Felidae

[Morkulv]

Please... The movie is rated for 12 years and older over here. Its not that bad.

[Xiroteus]

Please... The movie is rated for 12 years and older over here. Its not that bad.

Twelve? A lot less restrictive then there.

I am not that bothered by such images, I have seen far worse in live action.

Statements were mostly a continuing joke, I cannot judge the entire film as I have yet to view it all.

[Morkulv]

Yeah, I still know the rating from when I saw it and on IMDB (look at 'Netherlands'). Watership Down is even for all ages over here.

Personally as I kid you probably won't understand most of the inside sex-jokes and stuff. But now I saw it again it really made me laugh.

[Xiroteus]

I looked up Watership Down, odd how I had never heard of it before with the amount information I read on movies.

The cover I saw on Amazon had a rating of PG.

It would be missed by many kids, maybe more so in the the past then today as kids appear to be knowing things sooner.


What does it take to get an R rating?

[Figarou]

Aww, poor Fig*pats head* At least I put up a warning. *coughs*
Here, have a duckie...

I'm an adult. I can handle any type of gorefest you throw at me. It was just annoying seeing violence, and cat sex in that particular film.

And that is precisely why we need disturbing animation like this: to counteract the largely Disney-enforced belief that animation can't be used to make anything but generic children's movies.

Imagine this......

Pretend the Disney characters are "real." (Not someone in character suit.)

What if one was on the news for.....lets say....drug abuse. How will the parents react to it? How about the children?

A fine example is the guy who played as Pee Wee Herman. (I think you heard what happened to him.)
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/11 ... index.html


Thats probably why Disney is strict on what little children see in thier films.

OH!!! There has been disturbing images in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons.

Do you know what it is? Its the "shoot yourself in the head with a gun" scene.

You don't see that anymore. Why? Well...maybe some kid shot himself in the head IRL. Also racial acts has been taken out. During the 40's, most of the cartoons has been making fun of the Japanese folks. (and a few others.) Those are no longer aired....or the scene has been cut out.


People use cartoon characters to grab the young childrens attention. You see them on kid cereal boxes, in toy commercials....ETC.

Remember Joe Camel? He was a cartoon character for those Camel cigarettes. But R.J. Reynolds had to get rid of him. Why?

Read for yourself.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A967958260

[Terastas]

Dammit Fig, you just fell victim to that same Disney-enforced mentality that KittyRose and I were talking about.

How a movie should be rated is on the content, not the way it's presented. Animation is just an artistic medium; it is not just for children.

I'd frankly like to see more movies like this, not necessarily because I enjoy them, but because risky animated movies are so few and far between nowadays that whenever one does come along, the natural reaction is to accuse the filmmakers of trying to corrupt and/or brainwash their children.

People have only come slightly out of that Disney misinterpretation, but the new misconception is that cartoons are either for children or from Japan. There's another great misconception that anime is only popular because it's from Japan -- nay, I say, it's because the Japanese never bought into that "cartoons are only for children" B.S. and used animation to tell some real kick-a** stories.

So that's why I wish there were more: Enough of these nasty movies for people to stop lashing out at them and start to understand that animation is just another art form.

[KittyRose]

Actually, I thought he wasn't surprised that the killer could talk to a human, but that he would talk to a human. It seemed to me like he considered that a taboo or something.

I agree. The movie is stating that cats, or any other animals, shouldn't talk to humans because it's considered not right or, as Doruk Golcu state it, taboo. It shows that cats have their own little society with their own rules, ideas, and taboos.

And yes Teresta, that's what I was aiming for.

[Figarou]

Dammit Fig, you just fell victim to that same Disney-enforced mentality that KittyRose and I were talking about.

How a movie should be rated is on the content, not the way it's presented. Animation is just an artistic medium; it is not just for children.


People have only come slightly out of that Disney misinterpretation, but the new misconception is that cartoons are either for children or from Japan. There's another great misconception that anime is only popular because it's from Japan -- nay, I say, it's because the Japanese never bought into that "cartoons are only for children" B.S. and used animation to tell some real kick-a** stories.

So that's why I wish there were more: Enough of these nasty movies for people to stop lashing out at them and start to understand that animation is just another art form.

Hey...I never said cartoons/animation is only for children. I'm 40 and I still watch them. I didn't make up these stupid rules and the rating system.


As for being a victim to this so called Disney s***...I don't think so. I could care less what they show in cartoons these days. I have no children of my own to care for. I understand the concept of "content." If its an animated horror film...then violence is necessary. An animated sex film....well.....its porn you're watching.

I was only stating what I heard on the news.......I wasn't enforcing it. If you let your kids watch animated horror thats meant for adults...thats your business. I'm NOT going to interfere.


Its just that I'm finding horror and sex scenes rather boring in live action/animated films. I don't know why. I used to like it when I was younger. I still like "comedy horror."

I'd frankly like to see more movies like this, not necessarily because I enjoy them, but because risky animated movies are so few and far between nowadays that whenever one does come along, the natural reaction is to accuse the filmmakers of trying to corrupt and/or brainwash their children.

Well then...get your thoughts together and write one.

[MattSullivan]

there's a reason when I pitch CAMP LYCANTHROPE to a animation studio, I don't tell them, "There's lots of disemboweling, gallons of blood, cursing, and sex"

BECAUSE THE MOVIE WILL NEVER GET MADE!

Look, Europe and japan are one thing. The United States is another. If you want to view or make those films, go to Japan, or Korea, or Europe, and get your fill from them. An AMERICAn animation company will never make films like this ( Save for South Park or Family Guy, and even then, there's restraint because of a little thing called "standards and practices" or "The Motion Picture Society of America" )

American movie execs want films that make MONEY. That means catering to a general audience to get more box-office, or trying to make shorter films so there's more showtimes to make money off of. More kids at the theater means more money. Nudity is taboo in America. It's not in Japan. Accept it. if you wanna live in a less taboo society, MOVE. Don't whine about your own.

Sometimes you see a film that SHOULD be more gritty get dumbed down and the violence lessened. SKINWALKERS would have appealed to me more, if it had been SUPER GORY AND VIOLENT. But it wasn't. AND it's story sucked. But I digress...

Studios aren't interested in pushing the envelope as much as they are in making cash. Now, it's a genuine delight when something comes along that defies expectations ( 300 is a good example because of the blood and nudity, which actually used to be in films a lot in the 70's and 80's, but it slowly disappeared ) I'm sure some of you actually thought 300 was tame, that it wasn't violent enough.

So, this poses the question. Does graphic sex, blood, and cursing NECESSARY for a good film?

My answer is no. It's the characters and the story that matter most. IF the story is served by these elements, then hey, put all the cat sex and disemboweling in it you want. But if it doesn't, then you DON'T NEED IT.

[Morkulv]

Its a shame United States doesn't have the balls to show this kind of stuff. Note that gore and violence doesn't make a story good, but if it helps create a artistic vision (wich I think is the whole point of film-making, and not money) then I support that however I can.

[MattSullivan]

What? The balls to show disgusting cat-sex? I think you need to re-evaluate what is true art versus what is repellant. Often, the angier ilk like to think repellant content is hip because somehow it makes people squirm and they get off on that sort of thing. They tend to be people who...well...frankly hate other people.

[Terastas]

What? The balls to show disgusting cat-sex? I think you need to re-evaluate what is true art versus what is repellant. Often, the angier ilk like to think repellant content is hip because somehow it makes people squirm and they get off on that sort of thing. They tend to be people who...well...frankly hate other people.

It's one thing to make a movie intentionally offensive, to include gratuitous sex and violence just for shock value and/or to hike up that rating. It's another thing to include sex or violence for realism.

In the case of Felidae, I think it was appropriate. All through the first five parts they talked about sex, which links directly with genetics, which in turn links directly with the ultimate motive of the murders: a master race. Making Felidae without any mention of sex would be like trying to make Saving Private Ryan without any mention of violence.

[KittyRose]

I believe that violence and/or sex should be included in a movie or a piece of literature if it goes with the intended storyline. I don't really like to see gratuitous violence, especially when it becomes over the top (like in the movie Hostel or any other movie like that). The same goes with sex, as well.

What Terastas brings up is a valid point. The cats talk about sex and violence a lot because it has to do with the theme and the story line. I've read some synopsis about Felidae and some state that its theme has to do with ideas about Nazis and the creation of a superior race. You can see that in the movie, as well as hints of geneocide. The use of violence brings up this isssue further. Sex is used because of the breeding process that goes with the intend to create a superior race.

Felidae uses these actions in order to explain this theme and idea throughout the movie.

[Morkulv]

What? The balls to show disgusting cat-sex? I think you need to re-evaluate what is true art versus what is repellant. Often, the angier ilk like to think repellant content is hip because somehow it makes people squirm and they get off on that sort of thing. They tend to be people who...well...frankly hate other people.

Yes. Like Terastas said, its just realism. Besides, if a action-movie includes a soft-sex scene its perfectly normal, but if a cartoon features even one its considered disgusting. You might be aiming for a family-friendly movie, but if a other director doesn't you just got to respect that in my opinion.

Personally I like my movies without hiding too much since I really hate censorship. And like I said if it doesn't have any function, it is unnecessary, but I didn't feel it was like that at all in this movie. Frankly, the cat-sex scene was just a few seconds from what I recall and just stays suggestive.

[MoonKit]

(eight years later....hey! I just finished watching it!)

Im tired of that attitude where we dont show bad stuff on tv because kids might do it. If the kid is stupid enough to shoot himself in the head because bugs bunny did it...then let him. Its called Darwinism! Im tired of catering to stupid people. Not once did I do something because I saw it on tv. That's crap.

Now about the actual film.
I thought it was interesting. The animation was good and you knew who the murderer was right away but not his incentive for it. And animated cat sex doesnt bug me...it wasnt even graphic. The gore was worse. Very original find!

[Terastas]

*nods* Some of the gore did seem like it was overdone for shock value. Especially the final kill at the end. Violence is only effective to add realism. An act of violence resulting in gallons of blood being spilled is just as bad as the same act of violence not resulting in a single drop.

Don't want to beat a dead horse or anything, but what Matt said about risky movies never being made in America, that isn't true. Heck, a year ago I was complaining that there were so many movies that included gratuitous sex, violence and/or touchy subjects just to add controversy.

Can you say "Brokeback Mountain?" It was one of three movies that was so bad, AngryAlien.com had to make a 30-second version while it was still in theaters (the others being Borat and Freddy vs. Jason), but because it was about gay cowboys, the news stories covering the controversy practically sufficed as the entire advertising campaign. People went to see the movie just to find out what all the fuss was about.

[MattSullivan]

Terastas, I was talking about an AMERICAN ANIMATED movie. we have no problem watching live action movies that are violent and sexy. But these days you STILL don't see GRAPHIC sex, it's mostly implied. Rhere isn't much blood either ( watch an old movie like day of the dead and see what I mean. ) Movies are sanitized...even ones that have violence, because if they arent the motion picture academy slaps them with an X or nc-017 and any chance of making any money goes out the door, right with an audience.

[Terastas]

It's still a fair comparison. An R-rated animated movie would start generating talk as soon as the rating was stamped on it. Hopefully none of those militant "family concerned" parents would be dumb enough to take their kids to see a movie that is clearly rated for adults, but believing what you do about animation, wouldn't you be curious to see the R-rated animated movie that actually did get made?

That's how it goes both ways. You can either give them exactly what you think they want, or you can give them something that will stand out from all the other generic crap. If Felidae was released in the United States, just having the poster in the movie theater featuring the traditionally animated cat with the R rating in the corner, that in itself would generate a lot of interest in the film.

Heck, it wouldn't even have to be a good movie for it to work. Sometimes if a movie gets so harshly slammed by the critics, people will go see said movie to see for themselves if anything could possibly be that bad. A good movie only attracts repeat viewers.

[MattSullivan]

Ter. i think you underestimate JUST how picky most Americans are. We were founded by puritans. Thus, we have an aversion to explicit sex, especially in animation. ( hence the wideheld belief it's only for kids )

[Shadow Wulf]

Your absolutely right Matt. but atleast its slowly changing for the better, heck even master chief is more popular than God here in the US as the video zero punctuation said.

[MattSullivan]

i don't necessarily consider that a good thing. ( Not that i'm a fan of religion, but people just seem to be worshiping fantasy characters..aka star wars geeks ) That's no better.

[Terastas]

Picky? Are you kidding?! Americans will watch anything!

I would have figured all these crap reality shows would have taught you that by now. I mean, really, do you honestly expect me to believe Borat was worth a Golden Globe?

I'm starting to think you're convinced Americans are so picky because you're still only focusing on that "cartoons are just for kids" bracket. Don't think that a movie like Felidae should be marketed strictly to children just because it's animated. Some idiot "proud parents" will refuse to go see it because it's "trying to corrupt our children," and some idiots will refuse to go see it because "if it's animated, it must be lame," but most normal people will be curious about such. It might have a poor first week since most people will wait and see what others have to say about it, either critics or family/friends, but if it really is a decent movie, the reviews will come back positive and the second week will be better.

Or, if it's a total piece of crap, it'll get the ratings and the ticket sales it deserves. . . Or hey, it might even do alright just because so many people won't believe a movie could possibly be that bad.

That's how the Sex Pistols got started. Nobody believed their music could possibly been as bad as described and went out to buy their CDs to find out for themselves, then all the "must listen to whatever's popular" idiots went out and bought it for themselves and pretended to like it because it was a top seller.

So. . . Well, there's no easy way to say it, so I'll just blurt it out: If a scriptwriter is so concerned about that most picky and most anal 1%, I think that means the movie is going to be an absolute generic P.O.S.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not insinuating that Camp Lycanthrope is going to be that way. After all, you've already included slapstick: that will offend the most anal 1%, so you might as well stop thinking about what people want and start thinking about what'll make a good movie. That's my take anyway.

[Dreamer]

Don'tcha mean WAS goign to be that way Terastas?

[MattSullivan]

Well Camp Lycanthrope isn't supposed to be anything over say, a PG-13 ( assuming I ever get the darn thing made ) i want as much of an audience to be able to see it ( and make more money in the process ) in order to sell it, I purposely left out grahic blood and sex ( especially sex ) heck, the females don't even have breasts, just to avoid the "furry" stigma. But all that doesn't seem to have helped sell it. It's high concept alone as it is.

Getting back to my point, I'm just saying I don't wanna pay to see animated cats having sex. So would a lot of other people. That's all.

[Silverclaw]

It's still a fair comparison. An R-rated animated movie would start generating talk as soon as the rating was stamped on it. Hopefully none of those militant "family concerned" parents would be dumb enough to take their kids to see a movie that is clearly rated for adults, but believing what you do about animation, wouldn't you be curious to see the R-rated animated movie that actually did get made?

South Park the Movie was rated R, and it did pretty well too. I know the two Heavy Metal movies are also rated R and are considered cult classics.

Getting back to my point, I'm just saying I don't wanna pay to see animated cats having sex. So would a lot of other people. That's all.

Meh, I dont really see what the big deal is about. It was openly like, a minute long. No kitty nasties were showing and no pentration either was shown. I think it was supposed to be more funny than erotic.