Udderly revolting...

[Inkwolf]

I was just looking at the profile for Barnyard (http://www.keyframeonline.com/Animation/Barnyard/305/) that's just been added.

Soooo..."Otis" is a "cow"...and "he" has udders.

What the heck is wrong with Hollywood?! Do Californians have no concept of biology? I mean, it was more or less understandable when they made Bug's Life and Antz featuring male worker ants, but this is just a little beyond the pale. Someone's been waaaaaay too far away from the facts of life lately.

Has anyone seen trailers or anything about this movie yet that explains it? (I can't get the page to come up beyond the welcome graphic.)

[servewithchips]

I was just looking at the profile for Barnyard (http://www.keyframeonline.com/Animation/Barnyard/305/) that's just been added.

Soooo..."Otis" is a "cow"...and "he" has udders.

What the heck is wrong with Hollywood?! Do Californians have no concept of biology? I mean, it was more or less understandable when they made Bug's Life and Antz featuring male worker ants, but this is just a little beyond the pale. Someone's been waaaaaay too far away from the facts of life lately.

Has anyone seen trailers or anything about this movie yet that explains it? (I can't get the page to come up beyond the welcome graphic.)

hey, i am from california and i know that cows are "girls" and bulls are "boys." but come to think of it, i did have to explain that fact to a guy at my high school, and he didnt believe me.

anyways, i guess its only a matter of time before a movie with male hens laying eggs.

[Inkwolf]

anyways, i guess its only a matter of time before a movie with male hens laying eggs.

Well, Nick and Fetcher fell for that one...

[servewithchips]

Well, Nick and Fetcher fell for that one...

i guess we know the level of thinking of Hollywood, they are on par with rats. :mischief:

[MonkeyFunk]

udders are funny

[starlac]

The website (or the trailers held within) offers no clues about the udders. It does however mention the possibly of a TV series; as well as the usual nonsense that this is the most technically accomplished film to come out yet, pushing the limits of 3D animation and so on (who do these people think they're kidding, don't they watch films :eyebrow:).

Steve Oedekerk who originated, wrote and directed this film (the same guy who created Jimmy Neutron by all accounts) seems to think he's is paying homage to Merry Melodies and the Looney Tunes; judging by the trailers and his previous work, I'd say he's got one inflated opinion of himself and his films.

[lupercal]

Is anyone familiar with the expression "as useless as tits on a bull"? I know this is an Australianism , but I thought it was more widespread. I used it on a forum once and got acused os sexism by an American woman.

Loop

[Inkwolf]

Never heard it before! :D

[KimbaWLion]

Do Californians have no concept of biology?Oedekerk has said in published interviews that he is quite aware that bulls don't have udders, but udders are funny and so that's the way he wanted to draw them.

This brings up a disturbing trend that is part of the reason I'm sick to death of so-called "3-D" computer animation. Every time something is rendered as 3DCGI, the subject of "realism" comes up. These are CARTOONS for crying out loud. Realism shouldn't even be on the map. Did anyone ever say it was unrealistic for a duck to have his bill blown off and snapped back on? For a rabbit to walk on two legs and be taller than a man?

3D CG animation represents the ossification of both animation and society's general sense of humor. I wish Oedekerk well in trying to undo some of this.

[Inkwolf]

I could cope with the 'suspension of reality' concept, if not for the underlying sexism. I mean, a lot of people consider moustaches funny--does that mean female cartoons characters should be outfitted with them?

So, like--"Let's make a film about cows with udders, but make them male." If udders are soooo funny, make a movie about female cows.

[lupercal]

I have a moustache. Who here thinks it's bloody funny?

Loop

[MonkeyFunk]

I could cope with the 'suspension of reality' concept, if not for the underlying sexism. "Let's make a film about cows with udders, but make them male." If udders are soooo funny, make a movie about female cows.

I was talking to a feminist friend a while back about how CGI movies favour male characters. There's a space in the market for a CGI chick flick.

(please, no-one mention Chicken Little...)

[starlac]

Unfortunately, most of Hollywood and its product is dominated by men; so as a result the films made tend to favour male characters.

Suspension of disbelief is the real problem here.

An audience’s wiliness to ignore certain ‘non-natural’ things is of paramount importance for a film (not just animation) to succeed. It is easy to accept Bugs, Daffy and pretty much every funny animal character because they follow a long standing tradition of anthropomorphic animals which stretch back to ancient tales that can be found in pretty much every major culture around the world; some of which have heavily humanised their characters. Bugs himself comes from the old stories of Br'er Rabbit and Aesop's fables. The word anthropomorphism itself comes from the Greek for ‘human’ and ‘shape/form’.

I grew up reading the books of Beatrix Potter, Aesop, The Wind in the Willows and other such animal-as-human stories. I have also seen plenty of even earlier animals in human situations, doing very human things from wars to tea parties. The fact is there is nothing new in this use of animals: it has been commonplace for centuries. A lot of the time in history it was used as satire, for the comedic prospects that the use of non-humans allowed, and as a way of telling stories that helped better understand the human condition.

However suspension of disbelief has its limits, most of which are subjective to an extent; to me Barnyard has crossed it. This is partly because there has always been an unwritten rule in animation, that unless cues are given to a character’s gender then the audience will always look at them as male (however sad that is it is pretty much true); Barnyard breaks this rule dramatically, but for rather predictable pointless reasons, becoming almost creepy as a result. I can understand that others might not be bothered by this and fair enough. Unwritten rules are a thing which have some prominence in allowing suspension of disbelief in fiction; as does the consistency of a product.

As Inwolf said... if udders are funny then make a film with female cows (but then you end up with something like Home on the Range (http://www.keyframeonline.com/Animation/Home_on_the_Range/42/) :( )

Superman is a fictional character who is pretty much on (or over) the limits of this suspension, no-one ever minds that he can fly as that is what he’s expected to be able to do; what most people seem to have a problem with is that no-one realises that Superman is Clark Kent even though he only wears a pair of glasses and acts mild-mannered.

And the less said about Video games the better ("Okay solider press the X button to jump").

[MonkeyFunk]

Superman is a fictional character who is pretty much on (or over) the limits of this suspension, no-one ever minds that he can fly as that is what he’s expected to be able to do; what most people seem to have a problem with is that no-one realises that Superman is Clark Kent even though he only wears a pair of glasses and acts mild-mannered.

http://www.superdickery.com/stupor/70.html

[starlac]

I was just using that aspect of Superman as a example.

Although this really doesn’t help with suspension of disbelief even thought that is what it’s trying to do (how many people would remember that issue anyway?). Yet I suppose it’s better than the concept that is Superman getting his powers from our sun just because it’s yellow and Krypton’s was Red: light is light, regardless (or that Krypton had higher gravity than Earth).

Besides if he can’t control it, how does him marrying Louis in some of the comic and TV versions work around it?

Please don't answer that. :zzz:

[Inkwolf]

Yeah, Starlac, that's what I meant exactly.

I mean, say you think hamsters are funny. So you have a hamster sitting on the head of every character in your cartoon. It may be funny, but nobody's going to be laughing at the rest of the movie because they're too busy wondering "What the heck are they doing with those hamsters on their heads?"

Admittedly, in our modern, urbanized society, there are probably lots of people who won't have a particular problem with it, because they simply aren't familiar enough with cows that it will jar.

But I sure pity the mothers of thousands of young children who will be asking curiously "What's that?" and expecting some sort of intelligible explanation. (Actually, the little boys will probably have a preconcieved notion of what it is, but they'll be wrong. And that's the filmmaker's fault, because the kids will be the ones who got it anatomically correct.)

[lupercal]

You're getting worked up over nothing, IMO.

Loop

[KimbaWLion]

Suspension of disbelief is the real problem here.I find this whole thread udderly hilarious.

What's actually at the bottom of this is our society's incredibly rigid sex/gender roles. These are unwritten rules that will be the last frontier for anyone to explore, and Barnyard has violated them. You simply cannot place a female characteristic on a male character unless the juxtaposition is to be the subject of derisive humor. In Barnyard, the audience is expected to accept it, and they can't.

I'm reminded of an episode of Nip/Tuck in which a man asks for breast implants. In the proper hands, that could have led to a very interesting subplot, but the writers chickened out and had the man quickly become repulsed at his implants when his wife started to find them attractive.

[starlac]

How about violating them rules by putting a certain male characteristic on a female character, go really crazy, I wonder how much of the audience would accept that?

[KimbaWLion]

You're too busy getting upset over the rules being violated to see my point. The point is not the audience not accepting it, the point is WHY they don't accept it in a context of complete non-reality. And the reason is that no one wants to examine these rigid unspoken societal rules. I wouldn't have thought I'd be saying this about Barnyard, but the movie pushes the envelope of what's acceptable in our society, and this element of it touches so deep into the untouched recesses of collective consciousness that people are really upset about it. I hope it doesn't lead to Oedekerk being tied to a fence in Wyoming.

[Inkwolf]

I don't think the fact that we're sneering at it means that we're upset or even 'worked up.' 'Annoyed' is more like it. It's just stupid.

[KimbaWLion]

But you're not addressing WHY you're annoyed.
1. Bulls don't dance on two legs.
2. Bulls don't speak English.
3. Bulls don't have udders.

Why is violating 3 more annoying than 1 and 2 combined? What grand insult does a violation of 3 commit that 1 and 2 don't? Why can a person suspend disbelief when 1 and 2 are violated but not 3? The answer is so very deeply ingrained it will probably defy words.

I had a look at the reviews on Amazon.com for this movie, and they're just as udder-centric and several of them are just as funny (to me).

[Inkwolf]

Why? I can't say. I have no idea why it bugs me.

But I'd be just as annoyed if someone made an animal cartoon that took in place in Africa, and included a kangaroo herd among the cast, with no rational explanation at all. I'd be grumbling, "Don't they know there aren't any kangaroos in Africa?" through the entire movie, just like I spent all of Mulan Two muttering, "Yeah, but what about those Mongol hordes they said were going to invade?!" Or if they just decided to stick tentacles on the elephant for no good reason at all. Or if they made a cartoon about dolphins where the dolphins had gills, because going up for air would be too disruptive to the plot.

It's not a matter of gender roles. I don't know what it is. What's really funny is, go look at reviews of Spirit and see how many people were annoyed that the horses DIDN'T talk. But there's just a certain point of non-reality beyond which it's jarring to go. And it's probably because there's just no acceptable reason for it.

Now, if it was an art film, making a point about gender roles, they could make bulls with udders and it would have a point.

If they were TRANSVESTITE bulls (or cows) it would be freakin' hilarious.

If it was some sort of surrealistic film or wild fantasy, no problem.

But this is Nickolodeon schlock. When you;re telling a human story through the medium of anthropomorphic animals, you can choose your balance between humanity and animality, but side trips don't work. You can't stick unicorns in Animal Farm and expect to maintain any sense of reality in the story. Or bull udders.

[lupercal]

Why? I can't say. I have no idea why it bugs me.

According to your initial post it was because of 'the underlying sexism'.

Loop

[MonkeyFunk]

But I'd be just as annoyed if someone made an animal cartoon that took in place in Africa, and included a kangaroo herd among the cast, with no rational explanation at all. I'd be grumbling, "Don't they know there aren't any kangaroos in Africa?"

Speaking of which, there's been a ton of cartoons about male kangaroos with pouches...

[lupercal]

Speaking of which, there's been a ton of cartoons about male kangaroos with pouches...

Who the hell cares? Is our school system so bereft that it's the responsibility of cartoons to teach kids that male kangaroos don't have pouches, or that bulls don't have udders?

This is fantasy. Let bulls have tits. Let cows have 6 penises. Let cane furniture dance naked. Let cars talk. Let wooden toys come to life. Let Barbie run for President, etc.

Loop

[starlac]

I really don’t care about any of this; I just like playing devil’s advocate. ;)

[Inkwolf]

According to your initial post it was because of 'the underlying sexism'.

Loop

No, that wasn't my original post, that was in a later response. And it's only one aspect of my annoyance. :p

[lupercal]

No, that wasn't my original post, that was in a later response. And it's only one aspect of my annoyance. :p

You're right. It must have been the bottom post on the page when I looked at it, and I didn't think to check for a previous page. My mistake. Nevertheless you did say it, so it can't be true that you have no idea why it bugs you.

Loop

[KimbaWLion]

<litella>I really don’t care about any of this; I just like playing devil’s advocate. ;)</litella>Um... sure. Whatever you say.

This discussion fell apart in a hurry, didn't it?

[MonkeyFunk]

Um... sure. Whatever you say.

This discussion fell apart in a hurry, didn't it?

Internet discussions about cows' udders rarely hold together.