The IMDb forums are GOLD!

A lot of the time the forums over at IMDb are filled with hyperbolic idiots ("WORST MOVIE EVER!!!!!!!!111"), but I clicked on a topic in the Over the Hedge forums (I watched it tonight, more later) and it's title was "What the 'Cars' people can't appreciate...". It's all about how this one guy doesn't think Cars is as well-animated ("the people over on the Cars board seem to think that 'Cars' level of animation was much higher because it looked better." I kid you not, that's a direct quote! It's not as good because it looks better. lol) because "cars are easy to animate. As long as they look sleak and shiney [sic], its [sic] a breeze."

But while those lines are annoying and frustrating as most IMDb forums are, I found the rest of the thread quite funny. Hilarious, even. Here are some choice quotes.

"same thing with Scales as in Finding Nemo. The fur on Scully in Monsters Inc, that was...questionable, and that was the only main furry character."

It's questionable that Scully has fur? Or that he counts as furry enough or what? And is this person debating whether the animation in every single Pixar movie isn't good because there's not enough fur?

"But dreamworks has now made 4 hit movies/tv shows that are filled with fur and look great."

Good for them!

"Shrek 1 & 2. While its content is controversial, you would be in denial if you said it was not a hit."

'Shrek' is controversial? And who denies that these two movies are hits?!

"It was an amazing movie with the main character full of fur."

Fur = GOOOOD! ...apparently

"And they were constantly going through grass and water. Effects like that are amazing. What they were able to do was build a whole world in a tny [sic] speck of information."

huh? So, apparently, 'Finding Nemo' was set IN THE DESERT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO WATER WHATSOEVER. I don't even understand the "tny speck of information" thing.

"[Father of the Pride] Some say the background and unfocused details were horrible. They were packed to the brim with fur and movement that they had no budget left over to perfect the whole thing."

So even though all of Cars was well-animated it doesn't count because there were no furry things? They spent their whole budget on FUR?! LOL

"[Over the Hedge] Possibly the best movie in modern times."

Right

"There are a few knitpicky moments. But consider also that there are 12 fully furred animals plus every other character and RJ's bag."

GET OVER THE FUCKING FUR!!! Lol, and "RJ's bag"? WTF does that have to do with anything? There were WITCHES HATS in 'Cars'! Ooooh, WITCHES HATS

Later down the page somebody comments on a YouTube video somebody posted about the making of the movie. "while cinematography and lighting are very important in how real something looks, it didn't really cover the topic of fur." What. Is. With. These. People. ???. They must be really into the bear scene with all these fur fetishes going around.

LOL, I don't really care if people don't like Cars as much as I did, but to fault the movie BECAUSE THERE WERE NO FURRY ANIMALS IN IT is really quite ridiculous. Anyway... am I, like, now the official go-to guy for IMDb slugging matches?