Okay, I’m trying to understand how this got such a (almost literal) cult following. From my best guess, maybe it filled in as Zootopia before Zootopia?
I wouldn't doubt that had a lot to do with it being a stop gap until a real anthro-related thing popped up (since Alplha Omega uses "Feral" animals).
Saw the first movie back then and it had a creepy sexual undertone to it. At one point, at the end of the movie, the alpha female's mom attacks that omega slacker, thinking he already banged her daughter, only with the alpha female telling her that nothing happened (yet). It is never explained for the kids audience since the target audience, the wolfaboos, already know what she was referring to.
It's interesting how subtle such cues are for grown-ups to get anyway, even for a film aimed at tots, but then, I've probably seen similar movies for years where any sort of innuendo was often played off in weird ways like characters becoming stiff and falling over themselves (the "twitterpatted" moments in Bambi are an example).
Basically the movie humanized wolves and has put human standards and morality mixed with the rules of nature, in a twisted and odd way which leaves the viewer a bit uncomfortable.
Like Humphrey's little rockin' air guitar scene in that RV. They do take the "Talking Animal" thing up to 11. But then, the suspension of disbelief has always been a crutch in animated cartoons.
It doesn't help that there was a lack of consequences and a subplot which has shown the alpha male and the alpha female's sister bond with each other.
And yet, fans really loved those two side characters.
The Russians tried to ape that success with the same little effort by putting wolves against sheep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JNgjy9OZ2s
Need to check this out, but yeah, someone just had to go and do this. We already had "One Stormy Night" a decade ago, and look at all the R34 created over those two!
A later TV series was also made, though fans didn't care much for this since it was aimed at pre-schoolers.
It's basically the same story premise (lazy main character gets pulled out of the comfort zone, dates way out of his league and there is a conflict between two groups as well as no real consequences except for the main villain - something Alpha & Omega lacked).
I wouldn't doubt it's just lazy writing for the most part that gets these movies by.
Now I feel sad. How does one go from helping out with some pretty good Disney films (and one of my favorites) to... whatever he’s at now?
Oh, money! It didn't help those Bible videos he did during the 80's and 90's probably gave him a reason to never rise above his level (not to mention cranking out one on
Muhammad for the Muslim set).
No, because that implies it was objectively good and have moments of clever writing like Zootopia did. I think it might have something to do with parents buying this shit on the discount rack and a bunch of autists obsessed with wolves, personally.
No doubt parents would do anything to shut their kids up.
Why they rallied around it, I have no clue, as there are so many better furry movies out there. Hell, Disney's Robin Hood was the movie known for making furries before Zootopia, and I can confirm this as someone who loved it to death as a kid.
Certainly, that or perhaps Animalympics (a hidden gem).
Alpha and Omega just came and went and if you're like me, the most you remembered about it was seeing a trailer in theaters and not thinking much of it.
I'm sure didn't after watching a bit of it with some kids belonging to a friend years back, since the the DVD came out and it was being played. It just seemed unimportant and bland.
Zootopia didn't really have any characters that were explicitly depicted as sexy. I was more of speaking about movies that inspired the interest in anthros for furries to come.
I knew where you were coming from here. For most, they cite Robin Hood for that reason, or perhaps any cartoon that just happen to have anthro characters at all, the way comics had inspired a first wave of furry fandom in the 70s/80s. Don't forget in those days, such interests were very niche and wasn't given a proper platform until the internet happened.
That's like having a burnt hotdog then having a banana split from an old fashioned ice cream parlor. One of these things is done terribly, the other is perfect.
And ironically that first movie was the height of their animation quailty, it just drops immediately after this.
At least Land Before Time went more than twelve months between some of it's sequels. Jesus effin' Christ...
The fact they shat out 13 of 'em over the course of two decades is an accomplishment (talking about Land Before Time here).
IDK if any of them are on IMDb's bottom 100, but they look like the kind of thing Mr I Hate Everything usually reviews.
Probably.
Land Before Time is also actually a good movie, and some of the sequels are pretty good as well despite the obvious shift in tone to be more kid-friendly. There was still care and craft put into some of them, maybe up until movie eight, with the exception of that stone of cold fire one.
The 1988 feature certainly was well-received from what I remember. That was the film kids were watching over and over. The fact you could tell so many stories in the Great Valley like they did was testament that at least Universal tried to keep that consistency there despite the weakened budgets (even doing a TV series at one point). I'm surpirsed Land Before Time wasn't flodded with so many memes by this point.
I really only knew this piece of shit had a fandom because of e621 and...recolor culture. About as bad as the Alvin and the Chipmunks fandom, thankfully doesn't seem to be on the same level and the Lady and the Tramp 2 fandom. If anyone wants to prove me wrong on that front, please spare my eyes.
Poor little Scamp, you were only best on the comics page.
I remember seeing a LOT of ads for it on Cartoon Network and getting pretty hype for it. (Maybe they were advertising it well, or maybe I was just as much of a furfag then as Reynard is now.) Then one day suddenly no more ads, at all. Maybe it came out in theaters to such bad reception they stopped bothering.
I wouldn't doubt it was one of those deals where it died after a week or two.
I don't even understand how a flop like this movie could garner a fandom at all in the first place, let alone get a slew of direct-to-DVD sequels.
I'm sure the DVD sales numbers was proof they weren't going to let this one go.
At least with other furry bait franchises like Balto, Zootopia, Sonic, Robin Hood, and the like,
*cough*The Lion King*cough*
you had works that were actually good to begin with and attract a somewhat normal fandom in addition to the furries.
I knew a few fans who started out in these as well, they do broaden out of it into original works/designs of their own as well.
This franchise is bad even by furry standards and the fact it garnered a fanbase at all is just downright confusing.
I'm sure it confuses us all.
Alvin and the Chipmunks fandom... op opened Pandora's box here of things that never shouldve happened
The only good Alvin & The Chipmunks (to me) is this...
I remember
@AnxiousRobin said it best: "There's better movies to be a furry over." You Got Zootopia, Robin Hood, Secret of N.I.M.H., An American Tail, and a lot more! Those are great movies! Why can't they sperg out about those instead?
You wonder if it's a case of "moving on" or simply not having seen them before? It's odd they're that picky.
Anything can have an overly-autistic fandom if it focuses on humanizing an animal. Free Willy? It exists. Hoodwinked or Madagascar? More likely than you'd think. Kung Fu Dino Posse? You're not even trying.
What I'm surprised about is the fact that this community is still so active and engaged, nearly 8 years after the first film came out. I'd even go to say that it's been much more stable than "bronies" in that same time, and their show still has new content being put out constantly.
Too much effort went in to putting realistic texture, contours, and eyes on an innately cartoonish design. It's almost like a scientific law that the more detail you put in to something, the less cute it looks. In this instance, putting convincingly genuine details on these sort of characters just makes them dip into uncanny valley territory faster than a heartbeat. The best way to demonstrate this is just by examining this image where a creator has put an excessive level of detail (but as a joke) on Super Mario while maintaining the character's original design.
View attachment 440283
I suppose that has always been CGI's problem from the start. How far detailed/textured should one go in trying to adapt a hand-drawn or caricatured image as a 3D realistic construct. Some films try to find their balance and it just sorta works effectively (like with Zootopia). They look very caricatured and cartoony at times but have the right about of textures/details to come off like flash 'n blood beings in a 3D world unlike our own.
