This movie didn't get very much art, lewd or otherwise. Why? I know it was puppets, but it was still cute animal characters with interesting personalities. I know /trash/ has had a number of threads about puppets, so why didn't this movie get any love?
Because furries have shit taste. Also Ash is cute CUTE!
>>3489089
He was ©=°€=™×π•∆~ different.
>>3488448
Wes Anderson's movies are an acquired taste. Not everyone can enjoy his films unfortunately.
>>3490588
I'm afriad that's true.
>>3489089
Agnes was cuter.
>>3489089
Any lewds of Ash and Kristofferson together?
>>3488448
It doesn't look Disney enough for them.
This movie was amazing though. Like actually animated art.
>>3489089
Ash a cute.
>>3498579
Was he gay, though? He never really seemed that interested in Agnes until he used her as a chess piece in his war on Kristofferson.
>>3498913
He was "different"
And by "different" they meant gay.
>>3489089
Imagine an adult version of this movie where they were nude and sexualized.
>"Agnes was checking me out earlier."
>"Mine's longer."
>"Well mine's, uh, heavier."
>>3488448
I watched the movie the other week - it was alright, I don't get the huge praise for it though
Kristofferson is a cute, though
>>3498306
>It doesn't look Disney enough for them.
There was that animated CGI retelling of Reynard The Fox and that pretty much got no attention
I think it was the lack of sexualized characters.
I would have loved to have seen a plus-sized female character, casually hot.
>>3500486
What about the diving scene with Kris & Ash in their underwear? I would've thought furfags would be all over that
>tfw you will never experiment and have homosexual experience with a cousin
>>3497959
Are you proud of me now, Anon?
This aged-up Agnes is the best drawing based on the movie ever done. Granted, there's not a lot to choose from.
>>3503504
I'm not even into women, but dayum...
Dayyyum...
>>3500335
Stop motion animation is rare enough as it is, so when something that's, as you say, alright turns up, it gets a lot of attention simply for being unusual.
It was the same with Ernest & Celestine, another solidly OK movie that did something different and got a lot of attention for it.
Because the characters are extremely creepy looking and not cute or realistic in any way
I'm gonna be honest here.
I did not like this movie.
Am I the only one?
>>3504792
What are your specific complaints?
it was certainly unique, but I found the offbeat humor and antics very charming in the end
>>3504761
The artstyle was great, I just find Wes Anderson's directing and the writing to be quite jarring.
As much as I like Zootopia, I feel that the over the top cutesy huge eyed disney style is too childish for me. Guess I've grown out of it or not autistic over it, huh
>tfw you will never console Ash and tell him that everything will be alright
>>3504841
I was about to say it reminded me of Roald Dahl, but then I realized that it was based off a book by Roald Dahl, seemingly the only one I didn't read.
>>3504822
Well, thing is, I actually did really enjoy the first 20-30 minutes of the movie. The writing and humor were enjoyable. But after a while I couldn't help but realize that the father is a jackass and pretty much a bad person. Which would have been fine if he didn't keep digging everybody even deeper into trouble, both figuratively and literally. And then the movie ends with "hey we're in a supermarket let's continue stealing shit even though that's exactly what got us into trouble in the first place! Dance everyone, dance!"
I dunno, maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but that ending ticked me off and ruined the experience entirely, which was already less than stellar for me save for the first third of the movie.
>>3504792
It's hard for me to identify with a thief who brings his problems on not just himself, but others.
>>3504907
Yeah pretty much this
>>3504901
By all rights, they're effectively locked into a downward spiral thanks to the father's irresponsibility. Theft is theft.
And now he's turned his family and friends into thieves.
>>3504901
Mrs. Fox: Why did you lie to me?
Mr. Fox: Because I'm a wild animal.
I suppose you could see this as a cop-out, but I thought that was a pretty good line
>>3505003
Good line. But in the mother's shoes, I would have recognized my husband had become a danger to his own family.
>>3505003
IRL, foxes eat wild fruit, fungi, and animals. Since humans tend to build on or farm as much land as possible and foxes can't plausibly kill larger animals, that pretty strictly limits them to whatever they can steal from humans. Seems fair.
Although picking the most belligerent farmers in his world might've been a more questionable choice.
>>3505233
Surely a smart fox could have arranged a secret deal with a human farmer.
>>3505271
What does a fox have to offer a farmer?
>>3505392
I don't know, but I could see it being the plot of a porno.
>>3505392
Killing off other pests like rodents and keeping other predators away?
>>3505484
That is the most likely arrangement. Goods provided in exchange for services rendered.
An odd crossover, but I'll allow it
>>3504901
You (and apparently a lot of people who watched it) completely missed the point of the movie. It's about Mr Fox trying to get in touch with his wild, animal side. Despite telling himself and everyone else throughout the movie that he's a wild, uncontrollable animal, he's very clearly "domesticated" and humanized. He's trying to lie to himself / reassure himself that he's "wild" by going on hunting missions but he's actually anxious and somewhat afraid of being wild (his phobia of wolves). That's why the wolf scene is the most important scene in the movie. The wolf is completely "wild" (he doesn't speak, he lives in the woods, and not in a hole or tree house, he's quadrupedal), which is what he strives to be, or at least get in touch with. At that moment they have a connection (the returned salute) which prompts Mr Fox to get over his phobia of wolves (and therefore the "wild"). The ending is ambiguous in the sense that Mr Fox and the animals didn't really succeed in their mission, they didn't really beat the 3 humans and their houses gone, showing the volatile nature of taking those kinds of risks. Basically it's supposed to be like a classic children's book "moral of the story" thing at the end (since it's based on a children's book).
You could also interpret it as a story about the male midlife crisis. He feels bored and disappointed with his life so he seeks out gratification, he's tries hard to be a man and provide for his family, but he's shot down (literally) and emasculated (severing of his tail), the wild representing "true" masculinity, which contrasts with the quiet life as a husband/father and so on, you get the idea.
So maybe look up some more stuff about the movie to help you understand, and watch it again, because it's great, and one of Wes Anderson's best.
Also you should learn to appreciate an unlikable character. Some of the best character study movies are about unlikable or despicable characters.
>>3505527
Except those farmers would never strike a deal with a fox of any kind. They'd just kill him.
They were called "belligerent" earlier in the thread, and with good reason.
It would have been an OC farmer.
Bumping before I go to bed - I hope this thread isn't dead by morning
Apparently this is Kristofferson
>>3503504
bumping to save from death by hg threads
>>3511760
thicc bump
town tart bump
Page 10 resurrect.
>>3501267
I've had heterosexual experiences with my cousin I could explain if you guys would like
>>3519181
Do it.
>>3506944
>Also you should learn to appreciate an unlikable character. Some of the best character study movies are about unlikable or despicable characters.
Actually, this depends a lot on two things:
-if the character is "unlikeable" in the way that they have bad person's traits, or in the way that they have poor character development / are too archetypical / don't have realistic personalities that one can empathize with, while the narrative treats them as if they were normal.
-if they're the main characters or not, in the first case the character needs to improve or at least have their unlikeness justified by a good backstory or any other reasons, otherwise it's just annoying as hell
The protagonist from that LOSS comic may be a good example of what an unlikeable character shouldn't be like.
Not to mention that one can't "appreciate" an unlikeable character, because that would mean liking their presence in the narrative.
>>3519224
Okay well
> be like 5 and have really weird sexual experience, touch parts together and stuff
> few years later about 12 this time
> cousin comes to my house and we just hang out
>suddenly she asks "anon, do you remember what we did as kids"
>get embarrassed and think ~oh shit is she talking about that one thing
>reply with "what like play hide and seek" or something like that
>she says no and proceeds to get really close to me
>instantboner.png
>she says "well I remember that we used to play Games adults play"
>"okay yes I remember, why"
>"wanna do it again"
>"uhhh kind of"
> she proceeds to pull her pants down
> I literally cannot wait to fuck
>she pulls my pants down and we try sex, but like how dumb kids do
> we try vaginal sex but like all I do is run my dick in and just keep it there
> hear parents waking up
> fuck
> hurry up and get dress, have breakfast and go to church
>we still hang out sometimes, if you catch my drift
>>3519670
Of course, uninteresting and underdeveloped characters are rarely good, but I was talking strictly about likability and relatability. The fact that a character was made to be disliked or impossible to relate to doesn't make it a poor one, and it shouldn't diminish the quality of the movie itself. There are plenty of good movies with unlikable characters. Here's a few better known examples: Nightcrawler, The Wolf of Wall Street, Synecdoche New York, No Country For Old Men, Irreversible, The White Ribbon, The Piano Teacher, Happiness, There Will Be Blood, Boogie Nights, The Master, American Psycho, Throne of Blood, Taxi Driver, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining, 2001 A Space Odyssey, and of course to some degree Fantastic Mr Fox (he's also completely justified in being an asshole, like I pointed out in the other post).
Also you can totally appreciate an unlikable character for their complexity, realism and believability, traits, actions etc, but that depends more on the narrative as a whole, and the way it emphasizes the character. Take There Will Be Blood for instance. There's no way anyone could ever like or relate to Daniel Plainview, yet he's an extraordinary character. You can see and understand the horrible way he sees everything and why he does certain things, but that doesn't make him any less despicable.
Then again, nothing's really set in stone. There's films in which the main characters aren't even meant to be interesting, like in Terrence Malick's newer works, where the characters are left almost completely flat, because they're each meant to express specific feelings or emotions, that add to the whole message of the specific scene or entire movie. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't look at this kind of stuff in such a black and white kind of way. Films are a form of art after all, and restrictions like those make everything too samey and boring.
>>3516476
>town tart
It was a different time back then.
>>3488448
it slipped under a lot of people's radar.
Never seen a single thread about this movie on /co/, who would have though /trash/ of all places has more class.
>>3520971
Even degenerates are capable of having some refined tastes
>>3519996
Amazing story. I don't care if it's true or not.
>>3519996
Ever do anything else together?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WHYYYYYYYYY
I remember thinking the two boy foxes were cute together.
