General / Off-Topic Is "Cats" (the movie) only for Furries?
- Thread starter Para Handy
- Start date
Yes.
Nobody sane would suffer through this for the music.
Nobody sane would suffer through this for the music.
Finally, a movie that begs for jokes about hairballs.
Last edited:
Oh dear, they look hideous. It's like Sonic the movie all over again. It's either cats, or people. You can't have both. This is just nightmare fuel.
Depends on your tastes, I think.
As a fan of manga and (unfortunately former) long time player of Wildstar, I kind of developed a soft spot for chicks with ears and tails.
This is very much an uncanny valley territory, so YMMV, of course.
Animalistic humans(or anthropomorphic animals?) work in a stylized cartoony type of animation. No doubt. But as soon as they start pushing for realism it's just weird and unsettling. I don't know...
The long standing tradition of catgirls. Though I think the movie might be better as a horror story named "An American Werecat in London". Also keep it as a musical.
I'd watch that! That sounds like exactly my kind of urban fantasy.
I watched the American Werewolf in London when I was about 12...and that nurse left quite an impression on me I can tell you.
You too!
To this very day my friend.
a friend of mine used to say: "if it's warm and weights more than 40kg, it's game". that was before the internet
Mmm. Suddenly I'd like me some proper venison...a friend of mine used to say: "if it's warm and weights more than 40kg, it's game". that was before the internet
This Taylor is a real tigress.
if furries were involved in this the characters would be way less uncanny-valley
it's a pretty well-known phenomenon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
tl;dr is that a cartoon animal or something that obviously isn't a real thing just gets processed as what is is, but something that's close to human is unsettling because it's close enough for your brain to recognise it as that thing but it's also flawed and wrong somehow, even if you can't put your finger on why.
If you're looking at a straight-up cel-shaded animation, you expect the lip-sync to be slightly off, so seeing a photorealistic model of a human being, especially one that's modeled after an actual person, be almost-but-not-quite-there, sets off some degree of "what I'm looking at isn't right" reaction. Moff Tarkin in Rogue One set that one off for me - it certainly looked like Peter Cushing but it didn't move like Peter Cushing, or indeed a natural human at all. There was something.. off about it that I couldn't put my finger on.
I'm well aware of what Uncanny valley is, but I'm not even sure that's what going on here. Just the way those human animal mutants look, is just not working for me. Like look at her mouth and lips. 100% human, on a face that's more cat than human. It's just strange. And tip of her nose is not covered in fur, and is totally human too? Like, if they'd went further to make her look like a cat maybe it would make more sense. But the way it is it's just in-between, and it looks like neither human or cat. I don't know how to explain
The fake humans in that were terrible. Cushing looked like a wax figure. Fisher a bobblehead.