Early reviews for Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank are coming in. Not looking good.
 |
 |
|
Early reviews for Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank are coming in. Not looking good.
Early reviews for Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank are coming in. Not looking good.
|
|
|
It should be known that any furry movie that isn't made by a big animation company are always going to be shit.
>It should be known that any furry movie that isn't made by a big animation company are always going to be shit.
That little red riding hood CGI movie was cool.
Why is it always Viacom that always churns out garbage?
Was SpongeBob and South Park the only soul they made?
Pretty much, yeah.
>Paws of Fury
I very vaguely remember that was a title from a furry fighting game that was from the 90s, this isn't the same property, is it?
Ha
You wish.
It's Arctic Justice all over again
Even as a little kid that fox girl did strange things to me, frick that whole era of media.
So far the only thing reviewers are complaining about is it not being representing enough of culture. If you can overlook that it's an okay film
That’s higher than I expected, Kino is back on the menu
pawsisters????
Looks like a kung fu Panda knockoff fifteen years late.
I mean, anyone who saw that trailer knew it was going to be shit.
It's just that furries tend to have 0 taste.
I have a few furry friends who had zero interest.
Just because your film has anthro animals doesn't mean furries will flock to it. Sometimes you have winners like Zootopia or The Bad Guys, but then you also get trash like Paws of Fury, DL League of Pets, and Secret Life of Pets.
difference being the popular movies have frickable characters.
True, but they're also good movies. You can make an animated movie with frickable furry characters but if the characterization, story, etc. aren't any good, they won't take off in the fandom.
Madagascar doesn't really have frickable characters but it was very popular
>Madagascar doesn't really have frickable characters but it was very popular
Rico
Did anyone ever expect it to be good?
Nope, not since it became a Duke Nukem Forever situation. Shit spent seven years in development hell and not a minute of it was worth it.
Oh so this IS where that fricking fat sumo cat image came from. Ever since I heard about this movie and saw the sumo cat I wondered if it was the same movie, finally coming out.
Is this the movie that’s supposed to be Blazing Saddles with animals? Maybe critics got triggered or something.
>le triggered
in very early development that was the case yes. it looks like a low budget, low effort kids movie now that doesn't resemble what the movie was going to be VERY early on in development. its like they just cut their losses and shat this out eventually.
Nah, from the reviews I've read, they got the reference. The film's just very bad at translating Mel Brooks's comedy style to a children's animated film. All the jokes fall flat and the animation is stale.
They did. All of the scathing reviews on metacritic right now mention it being racist.
Was this like a foreign movie dubbed over with celebs like that old Dougal movie or something?
The trailer made it seem very "off".
I mean wasn't this film in development hell for like over a decade, that pretty much never has good results for an animated film
>not made by D*sney
Never had a chance with the critics
bad guys got good reviews, so did the sea beast. people have not given a single shit about this movie at large besides the rare empty thread here and there about its development but now you guys are going to act like theres some agenda behind it getting shit reviews? you think that it's maybe just a bad movie?
Are people seriously surprised by this? It was always going to be a shit CG cash in movie.
Is this whole movie just a big furry meme? Jesus.
>Uses Rotten Tomatoes as a legit source