphic animals. So; yeah?
>.< I realize this reply is coming late, but I just found this thread, and I just HAD to respond to this. Okay, liking Robin Hood does NOT make one a 'furry'. I love many Disney films, but the difference between my interest and a furries interest is that my first interest is in THE STORY which *happens* to contain anthropomorphic animals, (which were included likely because they thought it would appeal to kids, and because they are expressive, not to appeal to furries) the fact that they are animals is waaaaaaaaay down on my list. A self identified 'furry' is primarily interested in the animals, then the story. Also note that in most of these movies, Robin Hood in particular, (which, really, is the only one to feature truly furry style animals, unless you count some aspects of Fantasia, all their other animals tend to remain on all fours, even the ones that talk) the fact that they are animals is incidental to the plot. Regarding movies like Lion King, Bother Bear and Bambi, the use of animals as characters is to aid the audience in looking at the themes from a new perspective. Story is paramount, and there is an actual *plot* reason for each instance of an animal in their feature films (well, aside from some of the sidekick characters). As for their shorts featuring Mickey etc. (and the same can be extended to Warner Brothers stable of characters, though Disney's characters are older) that is primarily because when Mickey first appeared, animation was in it's very early stages, and broad shapes were needed that translated well into black and white. While human characters did exist at he time, mostly from Fleischer Studios, many of them were rather creepy. It was much easier to make animals appealing, and the characters were extremely simple to draw (Mickey can be drawn by tracing a quarter and 2 dimes, then sticking a face on it). Also, they're more expressive, you can push them further, use their ears and tails to aid in expression. But again, it was not to appeal to furry fans. In the furry webcomics I've seen, usually the fact that they are animals is quite important to the plot and/or how characters behave, the plot is built around including furry characters, but not in the same way that the Disney movies do. Disney started with a plot and animals became a part of it as the story demanded. furry stories start with animal characters, just 'cus, then focus on the animal aspect heavily. They also quite often include other people's fursonas. It's not anthro animals evolving as the plot demands. You'll also see a preponderance of 'cool' animals like wolves and tigers, not so much, say, a giant cockroach.
there is a web comic called Lackadaisy Cats, I would recommend to anyone. As you'd expect, the characters are all cats. Though the artist has said in the FAQ that the inclusion of cats as the main characters is similar to the reasoning I outline above for why Disney is not furry. I quote: "Q. Why cats?
A. When dealing in sociopathic criminalism and gratuitous violence, how could it not be cats? Don't take it too literally, though. It's mostly just a device I like to use for characterization. The mobile ears, tails, and big eyes help me emphasize gesture and expression more than I could with human characters, they allow me to be as ridiculous as I like, and, well, they're just plain fun to draw."
and:
"Q. Are you a furry?
A. Uh. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I draw furries (if you can't think of a less schmaltzy name for them), but I'm actually a not-very-furry upright primate. I suspect you are too, unless you're a cat walking on the keyboard. Get off the keyboard!"
Basically - Disney = animals for story, expressive characters and/or appealing to kids. Furry = animals for fanservice to other furries. While furries may find Disney films appealing for the animals, that does not make them 'furry' movies, nor does it make other fans of the movies furries.
As for Sam and Max being furry characters, I'd argue based on the above that the difference lies in intent of the artist. You'd have to ask Purcell about that, but I doubt he'd agree that they are furry characters.
BTW, I don't necessarily have anything against furry comics or whatever, but for me the story is paramount, so it must have a good one under the furry characters. Also, this is from someone who once planned to do a comic strip featuring anthro birds and other animals, (I might still do it someday, dunno. was a decent idea) who would definitely not call herself a 'furry'. I've also attracted a furry following for my latest project, because it has centaurs. bleh. (I was as surprised as anyone that there is a 'centaur scene' among the furry community, who knew? But that's not the reason I included them, and it annoys me that I have had to clarify this to people. I have noticed a distinct difference in the types of questions asked from members of this 'community' and people who are interested for other reasons. The 'taur fans ALWAYS ask when the next 'taur will show up. will there be other types of 'taurs (like with a cat body or something), will you turn X (human) character INTO a centaur? and of course, the one they all seem to want 'will you include MY character?' they also like to nitpick how a 'real' centaur would look or dress, what they'd eat, how tall they'd be, what types of ears they'd have, and so on. (mine are human-height, have human ears, are fully clothed, and eat human type food. I can't change it or the backstory would make no sense, not to mention be inconsistent with previous art. some take great offence to this) fiddly details. They seem to care very little about where the plot goes, as long as it's got some guy with the body of a horse. If I wrote them out, these 'fans' would be gone in a heartbeat. Considering I spent a great deal of time planning the plot and characters, it's a bit disheartening to see all that work utterly disregarded. Yes, I do realize these are the bad apples, but... Other people ask about the character's motivations, or history of the world, will X end up with Y romantically, etc.) On another project I worked on, it featured many different gods and goddesses. Including Bast and Anubis, the Egyptian gods with the head of a cat and a jackal, respectively. (the main characters were Loki, Thor, and Jesus) at ComicCon, we were approached by the posterboy of furries, the tiger guy with all the tattoos, plastic surgery and piercings to make himself look like a tiger. I even have a picture of me with him: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/jillbamfette/tiger-guy2.jpg (I'm in the blue shirt) ALL he wanted to know about was Bast. She was a minor character, but that's all he cared about, try explaining the plot to him, he just didn't care, he just wanted to know how much Bast appeared. It was.... strange. Though yes, he's a rather extreme example. But I think it does illustrate that he was looking for something totally different in what he read/watched than a non-furry.
ok, done ranting. sorry, hot button with me. I have had to explain that I'm not a furry on a number of occasions
A self identified 'furry' is primarily interested in the animals, then the story.
Eeeeeeh? I like Disneymovies a lot too, for the same reasons as you summon. Why else?
Also note that in most of these movies, Robin Hood in particular the fact that they are animals is incidental to the plot. Regarding movies like Lion King, Bother Bear and Bambi, the use of animals as characters is to aid the audience in looking at the themes from a new perspective.
Eh, especially with Brother Bear your "incidental to the plot" falls kind of apart. How does 'Man turns into bear, gets hunted by brother since hatred of bears' NOT revolve around... bears? TLK too, animators spend months studying lions and tried to portray them as animallike as possible in the movie.
Many modern movies like Brother Bear, Bolt, Lilo&Stitch or Ratatouille do not have 'animals incidental to the plot' but rather integrated and a vital part of the plot. You seem to keep hanging on the really old Disney movies (pre-1990). Of coures all mentioned movies combine animals with humans instead of having an all-animal cast (like TLK and Robin Hood).
In the furry webcomics I've seen, usually the fact that they are animals is quite important to the plot and/or how characters behave
You must be reading different ones than me. In ones I know, like VGCats or Housepets, in 95% of the cases you could just simply replace them with humans, and it would still work flawlessly. Actually, I don't think I have read a single webcomic which acts the way you say...
Disney started with a plot and animals became a part of it as the story demanded.
Lion King claims otherwise. Aside from other titles mentioned earlier.
You'll also see a preponderance of 'cool' animals like wolves and tigers, not so much, say, a giant cockroach.
Yeah, but that's pretty much everywhere the case. Even Sam&Max.
I was as surprised as anyone that there is a 'centaur scene' among the furry community, who knew?
Oh, I agree with you there. What the hell do centaurs have to do with us?
Eeeeeeh? I like Disneymovies a lot too, for the same reasons as you summon. Why else?
I never said you didn't like plot, I said the importance of the fact that there are animals is different to furry and non-furry viewers. I guarantee you, when I watch one of those movies, the importance of the characters being animals is WAY less important to me than it is to you.
Eh, especially with Brother Bear your "incidental to the plot" falls kind of apart. How does 'Man turns into bear, gets hunted by brother since hatred of bears' NOT revolve around... bears? TLK too, animators spend months studying lions and tried to portray them as animallike as possible in the movie.
Many modern movies like Brother Bear, Bolt, Lilo&Stitch or Ratatouille do not have 'animals incidental to the plot' but rather integrated and a vital part of the plot. You seem to keep hanging on the really old Disney movies (pre-1990). Of coures all mentioned movies combine animals with humans instead of having an all-animal cast (like TLK and Robin Hood).
wow. I'm speechless. So if i told you to go read Maus, would you think it was 'about mice'? what about 'Animal Farm'? The symbolism, allegory, social commentary, the whole message, just flew right over your head, huh? guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. Brother Bear was not 'about bears' it was about learning to see the world through another's eyes, abandoning prejudices, and taking responsibility. It was kinda like 'Black Like Me' (kinda, Black Like me lacked the taking responsibility for your actions thing) Using bears as an allegory for another race or group of people, (Unspecified, in this case. Which is actually precisely WHY storytellers use this method of talking about discrimination so often; it ensures the viewer's own prejudices do not cloud their judgment of the story.) in order to make the message easier to grasp. This is kinda like what fantasy or sci-fi does, except they use elves vs. dwarves or Klingons vs Vulcans instead of animals. but both approaches have the same intent. see: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism for more examples.
I never said animals were incidental to the plot. I said the the fact that they WERE animals was incidental to the plot, and I was mostly talking about Robin Hood (only because Robin Hood's character designs were the most 'furry like' of any Disney movie). There's a difference. The Lion King is Hamlet. I assure you, it works perfectly well with no lions. Robin Hood, well, that one's obvious. As I said above, Brother Bear's core story could have worked with something else taking the place of bears, it could have been elves, it could have been another race of humans. But the last one would have been too 'controversial' and 'heavy' for a Disney film, using bears let them get the *message* across while maintaining a lighter and less controversial tone.
*edit - I just remembered, District 9 was sort of the same plot as Brother Bear... (definitely more serious, but basically the same) but with aliens... as a commentary on Apartheid. so yeah. works with no bears. Had the same message, but much more overt. I think Brother Bear was more effective, because of the subtlety and the character development was vastly superior, but.... I hope you're in the minority in not getting it, because I'd hate to think most people were missing the message if it's not spoon fed to them.
And I have seen all of Disney's movies. I don't buy that any of them are 'furry' Robin Hood is as close as it gets, and I explained why that wasn't. I am not about to go through point by point though. (Lilo and Stitch, seriously? that's an ALIEN)
You must be reading different ones than me. In ones I know, like VGCats or Housepets, in 95% of the cases you could just simply replace them with humans, and it would still work flawlessly. Actually, I don't think I have read a single webcomic which acts the way you say...
I have never read Housepets, but VGCats is not a 'furry' comic. it's a gamer comic. So yeah, thanks for proving my point? that the presence of animals does not necessarily equal "furry" was my whole point.
Lion King claims otherwise. Aside from other titles mentioned earlier.
As I said above, it's Hamlet. http://www.lionking.org/text/Hamlet-TM.html The fact that the animators did some research (as any good artist would do) after deciding to use lions is irrelevant to the fact that the story would have stood with humans in the place of the lions. The presence of lions gave it a wider appeal, and allowed them to do some pretty African scenery, but still.
Yeah, but that's pretty much everywhere the case. Even Sam&Max.
And Sal....? why do you think I mentioned cockroaches?
Oh, I agree with you there. What the hell do centaurs have to do with us?
they're half-human half-animal. While it took my by surprise initially, in retrospect, it makes sense.
As I said above, it's Hamlet. http://www.lionking.org/text/Hamlet-TM.html The fact that the animators did some research (as any good artist would do) after deciding to use lions is irrelevant to the fact that the story would have stood with humans in the place of the lions. The presence of lions gave it a wider appeal, and allowed them to do some pretty African scenery, but still.
I guarantee you, when I watch one of those movies, the importance of the characters being animals is WAY less important to me than it is to you.
If you say so...
wow. I'm speechless. So if i told you to go read Maus, would you think it was 'about mice'? what about 'Animal Farm'?
Heh, I know what both these books are about. And I have read neither . They do kind of spoonfed you this in school (well, here at least).
The symbolism, allegory, social commentary, the whole message, just flew right over your head, huh?
When talking about Brother Bear, probably. I tend to view animated movies for my entertainment, not to ponder the "hidden meaning". So I guess they did fail to catch me there...
This is kinda like what fantasy or sci-fi does, except they use elves vs. dwarves or Klingons vs Vulcans instead of animals.
Heh, I think movies like Blade Runner or series like Stargate SG-1 do a better job than those movies.
LOTR doesn't really have some kind of deeper meaning, at least I didn't find any. Then again, the first book is so darn boring I might slept through it.
The Lion King is Hamlet.
Didn't *everyone* die in Hamlet? I don't recall that happening in TLK.
VGCats is not a 'furry' comic. it's a gamer comic. So yeah, thanks for proving my point? that the presence of animals does not necessarily equal "furry" was my whole point.
That fits my definition of furry. And as I mentioned, yeah, they could replace the cats with humans. They just... don't. For reasons you also specified (expressions etc.). If VGCats doesn't fit your "furry" definition may I ask exactly what your definition would be?
And Sal....? why do you think I mentioned cockroaches?
It took many comics, a TV-series, a videogame and 3 seasons of episodes before they used the major cockroach even here, where cockroaches are common.
Why do you think I replied with "Even Sam&Max." I was well aware it was 'bout Sal...
they're half-human half-animal. While it took my by surprise initially, in retrospect, it makes sense.
I still think it doesn't quite fit though, but that's just me...
I already did explain. Furry media would be created specifically for furry audiences, usually by people who are furries themselves. That's it in a nutshell, it all comes down to author/artist intent. Otherwise the definition is WAY too broad and catches people and media that would never in a million years want to be associated with furries. It would be like saying anyone who had read an L. Ron Hubbard book was a Scientologist. "Furry" is a term that should be applied to a person willingly, It's the person saying they identify with anthro animals in, um, a 'special' way. It is not fair to label people furries if they don't want to be labeled that way. That includes artists/writers. Your definition includes everything from Animal Farm to Bugs Bunny, it's absurdly broad. Furries may like some media that contains animals for a variety of non-furry related reasons, but that doesn't make it 'furry'
and geez, just because i didn't specify your favourite specific examples doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make. That using animals is often allegory.
By that definition... I wouldn't be a furry. Hell, most wouldn't.
I was talking about furry MEDIA. Art and literature. Not furries. You want to call yourself a furry, go nuts, no complaints. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the art/fiction, only your reaction to it. It's when your definition applies that label to others that don't want it that I have problems. Your definition applied the 'furry' label to artists and fans of movies that most likely are not furry.
So, I took the time to read through a fair chunk of this thread, and I must say bravo at a masterful derailment. All we're missing is the inevitable manifestation of Godwin's Law. I hereby place a warning sticker on this thread. Pat yourselves on the back, you've earned it
::Sigh:: The subject was dealt with by page 2 & most of the responces are off topic anyway. If this was the Homestar Runner Wiki, this topic would have been locked long ago.
So, I took the time to read through a fair chunk of this thread, and I must say bravo at a masterful derailment. All we're missing is the inevitable manifestation of Godwin's Law. I hereby place a warning sticker on this thread. Pat yourselves on the back, you've earned it
Godwin's law you seek, Fallout MMO thread you will find.
So, I took the time to read through a fair chunk of this thread, and I must say bravo at a masterful derailment. All we're missing is the inevitable manifestation of Godwin's Law.
It's an acronym... Can anyone really copyright letters? Just from reading that thread, the premise of the cartoon and the C.O.P.S. from the games seems more than different enough for it to not be a problem. But, I must admit I don't really know much about the law on these matters.
Comments
Back to the argument. Is anyone here actually preaching hate against gay people? I know I'm not. I said I dislike the stereotypical way some act, but that's more their mannerisms than their lifestyle. I could say the same about any stereotype, but maybe that's because they are usually played for laughs in media, so actually seeing it in real life, to me at least, can be a little annoying. Again that doesn't mean I hate them or all gay people. What's that phrase? When you assume you make an ass out of u and me?
Also:
Welcome to the forum. Believe me this is far from the norm but this is still a forum and discussion can and does happen, shockingly.
Also I noticed hypocasy in your post. It kinda begins when you typed the word hate and even more so when you used the word scum. Must feel good to judge people over the internet huh?
Ah, I see. The dreaded triple-offensor.
I don't see why people are so down on furries, honestly. I doubt anyone would want everybody knowing what they fantasize about in the darker hours of the night... or the middle of the day for that matter.
Hey, I just put on my judge glasses and there I go. This was originally a thread about a furry game featuring Sam & Max that people were trying to pull in a profit from. I don't really see why you had to go off on your rant about gay mannerisms; there was no call for it.
Anyway, this thread has done what it was supposed to do: get the game removed. This thread is now obsolete.
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
Well, either that, or we'll just continue yelling "YOU SUCK" "NO YOU SUCK" at each other's face.
I was totally gone when we started talking about gay people, so I didn't start it.
When I talked about gay people, I said that people should stop hating them so much and live their godamn life.
Only thing I connected hate with was with furries.
No you suck!
I think you'll find I can stay here if I want :P
Also rant about gay mannerisms? Good sir/madame you make it sound like I was foaming at the mouth when I typed my posts. And you keep missing the point that it's silly flamboyant mannerism that I DISLIKE. Not hate, but dislike. I have never once said I hated Gay people, why should I? As long as anyone doesn't do anything to me that I don't want them to they can do whatever they want within the lines of the law. But the really loud flamboyant ones, it's like watching a stereotype come to life, it's bizzare and interesting up to a point, then it just grates. Saying that though, of all the gay people that I know, I've never met any like that... huh, maybe it IS just the stereotype I hate?
Besides you and Bonefreak are pretty much proving my point about hypocrasy. You'll both brook no critasism of any kind any Gay people, but you're absolutly fine with lumping hate on furries. Seems that it's perfectly ok for you to hate a group of people unless that culture is one you belong to.
And anyway, you're both missing the point. This is a discussion... D I S C U S S I O N. People say what they think and you can express your god/maker given right to disagree, but you can't think to censor what others think.
I don't really care about what you're saying, but such egregious disregard of spell check grates on me.
Edit: I went and read through a bit of this thread, and want to correct one misconception: looking at drawn porn of children is a crime in the US. Not sure how the conversation got there but... yeah.
I'll try to make that a more coherent sentence when I'm not so out of it.
its kinda like the whole thing where people go like: oh i dont think gays should be allowed to marry, and its ok, because i have a gay friend who agrees.
Calm down, bro. That's not what I was saying.
I think you're missing the point from my post entirely. Which was "why are you straying from the original topic? The game's gone now."
And I was saying everyone should leave this thread, not just you, sir.
Good day
Sorry! It's not usually that bad, but I also used to have a dicitionary addon for firefox that would tell me when I messed up and I've not gotten around to installing it again.
If we had to make a new topic every time a topic changed direction the forums would be flooded with useless crap, much like this topic has become. Still at least it's confined to this topic...
And yeah I can't see this lasting much longer, mostly because I'm bored of it now. But we need something to do to stem the gap before episode 5!
I think maybe the wait's making everybody tetchy
...wankers
The Sam And Max Rant Thread!
(big letters make it more official)
That is all.
We need some kind of argument thread. Whenever a thread starts to break down into an argument, the conversation automatically shifts to that thread...
If there were an argument thread I can assure it would be the most civil place you ever laid eyes upon, they're only good when they're cultivated naturally in the wild
"Hitler was a gay and a furry."
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/203-cartoons-and-animation/56012728
>.< I realize this reply is coming late, but I just found this thread, and I just HAD to respond to this. Okay, liking Robin Hood does NOT make one a 'furry'. I love many Disney films, but the difference between my interest and a furries interest is that my first interest is in THE STORY which *happens* to contain anthropomorphic animals, (which were included likely because they thought it would appeal to kids, and because they are expressive, not to appeal to furries) the fact that they are animals is waaaaaaaaay down on my list. A self identified 'furry' is primarily interested in the animals, then the story. Also note that in most of these movies, Robin Hood in particular, (which, really, is the only one to feature truly furry style animals, unless you count some aspects of Fantasia, all their other animals tend to remain on all fours, even the ones that talk) the fact that they are animals is incidental to the plot. Regarding movies like Lion King, Bother Bear and Bambi, the use of animals as characters is to aid the audience in looking at the themes from a new perspective. Story is paramount, and there is an actual *plot* reason for each instance of an animal in their feature films (well, aside from some of the sidekick characters). As for their shorts featuring Mickey etc. (and the same can be extended to Warner Brothers stable of characters, though Disney's characters are older) that is primarily because when Mickey first appeared, animation was in it's very early stages, and broad shapes were needed that translated well into black and white. While human characters did exist at he time, mostly from Fleischer Studios, many of them were rather creepy. It was much easier to make animals appealing, and the characters were extremely simple to draw (Mickey can be drawn by tracing a quarter and 2 dimes, then sticking a face on it). Also, they're more expressive, you can push them further, use their ears and tails to aid in expression. But again, it was not to appeal to furry fans. In the furry webcomics I've seen, usually the fact that they are animals is quite important to the plot and/or how characters behave, the plot is built around including furry characters, but not in the same way that the Disney movies do. Disney started with a plot and animals became a part of it as the story demanded. furry stories start with animal characters, just 'cus, then focus on the animal aspect heavily. They also quite often include other people's fursonas. It's not anthro animals evolving as the plot demands. You'll also see a preponderance of 'cool' animals like wolves and tigers, not so much, say, a giant cockroach.
there is a web comic called Lackadaisy Cats, I would recommend to anyone. As you'd expect, the characters are all cats. Though the artist has said in the FAQ that the inclusion of cats as the main characters is similar to the reasoning I outline above for why Disney is not furry. I quote: "Q. Why cats?
A. When dealing in sociopathic criminalism and gratuitous violence, how could it not be cats? Don't take it too literally, though. It's mostly just a device I like to use for characterization. The mobile ears, tails, and big eyes help me emphasize gesture and expression more than I could with human characters, they allow me to be as ridiculous as I like, and, well, they're just plain fun to draw."
and:
"Q. Are you a furry?
A. Uh. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I draw furries (if you can't think of a less schmaltzy name for them), but I'm actually a not-very-furry upright primate. I suspect you are too, unless you're a cat walking on the keyboard. Get off the keyboard!"
Basically - Disney = animals for story, expressive characters and/or appealing to kids. Furry = animals for fanservice to other furries. While furries may find Disney films appealing for the animals, that does not make them 'furry' movies, nor does it make other fans of the movies furries.
As for Sam and Max being furry characters, I'd argue based on the above that the difference lies in intent of the artist. You'd have to ask Purcell about that, but I doubt he'd agree that they are furry characters.
BTW, I don't necessarily have anything against furry comics or whatever, but for me the story is paramount, so it must have a good one under the furry characters. Also, this is from someone who once planned to do a comic strip featuring anthro birds and other animals, (I might still do it someday, dunno. was a decent idea) who would definitely not call herself a 'furry'. I've also attracted a furry following for my latest project, because it has centaurs. bleh. (I was as surprised as anyone that there is a 'centaur scene' among the furry community, who knew? But that's not the reason I included them, and it annoys me that I have had to clarify this to people. I have noticed a distinct difference in the types of questions asked from members of this 'community' and people who are interested for other reasons. The 'taur fans ALWAYS ask when the next 'taur will show up. will there be other types of 'taurs (like with a cat body or something), will you turn X (human) character INTO a centaur? and of course, the one they all seem to want 'will you include MY character?' they also like to nitpick how a 'real' centaur would look or dress, what they'd eat, how tall they'd be, what types of ears they'd have, and so on. (mine are human-height, have human ears, are fully clothed, and eat human type food. I can't change it or the backstory would make no sense, not to mention be inconsistent with previous art. some take great offence to this) fiddly details. They seem to care very little about where the plot goes, as long as it's got some guy with the body of a horse. If I wrote them out, these 'fans' would be gone in a heartbeat. Considering I spent a great deal of time planning the plot and characters, it's a bit disheartening to see all that work utterly disregarded. Yes, I do realize these are the bad apples, but... Other people ask about the character's motivations, or history of the world, will X end up with Y romantically, etc.) On another project I worked on, it featured many different gods and goddesses. Including Bast and Anubis, the Egyptian gods with the head of a cat and a jackal, respectively. (the main characters were Loki, Thor, and Jesus) at ComicCon, we were approached by the posterboy of furries, the tiger guy with all the tattoos, plastic surgery and piercings to make himself look like a tiger. I even have a picture of me with him: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v720/jillbamfette/tiger-guy2.jpg (I'm in the blue shirt) ALL he wanted to know about was Bast. She was a minor character, but that's all he cared about, try explaining the plot to him, he just didn't care, he just wanted to know how much Bast appeared. It was.... strange. Though yes, he's a rather extreme example. But I think it does illustrate that he was looking for something totally different in what he read/watched than a non-furry.
ok, done ranting. sorry, hot button with me. I have had to explain that I'm not a furry on a number of occasions
Many modern movies like Brother Bear, Bolt, Lilo&Stitch or Ratatouille do not have 'animals incidental to the plot' but rather integrated and a vital part of the plot. You seem to keep hanging on the really old Disney movies (pre-1990). Of coures all mentioned movies combine animals with humans instead of having an all-animal cast (like TLK and Robin Hood). You must be reading different ones than me. In ones I know, like VGCats or Housepets, in 95% of the cases you could just simply replace them with humans, and it would still work flawlessly. Actually, I don't think I have read a single webcomic which acts the way you say... Lion King claims otherwise. Aside from other titles mentioned earlier. Yeah, but that's pretty much everywhere the case. Even Sam&Max. Oh, I agree with you there. What the hell do centaurs have to do with us?
I never said you didn't like plot, I said the importance of the fact that there are animals is different to furry and non-furry viewers. I guarantee you, when I watch one of those movies, the importance of the characters being animals is WAY less important to me than it is to you.
wow. I'm speechless. So if i told you to go read Maus, would you think it was 'about mice'? what about 'Animal Farm'? The symbolism, allegory, social commentary, the whole message, just flew right over your head, huh? guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. Brother Bear was not 'about bears' it was about learning to see the world through another's eyes, abandoning prejudices, and taking responsibility. It was kinda like 'Black Like Me' (kinda, Black Like me lacked the taking responsibility for your actions thing) Using bears as an allegory for another race or group of people, (Unspecified, in this case. Which is actually precisely WHY storytellers use this method of talking about discrimination so often; it ensures the viewer's own prejudices do not cloud their judgment of the story.) in order to make the message easier to grasp. This is kinda like what fantasy or sci-fi does, except they use elves vs. dwarves or Klingons vs Vulcans instead of animals. but both approaches have the same intent. see: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism for more examples.
I never said animals were incidental to the plot. I said the the fact that they WERE animals was incidental to the plot, and I was mostly talking about Robin Hood (only because Robin Hood's character designs were the most 'furry like' of any Disney movie). There's a difference. The Lion King is Hamlet. I assure you, it works perfectly well with no lions. Robin Hood, well, that one's obvious. As I said above, Brother Bear's core story could have worked with something else taking the place of bears, it could have been elves, it could have been another race of humans. But the last one would have been too 'controversial' and 'heavy' for a Disney film, using bears let them get the *message* across while maintaining a lighter and less controversial tone.
*edit - I just remembered, District 9 was sort of the same plot as Brother Bear... (definitely more serious, but basically the same) but with aliens... as a commentary on Apartheid. so yeah. works with no bears. Had the same message, but much more overt. I think Brother Bear was more effective, because of the subtlety and the character development was vastly superior, but.... I hope you're in the minority in not getting it, because I'd hate to think most people were missing the message if it's not spoon fed to them.
And I have seen all of Disney's movies. I don't buy that any of them are 'furry' Robin Hood is as close as it gets, and I explained why that wasn't. I am not about to go through point by point though. (Lilo and Stitch, seriously? that's an ALIEN)
I have never read Housepets, but VGCats is not a 'furry' comic. it's a gamer comic. So yeah, thanks for proving my point? that the presence of animals does not necessarily equal "furry" was my whole point.
As I said above, it's Hamlet. http://www.lionking.org/text/Hamlet-TM.html The fact that the animators did some research (as any good artist would do) after deciding to use lions is irrelevant to the fact that the story would have stood with humans in the place of the lions. The presence of lions gave it a wider appeal, and allowed them to do some pretty African scenery, but still. And Sal....? why do you think I mentioned cockroaches?
they're half-human half-animal. While it took my by surprise initially, in retrospect, it makes sense.
Actually, The Lion King is derived from Kimba the White Lion, which was an anime in the 1960s... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058817/ http://www.kimbawlion.com/rant2.htm
LOTR doesn't really have some kind of deeper meaning, at least I didn't find any. Then again, the first book is so darn boring I might slept through it. Didn't *everyone* die in Hamlet? I don't recall that happening in TLK. That fits my definition of furry. And as I mentioned, yeah, they could replace the cats with humans. They just... don't. For reasons you also specified (expressions etc.). If VGCats doesn't fit your "furry" definition may I ask exactly what your definition would be? It took many comics, a TV-series, a videogame and 3 seasons of episodes before they used the major cockroach even here, where cockroaches are common.
Why do you think I replied with "Even Sam&Max." I was well aware it was 'bout Sal... I still think it doesn't quite fit though, but that's just me...
and geez, just because i didn't specify your favourite specific examples doesn't invalidate the point I was trying to make. That using animals is often allegory.
Because you touch yourself at night
Goddammit I knew that would eventually lead to no good...
I was talking about furry MEDIA. Art and literature. Not furries. You want to call yourself a furry, go nuts, no complaints. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the art/fiction, only your reaction to it. It's when your definition applies that label to others that don't want it that I have problems. Your definition applied the 'furry' label to artists and fans of movies that most likely are not furry.
Godwin's law you seek, Fallout MMO thread you will find.
Anyway: It's an acronym... Can anyone really copyright letters? Just from reading that thread, the premise of the cartoon and the C.O.P.S. from the games seems more than different enough for it to not be a problem. But, I must admit I don't really know much about the law on these matters.