5 ms·

The peak weirdness is probably this part: https://twitter.com/data_bayes/status/1209340322767081472 https://twitter.com/data_bayes/status/1209340322767081472

SpaceManNabs 7y ago
Why is this so weird? Maybe I watch too many weird films...
- anonymfus 7y ago
  It is not specifically weird, but it seems like public someway started to associate anthropomorphic animals with sexual fetishes, so when they see cat eating cockroach in that scene for example they think about vore fetish and so on.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Even putting that aside, it's more the kind of thing you'd expect in an art film than something intended for general audiences, even assuming the film overall is good (or good at doing whatever it's trying to do) which does not seem to be a safe assumption in this case.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    A creature with a human face is casually eating another creature with a human face, whole. That's weird and a description of "vore" is fair even if you're absolutely sure there's nothing sexual going on.
  - ShamelessC 7y ago
    I'm aware of the vore associations. However, were the original characters in the Cats play actually humanoid cats? Or were they just humans dressing up as cats and the audience was meant to suspend disbelief that what they were looking at were just regular cats? I ask because obviously a play can't get "live talking cats" without human actors but a movie can easily do so with CG. Why did they decide to go with humanoid cats instead of regular cats with voice actors? Was it just to match the aesthetic of the play? Or does the plot actually involve the cats being canonicaly humanoid?
    - tialaramex 7y ago
      The musical is performed in costume. Yes audiences suspend disbelief, just as they do when, say, Romeo clearly isn't really dead in a typical performance of Shakespeare's play. The musical is based on an existing work, a correction of amusing poems about actual cats by T S Eliot. Probably the movie just shouldn't exist. An animated movie of the poems using some famous songs from the musical could have worked for example, but that's not what this is.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        > The musical is performed in costume. Yes audiences suspend disbelief, just as they do when, say, Romeo clearly isn't really dead in a typical performance of Shakespeare's play. They were asking what specifically the costumes represent. They weren't confused about the concept of costumes in a play. The cats are anthropomorphized somewhat, or they wouldn't be having proper conversations with each other. This already requires suspension of disbelief, accepting that it's a fantasy world. The question is how far that anthropomorphization goes, in the internal logic/canon of the play.
    - crooked-v 7y ago
      The stage costumes (look up 'Cats musical' on Google Images) are basically decorated bodysuits plus facepaint and wigs. They have a lot of subtle touches to keep them intentionally registering as 'acrobatic costume' without tripping uncanny valley issues, like how almost all of them include obvious belts (for the 'tails') and a clear division between body and neck/face even if the facepaint is the same color as the bodysuit being worn.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
robbrown451 7y ago
I love that kind of stuff.
cameronfraser 7y ago
Rebel Wilson I think is the only on point character from what I've seen/heard.
silveroriole 7y ago
I really hate the confusion between whether the cats’ fur is part of their bodies or not. Like some of them seem to wear huge fur coats with obvious collars/lapels but it’s also part of their body, and in this one she unzips her... body and then there’s more underneath? When it’s really actors in costumes on stage that makes sense but that clip makes me feel queasy...
- anonymfus 7y ago
  Your comment reminds me how in the Sheckley's short story "The Demons" Neelsebub was confused when human take off his coat. I think that these scene actually removes confusion as it clearly establishes that they definitely can wear fur coats over their natural fur. I don't get how it's different from humans, we also have skin-colored clothes.
dspillett 7y ago
I'm hoping that is an early CGI test render and not the final product that people paid to see. Otherwise I have trouble working out where the reported massive CG budget went.

SpaceManNabs 7y ago

Why is this so weird? Maybe I watch too many weird films...

anonymfus 7y ago
It is not specifically weird, but it seems like public someway started to associate anthropomorphic animals with sexual fetishes, so when they see cat eating cockroach in that scene for example they think about vore fetish and so on.
- shantly 7y ago
  Even putting that aside, it's more the kind of thing you'd expect in an art film than something intended for general audiences, even assuming the film overall is good (or good at doing whatever it's trying to do) which does not seem to be a safe assumption in this case.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  A creature with a human face is casually eating another creature with a human face, whole. That's weird and a description of "vore" is fair even if you're absolutely sure there's nothing sexual going on.
- ShamelessC 7y ago
  I'm aware of the vore associations. However, were the original characters in the Cats play actually humanoid cats? Or were they just humans dressing up as cats and the audience was meant to suspend disbelief that what they were looking at were just regular cats? I ask because obviously a play can't get "live talking cats" without human actors but a movie can easily do so with CG. Why did they decide to go with humanoid cats instead of regular cats with voice actors? Was it just to match the aesthetic of the play? Or does the plot actually involve the cats being canonicaly humanoid?
  - tialaramex 7y ago
    The musical is performed in costume. Yes audiences suspend disbelief, just as they do when, say, Romeo clearly isn't really dead in a typical performance of Shakespeare's play. The musical is based on an existing work, a correction of amusing poems about actual cats by T S Eliot. Probably the movie just shouldn't exist. An animated movie of the poems using some famous songs from the musical could have worked for example, but that's not what this is.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > The musical is performed in costume. Yes audiences suspend disbelief, just as they do when, say, Romeo clearly isn't really dead in a typical performance of Shakespeare's play. They were asking what specifically the costumes represent. They weren't confused about the concept of costumes in a play. The cats are anthropomorphized somewhat, or they wouldn't be having proper conversations with each other. This already requires suspension of disbelief, accepting that it's a fantasy world. The question is how far that anthropomorphization goes, in the internal logic/canon of the play.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    The stage costumes (look up 'Cats musical' on Google Images) are basically decorated bodysuits plus facepaint and wigs. They have a lot of subtle touches to keep them intentionally registering as 'acrobatic costume' without tripping uncanny valley issues, like how almost all of them include obvious belts (for the 'tails') and a clear division between body and neck/face even if the facepaint is the same color as the bodysuit being worn.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

robbrown451 7y ago

I love that kind of stuff.

cameronfraser 7y ago

Rebel Wilson I think is the only on point character from what I've seen/heard.

silveroriole 7y ago

I really hate the confusion between whether the cats’ fur is part of their bodies or not. Like some of them seem to wear huge fur coats with obvious collars/lapels but it’s also part of their body, and in this one she unzips her... body and then there’s more underneath? When it’s really actors in costumes on stage that makes sense but that clip makes me feel queasy...

anonymfus 7y ago
Your comment reminds me how in the Sheckley's short story "The Demons" Neelsebub was confused when human take off his coat. I think that these scene actually removes confusion as it clearly establishes that they definitely can wear fur coats over their natural fur. I don't get how it's different from humans, we also have skin-colored clothes.

dspillett 7y ago

I'm hoping that is an early CGI test render and not the final product that people paid to see. Otherwise I have trouble working out where the reported massive CG budget went.