Animation Source Forums

It should probably be in the Animals section, but I consider it more of a rant (a mod can move this if they please).

Anyway, here’s what bugs me.

I was watching a movie called “Second Chances”. It’s a horse-related movie, and main character was a “MARE” named Ginger. Yet, every time this ‘mare’ walks by, you can CLEARLY see that it’s a male horse. How stupid do they think we are? I mean, if they truly want to use a male to play a female, they can AT LEAST digitally remove the ‘male parts’ in the editing room. The same goes when they use female animals to play males. Uh, hello!? We can tell the difference, folks!

But, wait! I’m not done yet!

Now, I may be the only one who feels this way, but I think that animated animals (Balto, Dodger, Pongo, Tramp, Copper, etc.) should be anatomically correct. Now, before you start yelling at me and calling me a pervert, I want to say that you don’t need excruciating detail, just a lump (shaped somewhat like a ‘Z’) to indicate that the character is in fact a male; like they did in Spirit.

Now, some of you may be thinking, “These movies are for little kids! They don’t need to see that kind of stuff!” But think about it, 90% of those kids have dogs of their own. What if a kid walks up to their mother one day and asks, “Mommy, is Balto a boy dog or a girl dog?” Their mother replies, “Balto’s a boy, dear. Why do you ask?” The child innocently answers, “How come Balto doesn’t have the same thing our boy doggy has?” Guess what? Mommy is stumped.

I know the animators give their male characters bushy eyebrows and thicker builds to indicate masculinity, but COME ON NOW! Firstly, I absolutely detest the fact that they give animals eyebrows. It’s stupid, because real animals don’t have eyebrows (I’m probably being nit-picky, but it does bother me. True animators don’t need eyebrows to show emotion…if I may make reference to Happy Feet, the only one who had eyebrows in that was Lovelace, and the other penguins, in my opinion, showed more emotion then him).

There has got to be someone out there that agrees with me. I’m not saying animators should make anything dirty or adult oriented, but please, stop lying to the kids. It confuses them to see a female horse or dog with male parts…and it also insults our intelligence. If anyone out there feels the same way let me know! Don’t agree? Share with me your thoughts and opinions, please. I’m not the type to argue; I don’t like confrontation, so hopefully this won’t turn into a flame war (not cause by me anyway).

So…anyone want to comment on the phenomenon that is the animal gender bender?

Lol it bothers me off and on. You can't expect disney to put those things in their films, being kids movies like you said. In art it bothers me more for some reason. I usually always put the said 'lump' for my males, and if not, make them look masculine atleast.

Over all I agree with you though

I'm sorry, but I have to agree. Spirit's "kdsgfrsdgtslump" wasn't a big deal and it wouldn't have been then, but I think at the time they didn't add "kdsgfrsdgtslump"s because of the style. But still, it could've been worked out, I just don't think they wanted to make it a big deal XD Cuz with horses those characteristics are alot more noticeable, and kids are around fixed dogs more than fixed...horses XD That was probably why I never asked my parents about Balto, cuz my family had a neutered dog and one that wasn't neutered. (Thats probably also why I never thought Balto and Jenna had pups, but hey XD)

But anyway, yeah, people are sick and there's no reason to use the wrong gender for that stuff.

EDIT: and like Draco said, we put lumps XD Or extra fur >> But its nothing explicit or something that needs be left out cuz people find it offensive XD

well that is true, they do do that for all the males in cartoons. they might have not been able to find a female horse that was right to play the part. they could have atleast covered that up, your right about that. by the way, good article

Umm, does it really affect the movie that much that the male animal characters don't have their genitals drawn? I've been fine overlooking that detail all these years.

No, it woudn't affect the movie a bit, but it does confuse some children. I always used to wonder why the male dogs from Diseny didn't have the 'parts' that my male dog had. They make it like it's wrong to have those parts, when it's purely natural. Even a tuft of fur 'there' like Cat and Draco said, would have been fine.

Well, I think it's pretty dumb that they do that in non-animated films. I mean once you find out it's actually not the same gender it's suppose to be in the movie it takes away a bit of the story's impact. I say this because it takes away the real feeling movies are suppose to give off.

For animated films I also think it's stupid not to add "lumps" because you know what? At one point the kids are going to find out what is what. People who would think putting this in an animated is sick have a sick mind in the first place. Weither they like it or not animals will always HAVE those parts....

This would be better off in the animals section, but anywho, I don't really care. Cartoons don't have to be 100% realistic. I care more about the personalities of the characters more than what they look like.

Hey, wasn't the bulldog that played Chance in Homeward Bound a female? During the plane scene in the sequel, the dog sat down to pee.

In a movie(Forget the name) I saw a long time ago with my friend Kacie the cat was male but played by a female.

Ha ha! I won't say it BOTHERS me, but I wouldn't mind it if they did a little something like that to make a realistic distinction between the males and females. Guess I don't care very much though, like someone said it matters more to me what their personalities are than the looks.

I don't mind them having eyebrows, either, though; sometimes that's a good thing, other times it's not needed...

Having animals played by the opposite gender in live-action movies is so common. Sometimes you don't notice (thanks to Lassie's long hair you never knew "she" was really a he, did you?) and other times, like when Lou rolls over in "Cats and Dogs," it's really obvious they don't want to display certain parts for kids to see.

I dunno, I guess cartoons have been "unrealistic" for quite some time. I mean, Mickey Mouse only had 3 fingers for Chrissakes, but he could still play the piano.

Everyone knows that Lassie was played by a male dog for many, many years. As Letranger pointed out, "her" long hair prevented you from seeing his masculinity. It doesn't bother me, or confuse me. Lassie's sex isn't an important part of the series and really has no bearing on the show.

I suppose that if children are confused because Balto, Steele, Kaltag and the others weren't drawn with the appropriate "equipment" , then they have some deeper sexual confusion than Universal's animators can fix. I mean, come on folks, how much anatomical detail do you really need? Balto was obviously intact: those puppies didn't come from nowhere. But really, is that an integral part of the movie? I don't think that it is.

PS. Animals do to have eyebrows! Not bushy ones like humans, but dogs certainly do have them! A close inspection of my friend's rottie showed this to be the case.