It would be so fun if Zootopia 3 would have a villain specific to the story, but also a side story with Bellweather aiming to take revenge on Judy and Nick.

me personally i think that if zooptopia one just had a normal villain it wouldve made the movie much better

I like how the first movie had a very long and super obvious breaking bad reference and the 2nd movie also had a very long and super obvious reference to the shining. It's funny and rewarding to see fully animated versions of memorable media you've seen before.

Bellwether just wanted power. She used the Predator-Prey Dynamic as a way to get that power.

I genuinely didn’t suspect Pawbert until like 1 minute before the reveal

I love that this is one of the few times where the Twist Villain is not a complete flip of his original character. When Pawbert is revealed to be a villain, he's still kinda desperate and awkward, it's just that now he's fighting against our heroes.
Other twist villains, like Hans, Callahan and Bellwether are revealed, their character completely changes.
The only other villains i can think of who stay true to their character is Commander Rourke and maybe to some extent Turbo.

4:42 series of unfortunate events type shi

I had a pitch of Zootopia 3 in my head and among them was Pawbert's redemption...but now that you mention of why Pawbert is supposed to be irredeemable, I'm now conflicted

Thank you! For putting in the comparison of both Zootopia twist villains into one!!! Now do the same with what the similarities of Hopper and Titus from A Bug's Life and Hoppers respectively.

I liked the mystery in Zootopia 1. The mystery part vanished pretty quick in the beginning of Zootopia 2 after the Lynxley's confronted the snake.

Even though the fast pacing fits the whole “being chased” premise of the movie, I honestly think it ends up hurting the story. The social themes barely get explored, and the conflict between Judy and Nick really needed more time to breathe. A good example is the deleted hospital scene. Even though their argument there happens during a quieter moment instead of while they’re actively being chased, it still communicates their conflict really well. Nick tries to convince Judy not to involve herself in the case any further, while Judy ignores him because she wants to make up for her own mistake.

One thing I really like about that deleted scene is that it shows the movie originally wasn’t going to go easy on criticizing Judy’s need for validation. In the final version, her need is treated much more sympathetically, especially compared to how the movie handles Nick’s vulnerability. On top of that, Judy is ultimately rewarded even when Nick is clearly uncomfortable at first with her keeping the recording of him admiting his feelings, which feels questionable. Especially since Judy herself wasn’t uncomfortable when Nick recorded her in the first movie. And honestly, Nick never had a problem giving Judy compliments before either — he already called her smart multiple times in the original movie.

Another issue I have with the narrative is how it treats Nick as if he’s being dishonest, even though whenever he’s with Judy he consistently makes it clear that he wants them to leave together and stay safe. That isn’t very different from simply telling her that he doesn’t want to lose her.

I also feel like Nick and Judy’s dynamic is extremely unbalanced in the sequel. Most of the time, Nick is constantly being humiliated, hurt, or making mistakes that put them in difficult situations. Because of that, he starts feeling less like the partner he was in the first movie and more like an awkward sidekick.

And, the resolution really needed more time to properly pay off. It feels strange that Nick ends up showing far more support toward their relationship by the end — repairing the pen, defending Judy when Pawbert insults them (something Judy never really does for him), and several other moments like that — while the only things Nick really gets in return are being allowed to drive and being allowed to speak first during therapy. The narrative also ignores a lot of Judy’s mistreat toward Nick throughout the movie, including the fact that she repeatedly hurts him physically. In the end, the only thing she truly apologizes for is leaving him behind at the cabin.

I’d definitely recommend watching Soderling’s critique because he points out a lot of other problems the movie has, both in terms of narrative structure and execution.

14:10 Schafrillas mentioned

13:02 FEEL THE STING OF BETRAYAL

the reason i didn't catch or even  thought of the possibility of Pawbert being the villain before it happened was beacause i was blinded by how gay he was being with gary, i was too busy fudanshi'ing over how beautiful it was that the great grandchildren of two rival families were teaming up to fix things in a movie that tells you that it is okay for partners to be different, and all the parallels they had with judy and nick

GOD DAMMIT DISNEY WHYYY

i was originally upset that Pawbert is a twist villain. Maybe because i don't catch the "I'm Lynxley, well you know, I'm trying to be" line. Thatis such an important line, since it ties to his whole villain motivation "I don't want to be different", which I originally couldn't understand (hence why I'm upset lol).

You immediately knew pawbert was the twist the second he was introduced just like it’s obvious. While bellwether wasn’t flushed out as well as she should have been it was a flawed but better example.

Personally i felt he was going to either be a twist villain or was just some representation since it felt very much like a closeted person. (Shark dolphin from shark tale for example) I wasn't disappointed though, but i found most of the stuff in the movie to be tedious. The conflicted partners thing felt forced, the book mystery was mostly a mcguffin. Like it mostly gave them a map, so losing the book in the beginning wouldn't have really mattered all that much, and a villain having a weapon very specifically built to frame someone that basically nobody had seen in decades or more didn't make much sense. Sort of like staging the attack of a kangaroo in the middle of Oklahoma.

5:00 dawg, how would you react if a tractor was coming straight towards you and you have no way to escape

We got toon referencing schaffrillas productions before GTA 6 ‏‪14:10‬‏

I think I've seen too many crime shows. I knew who the twist villain was going to be in zootopia 2 from the trailer and it ruined the movie for me. It would be nice if the twist villain wasn't that predictable. This is problem I have with all newer movies and shows, every character is predictable and feels the exact same to me. I even knew who the killer is in the sheep detectives from the trailer and the clues in the movie itself were too obvious, that being said because that movie is a comedy I wasn't too bothered about the who dunnit part being ruined.