I know it's really just a matter of taste, but as I was watching the movie for the first time in 20 years, I was wishing that the characters were just people with five fingers and no snouts.
Anybody else feel this way?
Haven't seen it yet, but...The humans are supposedly dead, extinct...the main characters are not *supposed* to be people, but animals that mutated/anthropomorphized with the radiation. (maybe picking up DNA from humans along with the mutation...)
Besides why does it matter in the plot if they're human or not? o_O
I actually think the film wouldn't be as good if they were humans.
But, hey... different strokes for different folks.
Oh,I know they aren't 'SUPPOSED' to be people. But when you watch the movie see if it doesn't make the movie seem more juvenile.
I mean, it's not like the characters being mutated animals in any way has an effect on the story. If they were the human survivors of the war, it wouldn't change the story a bit.
Just the three fingers and snouts and such made the movie seem more like a kids movie. This is all a personal taste thing. I just kept thinking 'If they are animals, why is their society EXACTLY like ours? I guess that's what happens if you watch a movie like this while sober.
When the studio were first starting out, it was meant to be a family movie (called Drats!) but took on darker undertones and references as they went about animating it.
shareI've always wondered about this. I've thought that there wasn't any justifiable reason for the characters to be animals, and that the movie may have been more successful if the characters were humans.
To be honest, I think making the characters animals did mislead a lot of the audience and the distribution company, as they were thinking it was going to be more of a kids film, where as it's themes are clearly geared toward adults.
Also, I don't think making the characters animals added anything to the film. Beside the fact that the characters have animal features, they in no way reveal any sort of animal back ground.
The only reason I can think of that they wanted to make them animals (besides the roots of the story) was to have more creative license with the characters. Still, I think the many of the character could have been left as is and still been considered human. Take for example Mok.
During the intro, it was explained that the lower animals (cats, dogs, rats) mutated into the new dominant (advanced humanoid) life form on the planet after the destruction of mankind. OK, I could buy that, but I still think they could have made the characters look fully human instead of partially so. It would fit better with the tone of the movie. My reasoning is that these characters are more or less the new "people" of the planet. The humans that previously existed (and got replaced) had also evolved from lower animals.
R&R is a good movie (for its time) BTW. I stumbled upon it many years ago at my local video store. I had never heard of the film before (not surprisng, since it was a Canadian film and box office failure).
Strength of mind, force of will...
I agree, but really only with Ohmar, Angel and Mok being there way too "human like" for the animal thing to work well. Every other character worked fairly well as a rat, such as Stretch, Dizzy, the Schleper Brothers, and ESPECIALLY Mylar being that most talent agents are rats anyway.
But with Mok, his nose was even shaped like a humans, but it was brown to suggest being animal like, as well as Angels.
And I especially agree that the whole animal survivors thing had nothing to do with the story other than providing a semi-realistic reason as to why rat people are rocking out. And having everyone be human would also have no effect on the movie.
And my last thought on that was, if cats dogs and rats were the only survivors and they mutated into human like beings, why were there only rat people? Why not cat or dog people too?
if you've seen the special edition dvd you will no that all the characters were originally supposed to be just straight up rats and mice. but the artists to give them more human like characteristics.
shareTo take away the 'animal' part of the film is to take away the film.
I like it exactly how it is.
No, they look cuter the way they are.
Ratigan...I think that you are a slimy, contemptible SEWER RAT!
Ya most definitley I dont like the animal people it makes me not want to watch the movie,it makes everyone look ugly and because of that they are.The music is fine, the animation is fine,but as for the animal people hit the road.Positivley and absolutly they would have been shall we say more exiting if they were human,no wonder the movie never was a hit.It also makes the movie sadder too which I have no problem with,Mok is cool because he looks more human,Angel turns me off with
the mouse ears and snout,Omar well...... let's not talk about him unless you have
a strong stomach but Im cool with everything else so the movie is border line
with me. :-)
The movie didn't do well , not because they weren't human, but because it was made for adults and adults had no interest in seeing an animated movie. Also if they were humans why make it animated? If they were human they would of saved alot of money if they just made it live action. Its a satire on disney films, going with the animal theme and having a dark plot. Also it is supose to reflect the "rat race" saying, having the rats take our place and going about the same things we did.
share[deleted]
They should have been bugs, so the movie would've been about "The Beatles".
shareOh yeah, that was the movie's biggest flaw. If they were human it'd obviously be a triumphant masterpiece.
Who busts the Crimebusters?