Seems weird that we just don’t show a random part of animals because of shjt the church did like centuries ago... but who am I to judge?
@Blasphemy is Fun, well I mean it costs more money to add them and I'm not sure why you would pay extra money for something nobody cares about seeing
@CellSword, it wouldn’t cost more really, like maybe a minuscule amount but they purposely don’t add them, it’s not a money thing. That would be like not adding tongues or paw pads because “it costs more and nobody cares”.
@CellSword, yeah because cost is the reason... *rolls eyes*
@Trance Gemini, Things heating up in the CGI Lion testicle fandom lol
@Trance Gemini, wow coming in hot, you can have that, I just gave a very pragmatic reason. Take care man (goddamn)
@Blasphemy is Fun, idk I thought it made some sense. if I had a budget I probably wouldn't put it into anatomically correct lion testicles in a Disney movie
@CellSword, What? I was just saying it seems highly improbable that cost is the reason, I’m not mad in any way lol. It’s not as though I’m desperately craving to see some lion balls... haha right..? *looks around nervously*
@CellSword, I think you accidentally edited your comment instead of replying again (which doesn’t send off a notification). The budget isn’t sectioned into animal parts though is my point, you have a budget and you get somebody to make a lion. If you ask for an anatomically correct lion it’s not as though they’re gonna ask for more money... it’s just a part of the lion. Where as they purposefully ask for lions without testicles because it’s more “family-friendly” all I’m saying is it’s weird that because the church said that we should be ashamed of sex and sex organs, our whole culture has developed into one that purposefully excludes genitalia. Just seems weird to me but no big deal.
@Blasphemy is Fun, I'm not saying its animal parts based either, I'm saying "whole anatomical correct lion 1.5 mil, whole lion minus balls 1.45 mil"
@Blasphemy is Fun, and I agree that the church is where our warped view of sex comes from
@Earth Chan, for some reason my head just went to what the cosplay will look like
@Blasphemy is Fun, I don’t want to see balls if I don’t have to
@ImNotRacistBut, his reasoning is that you don’t want to see balls because the church told you that you don’t.
When in reality, in a Disney movie, nobody wants to see big swinging lion balls all over the place
@Richard Cypher, I mean, I’d like to see people’s reactions to giants swinging lion balls, but I personally don’t want to see them lol.
But how will they perform their singing acts? Increasing in realistic design limits on the creative variety that could be performed. A pity tbh
Just wait for the pornhub edit no biggie
@Sexy Homunculus, its the most irritating thing that they call this live action. There are no people in the movie and all the animals are cgi so its really just a higher tech version of the original movie
I mean I was impressed by Jungle Book so who knows
@fvck this shjt , that’s what I’m keeping in mind, but yeah, we’ll see
Did they learn nothing from red dead 2... its all about shrinking animal ball sacks now..... (apparently thats what we all needed...)
We had a lion statue in front of my middle school, and my morning class was right by it. I sat right by the window. Every morning, I got to sit and watch as the sun rose over the lion’s balls.
Movie's gonna be a hard pass from me. Just not interested