Why No Furry Content in the Media?

[John Red Beard]

Something I’ve been wondering about: why doesn’t there seem to be any furry-oriented material in the mainstream media, or at least mainstream-adjacent? Sure, there are movies and TV shows that appeal to furries, but as far as I know, nothing made specifically with that in mind. Or am I just missing it?

On one hand, it’s a pretty maligned and misunderstood demographic, but it’s also a pretty big one. A decent movie or show that catered to that market could potentially make a lot of money, and sell a lot of merchandise. Is it just that the money people think there’s already enough stuff out there with talking animals that the furry market’s already saturated?

And whatever the reason, I wonder if there have been any attempts by the community itself to produce something. There are certainly plenty of talented creatives.

I dunno, what do you think? Could a crowd funded movie project get off the ground? Could it make a profit?

[saph the sergal]

4 words: csi: fur and loathing

all im going to say on this.

[The Past]

I really don't think that infamous CSI episode has had as much of an impact on the fandom's reputation as people say (it wasn't even that bad, IMO). The nature of the internet and a good number of furries themselves are what brought it about. But yeah, until the general public has a much looser grip on the negative stereotypes, no one in the big leagues is going to specifically target furries. At least not openly. We're in the age of no-risk, sell-what-already-sells media culture, so it's even more unlikely anytime soon.

[anoni]

Eh, I think the reason is more fundamental. Furries are a niche group of people, mainstream content is about $$$, and you don't get the big bucks from the small cliques. Before a show can be made specifically for furries it has to be proven that it would be very profitable to do so, but as it turns out, you can create a show that both appeals to the general audience and furries. Examples: Zootopia, Disney, etc. But it would be unfair to say any of these were created with furries in mind, I'm not exactly sure why animators tend to favour animals rather than humans, but I think it has to do with them being easier or more interesting to draw. Either way, it's more fair to say that furries were created from those movies like Zootopia, than those movies created for furries.

I guess my point is, furries don't really have an impact on anything, and often fit into the target audience of other things, so there's no real need (on an economic sense) to market something specifically for furries. Bronies got some shout outs in MLP because they were not the target audience but ended up being a large following, some shows/creators of mainstream media have commented on fursuits of characters, or furries who drew their characters, but again that's just because they're part of the audience in a way.

So the question you have to ask yourself is, if I was a TV executive interested only in money, why would I market something specifically for furries? Can I expand it to the "Kids" genre which is considerably more profitable?

Indie developers do it for the passion, big producers generally do it for the money.

[ArtyLoop]

Even though that CSI episode is very old, its influence is still sometimes felt and occasionally is mentioned in conversation.
Furry is niche, compared against the whole indeed. However we need to remember that many products are marketed to niche groups- think comics, and action figures and these are successful.

I am more optimistic considering that it is now known that Zootopia did indeed pander to furries. The complexity of popular culture and combined with the stereotypes and negative perceptions mean we're a way off before it comes, but it will arrive eventually. Twenty years ago, seeing openly gay couples in sitcoms as primary actors was rather controversial. Now its all normal, and treated as if its always been there (when it hasn't)

[Cheza]

There is at least one movie made by furries for furries (or at the very least, the creator claims it's "the first full feature furry motion picture"), made back in 2011, so attempts have been made by the community.

That movie features actors wearing fursuits (made by extremely-talented Clockwork Creatures at that), which sort of highlights the one issue with them. Most fursuits can't really change expressions on a whim, or even emote or blink at all, so trying to make live-action movies featuring suiters is hard because they're just inevitably going to look really expressionless and dead. Good luck trying to create emotional scenes when the expressions are static aside from some jaw movement at best.
(Another thing would also kinda be this: I know with myself I get uneasy watching fursuit parades as they just give me this "zombie apocalypse"-feel with how everyone is just walking around and the suits have these blank lifeless stares. I like fursuits and admire the skill and craftsmanship that goes into making them, but they still give me this uncanny valley-feel "in action". Same with Muppets. A bit beside the point, but I'm going to be optimistic and believe I'm not the only one with this problem. It's potentially also something that'd turn people away or at the very least draw critic.)

Animated movies would fare much better, but those are also time-consuming and expensive to make, especially for longer projects. If there was a crowdfunding campaign and a collaboration between several animators and writers, it could probably be done, but I kinda doubt it's going to happen. And in the event it did, limiting the scope to just try to appeal to furries would be pretty odd. I mean "funny cartoon animals" can appeal to pretty much anyone, and there isn't really anything explicitly furry-exclusive about them.
Liking Tom&Jerry or Disney's Robin Hood doesn't automatically make you a furry, after all, so limiting your audience when it could work for more people (and thus potentially make a larger profit) doesn't make much sense.

In short, I doubt anything made exclusively for furries will happen any time soon, but cartoon animals are popular, so people still make stuff like that even if it's not with furries in mind.
I think it's a pretty good compromise all things considered.

[John Red Beard]

I never would have thought of using actors in fursuits. That sounds... awkward, to be honest. I was thinking more about animation.

You're all right that it's too much of a niche audience for mainstream productions to target, and there is other more general audience material that also happens to appeal to furries as a secondary audience. But My thinking is that in a world of 7 billion people, even a niche audience could potentially be profitable, especially if it's not SO targeted that it doesn't appeal to anyone outside the niche.

I have half a mind to try to get something going myself, but I have no business education or experience organizing anything like that.

[Brisky]

I think this whole thing can be pretty much summed up to it not really being neccecary.

So, yeah, John. Shurely you could make a piece of mainstream media that's made speccifically for furries. But why would you?

Something with anthromorphic animals in it does just aswell to the general audience, and also including those people as your target audience isn't going to make it any less interesting to furries.

Soo why make something and only intend for it to be sold / shown to for furries, when you can sell it / show it to everybody, while it's just as appealing to furries, regardless?

[Cheza]

It also makes one wonder, HOW would one go about making general furry content that only appeals to furries?
What would make this different enough from something like Robin Hood, Zootopia, Tom & Jerry and whatever else is out there that it would no longer appeal to the mainstream?

[Oriaan]

 Theres zooptopia n shit, the only difference is that most of the time its not made by furries.