The Fishy Problem With Zootopia 2

At long last, the opening weekend for Disney’s new animated movie, Zootopia 2, arrived. My best friend and I had long awaited this moment; it was the event of the year. We had even dressed up as Nick Wilde and Judy Hopps for the occasion. As we took our seats in the theatre, I felt the thrum of excitement that had been building up for almost a decade. Nothing could take this high away from me.
Traumatised, I exited the theatre an hour and a half later. There was a terrible problem with this film. Something that I couldn’t move past. Something that I couldn’t help but notice, as a dedicated member of the Flounder. Why the heck in a film duology focusing on diversity, inclusion, and acceptance has there not been a single fish?
The more I thought about this dilemma, dear reader, the more it bothered me. I first watched Zootopia when I was eight years old. A compelling story about racism, told through the lens of anthropomorphic mammals who all lived together in a big, ostensibly diverse city (called Zootopia, roll credits). The movie gracefully explored deep topics such as police discrimination, criminal cover-ups, and government corruption. At that time, I was too young to fully grasp the complex topics the film tackled. Or, for that matter, to see the glaring flaw in its narrative. Nine years later, I approached Zootopia 2 with a more informed lens than the first movie. I was ready to analyse the complicated themes that the movie would cover, and hoped to see an increased diversity in the animal kingdom, as had been promised in the promotional material. The sequel sought to expand upon the world set up in the first movie, and introduced reptiles as a part of the canon. By the end of the film, they had their very own neighbourhood in Zootopia. In addition, it was hinted that Zootopia 3 will focus on birds.
So we have mammals, reptiles, and birds. Huh, strange. Dear reader, if you’re anything like me, something about this list doesn’t sit right with you. Doesn’t it feel like another, major animal group is missing? That’s right. There aren’t any fish. In the first movie, this is more acceptable. We’re introduced to a world that only has mammals inhabiting it, so I can be more forgiving of its lack of finned representation. However, Zootopia 2 has no such excuse. They introduce many different types of reptiles, such as snakes, lizards, and turtles. They even portray salamanders, which are amphibians. To add insult to injury, they even hint that birds will be the focus of the next film. Where are fish in this equation? Completely forgotten. The film even goes out of its way to show aquatic mammals and a marsh onscreen, with not a single mention of anthropomorphic fish in the area. This leaves me no choice but to believe that the decision to exclude fish from the movie was nothing less than purposeful.
This in itself is bad enough. Even so reader, do you want to know what was worse than this blatant fishy discrimination? The single mention of fish during the entire film. In the film, sly-criminal-turned-cop fox Nick Wilde gives a quarter to a performing sea lion. The sea lion objects to this because of the sign at his hind flippers reveals, he only accepts payments in DEAD FISH. There, on the sign, was a drawing of a dead fish. We here at the Flounder were all very shook up by this horrifying portrayal. The filmmakers didn’t even stop to consider how insulting this image would be to fish and fish enthusiasts around the world. How can Zootopia 2 truly be a film about animals with such a major group being purposely excluded? Consider this your warning if you have yet to watch Zootopia 2: the film will leave you not only feeling scared for the future of fish representation, but for the safety of fish everywhere.