Will Nick and Judy FUCK in Zootopia 2? Will they at least kiss?!?

>>213542790 (OP)
a fox should not engage in sexual relations with a rabbit, its not natural

inter species cross breeding is against the laws of nature, why is hollywood promoting this? what message is it sending? what are they trying to normalize here?

>>213542869
>>213542918
But the original intention of the first movie was to address racism, and explain why it's bad in a language kids can understand!
By upholding the idea that a rabbit should not mate with a fox due to their species, they are arguing against interracial marriage!

They NEED to show their relations in order to avoid defeating the message of the movie!

>>213542790 (OP)
>nick is 33
>judy is 25
this is NOT OK!!!

>>213543002
According to the wiki, there is a scene which never made it past the story board process, where Judy and Nick go to her apartment and find Judy's family there, who are shocked by Nick's presence and Stu assumes that he's Judy's boyfriend.
The situation plays more upon Stu's fear that his daughter is being corrupted by the "big city" rather than there being any romantic overtures presented in the scene.
Judy even firmly states that Nick is helping her with a big case and is her friend.

So basically the writers initially wanted there to be a romance between the two but then backtracked and left it platonic.
They probably will keep it platonic for the entirety of the sequel.

>>213543002
Tangeled has the same age gap
Rapunzel is 18 and the guy she hooks up with is 26. Clearly the interspecies conflict is the issue here, not the age.

I've seen them have sex in rule34 numerous times. That content has given me what I was looking for because I know Disney quite simply won't. They won't commit these two in a loving committed relationship with one another or show a positive marriage in current year. I doubt the room will have anything I haven't already dreamed up that someone else hasn't already animated. And no I'm not about to subject myself to animated jaunt that'll probably be a retread of the first film because I doubt there's anything new to say.

>>213543098
Platonic doesn't work, man. Kids recognize the concept of husband/wife and want that for themselves too. It isn't too foreign of a concept to present to children. If anything having characters be weirdly anemic to loving on one another is what drives the desire to go watch them have sex. Because they're not exhibiting the normal behavior of a guy and a girl who spend a lot of time around one another.

>>213543638
What do you want Disney to do then?
They can't animate them fucking or macking on each other. That would be ridiculous.

If anything, keeping their relationship platonic was a deliberate attempt to drive long-term interest in seeing them get together, which would help drive appeal for the sequel(s).

Besides, children need to understand that just because you are attracted to someone doesn't mean you should pursue them if the powerdynamics are fucked up.
Can you imagine how PROBLEMATIC it would be if Disney glorified a relationship between a manipulative fox cop and a younger bunny cop?
That isn't appropriate in a post #MeToo world

>>213544278
>the fucking QOF tatoo on judys cheek

>>213543580
The fact that the inside out bitch didn't get smashed in the sequel too should be a dead giveaway that disney has no romantic balls in 2025

I want Judy's paws in my face

>>213544914
she ruined my life

>>213545020

>>213542790 (OP)
knotted by a fox or wolf? or gaped to death by horse? what will be this bunnies fate in this totally "family friendly" cartoon movie?

Nick will bust a nut in his ETHNOSTATE GF

>>213543002

>>213544278
>i won

>>213542790 (OP)
They will visit arby's____ _____

>>213545124
Not before I but a nut in HIM.

>>213544278
this is such a grotesque art style, why do people make these

>>213542966
No the intention of this movie was to give fur fags something to jerk off to it was hidden as a child's movie to encourage degeneracy in children