How can they say "furries are not wrong that the film was 'tailor-made' for them" and then support that strong statement with evidence of... a little peripheral social media marketing? Something that would have taken the smallest fraction of the movie's total marketing budget, and the result of a decision taken by a third-party marketing agency at that.
Buzzfeed: source of sober news and home of the thoughtful.
EDIT:
Oh, and they don't get even 2 paragraphs in before breaking into OMG PERVERTS. Even better the article is then structured as a series of "gross thing you might think", "haha not really", "but maybe... *eyebrow wiggle*" beats that paint a black picture while letting the author counter any criticism by saying he didn't actually /say/ that.
In the case of Zootopia, furries’ bad rap is undeserved. It might seem like furries are just so twisted that they’ve adopted an innocent children’s movie for their own sick gratification. But in reality, Disney purposely is being a knot-tease.
"Haha! See! I meant the opposite of the thing I just said!"
I mean, really, could you any more blatantly be saying something while technically saying the inverse? And also while talking complete nonsense (in what bizarro universe could Disney possibly be construed as being a purposeful cock-tease here?)
Author