Saw some confusion after posting this somewhere else so here's a little explanation: the idea is that he can be gay (or not, that's up to interpretation) but Kitty and Cattrick don't know that for sure so they are just assuming without confirmation (this is mostly a joke post, not that serious)
Just going to give you a freebie here and not a whole analysis because the movie's not really worth that:
Zootopia 2 is bad just like Moana 2 is bad and just like Frozen 2 is bad because Zootopia 2 doubles back on and flat-out ignores the message the FIRST MOVIE made. I'll show you in two moves.
Move 1: In Zootopia, the first half of the movie is about a prey animal facing prejudice...and then the second half is about a predator animal facing prejudice—throughout the adventure as a whole, every animal from background-characters like forgetful elephants to supporting characters like a secretly-soft Cape Buffalo are set up with a stereotype and then turn out to be exceptions to that stereotype. Nick and Judy's big breaking point as new friends comes when Judy assumes that there's something inherent in people-not-like-her that is bad, and she has to apologize for that and begin thinking differently.
Move 2: In Zootopia 2, Mr. Big, a crime boss, declares "territorial animals will do anything for more land," in reference to the Lynxley family. And it turns out, all along, the Lynxley family had already murdered for more land, and their son nearly murdered the main characters after pretending to think-outside-his-family's box when the main characters got in the way of them gaining more land. Meanwhile, no reptile in the movie is bad, and actually, they've been responsible for the moral fiber of the whole city, pure of heart through-and-through, as a species.
Did you catch that? In two moves? Zootopia 1: "Our main character was wrong to believe one race had any disadvantage or advantage over another, innately." But Zootopia 2: "Our villains were of a race that couldn't help but be evil and ruthless, innately."
A Criticism on Zootopia 2, From Someone Who Loves Zootopia 2
A Deep-Dive Analysis
[Warning: HEAVY spoilers on Zootopia 1 + 2]
Let me get one thing clear about my feelings on Zootopia 2:
Against all odds, I adore this movie.
I love the relationship between Nick and Judy. I love the ideas both movies play with. I love the animation, the music, the choreography, the colors, the characters, and all the itty bitty details that the artists put in. However, I do think there are some issues the sequel has that hold it back from being a great follow-up to the original.
Please note that I am not shitting on this movie when I write this analysis. I am offering my insight as an audience member who deeply enjoys Zootopia as a franchise, and only wants to see it thrive as its best version.
Onto the post!
Splitting Up the Dream Team
For a movie about introducing a brand-new world of reptiles, there is a serious lack of them.
We have Gary De’Snake, a couple of shots on reptiles coexisting with mammals, and the speakeasy scene.
That’s it.
There’s a limited amount of time we have to get to know this world, so my first suggestion is to split Nick and Judy up much sooner to cover more ground.
Hear me out:
One of my favorite parts of Zootopia is the relationship between Nick and Judy. This is something the movie excels at.
However, because they are together most of the time, they’re limited to the areas the characters can interact with, and the settings they occupy. In other words, we can only see a mammalian perspective, and barely a reptile one.
Using the first movie as an example, Judy is forced to occupy the space of Nick, and vice versa. They both have to see what the other deals with as predators vs prey (Judy sees that Nick is forced to deal with not being trusted by others due to him being a fox, while Nick sees what Judy puts up with by not being taken seriously due to her being a rabbit).
Here, they are both limited to a mammal’s point of view, as they exist in a mammal-only space.
So, why should they split up?
Shouldn’t they just occupy a reptile setting together?
That’s something I believe the sequel did well at; because Nick and Judy are at odds with their philosophies (Judy’s sense of justice and Nick’s sense of self-preservation), it only makes sense for them to be at an impasse. It makes sense that they’d have to follow their chosen route and inevitably discover why neither of them are in the right or in the wrong.
Splitting them up sooner also allows for the opposing sides to share a decent amount of screentime. Judy with Pawbert and Gary allows her to deep-dive from the reptiles’ perspective, while Nick could discover the same thing but from a Lynxley’s point of view (to clarify: he would NOT agree with the Lynxley argument, that’s out of the question, but rather he arrives at the same conspiracy bomb as Judy did on her end).
It would also allow a decent amount of screentime for Nick, who’s story I felt, was rather inconclusive. The entire time he simply wanted to run away from the issue, instead of trying to help the reptiles, for Judy’s sake. At the end, he was still, mostly helping for Judy’s sake.
If he were to have been captured by the Lynxleys much earlier, he would’ve had more of a reason to fight on behalf of the reptiles (especially since he’s done that before, when he stood up to Chief Bogo for Judy, when he wasn’t obligated to do so).
Judy, on her end, can get a taste of her own medicine by hanging out with Pawbert and Gary. By wanting to protect the friends she’s trying to help in addition to solving the case. Or more specifically, trying to protect Gary from a potentially reckless Pawbert (who is a brilliant foil to what an extreme version of Judy looks like).
That way, when both characters reunite, they both have an appreciation for the others’ original perspective.
This brings me to my next point.
Judy’s Reckless Endangerment VS Nick’s Apathetic Pusillanimity
Zootopia 2 made it very clear which side had a problem with what.
Judy was tired of combating Nick’s cynicism and taciturn attitude, while Nick was frustrated at Judy’s constant overrides and munificent declarations.
From Nick’s annoyed comments about not sitting in the driver’s seat to Judy’s exasperation at Nick’s behavior in Marsh Market.
With that said, the movie tends to draw your attention to Nick’s grievances moreso than Judy’s. He technically DOES express his feelings to her multiple times. It would’ve been more effective if Judy grants him several attempts to communicate his needs, but he chooses to either make jokes or remain silent.
An example being right before they go into the speakeasy, Judy gives him the floor as to what his problem is and why he’s acting weird. Nick straight-up tells her about his fear of reptiles.
This undermines Judy’s irritation with him not communicating with her. You’d be able to see what she deals with had he dodged the question, not answered, or made a joke instead of just TELLING her what he’s going through.
Them having these issues towards each other is excellent.
It creates a very realistic rift between them, and I love that I can see both sides of their discourse.
That said.
Nick’s problem with Judy is VERY prominent.
He was left behind on THREE different chase scenes.
His reluctance to snooping at the Gala was glossed over.
And by far the most egregious example was him having to save themselves from drowning in the Red Line.
I need Judy’s problems with Nick to be on-par with these instances.
It just wasn’t.
You have to emphasize their issues clear as day. Judy's problem with Nick should be just as apparent as Nick's was for Judy.
Having them split up sooner would highlight what they both need to work on, through dealing with the most extreme cases of their philosophies.
Predator VS Prey and Classism VS Colonialism
The first Zootopia movie knew exactly what its theme revolved around. Predator VS Prey, and how stereotypes can hurt you.
Zootopia 2’s themes gets rather, detached, as a follow-up to this idea.
I don’t mean “the predator is the bad guy, therefore it diminishes the theme from the first movie.” I mean that while there is a clear colonialism/gentrification metaphor for reptiles, it’s painted as a new issue: “Reptile VS Mammal” as opposed to a subsection of the same issue. “Predator VS Prey.”
This causes a disconnect for the two movies.
The thing is, many reptiles are predators.
Not all of them, obviously.
Tortoises, turtles, chuckwallas, certain skinks, euromastics, etc. Plenty of them are herbivores.
Prey animals.
But if mammals were to assume they’re all a part of the predator family, because most of them happen to be omnivorous, it can easily be tied in with the Predator VS Prey narrative.
Here’s a scenario for you:
The Lynxleys drove out the reptiles not just because they’re reptiles, but because they can be seen as “a more dangerous predator.”
It didn’t really make a lot of sense for me why all the reptiles were driven out, as opposed to just snakes. Why would tortoises/iguanas/jesus lizards be involved in the scary reptile stereotype if they didn’t actually do anything? A tortoise was murdered, which would result in a "Snakes VS Everyone Else" scenario.
It would’ve made more sense if a mammal was murdered instead. Even more so if it were a prey mammal.
I digress.
The Lynxleys sabotaging reptiles’ reputation could’ve easily been a commentary on minority groups being discriminatory towards other minority groups due to being “the better version of the two unsavory versions.” I have seen, in my REAL life, minority groups being racist towards different minority groups, caused by the oppression that put them BOTH there.
It’s possible the movie was trying to reach this deconstruction on the topic, but it simply didn’t do enough to prove it to me. Truly, it felt like “reptiles are discriminated against because they’re reptiles,” and not because they’re roped into being categorized as “a variant of predator to which we are justified in oppressing.”
It’s a missed opportunity that would’ve felt closer to the original’s complicated social themes.
With all that said, I do think that Zootopia 2 was successful in bringing classism to the mix. Granted, I would’ve liked a deeper dive into it, but regardless, it drove this point home for me with Milton and Nick’s exchange.
Why do the Lynxleys want to flush out Marsh Market (“drain the swamp” yeah I see you), why do the Lynxleys believe they are the top predators, why does Pawbert want to redeem himself to his shitty family so badly? Simple.
Reputation.
They’re rich. Old money.
The Lynxleys are “better” than other predators because they come from generational wealth and they don’t need to work hard to fight the stereotypes shaped by either prey animals OR predators.
Foxes have to prove themselves to be trustworthy, snakes have to prove they’re not dangerous, and rabbits have to prove they’re competent at their jobs.
Pawbert is not immune to this, he THRIVES in this delusion!
Because he’s from a famous, influential Lynx family, he IS better than your average predator. He’s richer! He has opportunities! He doesn’t care about snakes or reptiles because they were always less than he is. He genuinely believes that. He doesn’t want to be seen as a “lesser animal” by his “great” family.
He fights to BE a stereotype, if anything.
“So you want both, a commentary on classism affecting communities, and predators affecting other predators at the same time? Isn’t that kind of redundant?”
The thing is, they can go hand-in-hand.
For the Lynxleys, it can be both, but their fabricated story against reptiles can be the latter. Nick, echoing Judy in the first movie, can suffer from this “mammal vs reptile” narrative because perhaps he thinks he’s technically “the better predator” due to his own closeted judgement. To which, he can correct this line of thought by experiencing the most extreme version of this biasness, the Lynxleys.
As we see him in the movie, reptiles simply make him nervous and that is all. Forgetting that reptiles, in this world, are literally an entire group of people.
It spins a different take when he’s uneasy around them.
A take, mind you, that was barely explored.
This would give Judy an opportunity to shine, because she has learned her lesson on judging a book by its cover completely due to the events of the first film.
Conclusion
All in all, despite my problems with the movie, I still highly enjoyed Zootopia 2. What it accomplishes, it accomplishes in flying colors.
Which is why when I see areas needing improvements, I want these improvements to be acknowledged, so their future movies don’t suffer from the Dastardly Disney Drawbacks.
I want Nick and Judy’s relationship to feel as balanced as possible, I want to see the reptile world be just as detailed as the mammalian one, and I want the narrative themes be as solidified as it was for the first film.
I bring up my criticism because I want to see these stories succeed. It devastates me, thinking Zootopia could succumb to the same fate as other Disney franchises, such as Toy Story, Moana, or even Lilo and Stitch (do NOT. Make a live-action Zootopia. It WILL. Rot my crops and plague my livestock).
I hope my analysis doesn’t come across as pretentious or confusing, that is not my intention.
I love highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of my favorite franchises, and Zootopia happens to be one of them.
All in all, I’m excited to see what they do for the 3rd movie.
One last thing…
While I enjoyed Pawbert’s betrayal MUCH more than Bellwether’s by a long shot (no contest, it was better):
I’m hoping the next film doesn’t have another twist villain.
You’re gonna make me think Flash is secretly working undercover.
