Zootopia 2 might not be for you, but wishing it was generated by AI is completely irresponsible

Zootopia 2 is likely destined to be a box office hit, with the latest film from Walt Disney Animation Studios expected to earn $125 million at the domestic box office over the long Thanksgiving weekend and land a projected total of $270 million from its opening weekend — topping its predecessor's $1 billion haul.

Critical reception to the long-awaited sequel has also been very positive, with a Rotten Tomatoes score currently sitting at a fresh 94 percent. Kids will love it and plenty of adults will take them to see it too. Oh, and the furry ones – let's not forget them. While the love for the sequel seems pretty universal, not all critics have fallen for it.

That's to be expected, and it's amazing to see a diverse range of critical thoughts emerging for any medium, especially big animated blockbusters like this one. But something about The Guardian's review bothers me because it dismisses Zootopia by comparing it to generative artificial intelligence in a way that I find woefully irresponsible, especially given the climate in which we currently live.

Zootopia 2 is a love letter to animated film that Disney doesn't deserve

Longtime film critic Peter Bradshaw gave the film 2/5 stars, stating that “It's not AI, but it might as well be”. I understand what he means. Zootopia 2 is a predictable sequel from Disney that feels corporately made for maximum profit.

It's unlikely to take risks or push the boat – its job is to look great and tell an entertaining story that will be appreciated by a global audience of all ages. Artificial intelligence is used without thinking in terms of numbers. But it was made with thought, and seeing how easily things can be made without it is a dangerous way to diminish true human artists.

Criticism may speak more to the script or general concept than the animation itself. But in today's environment, where generative AI is regularly taking jobs out of the animation industry, that seems like an ill-conceived statement that simply doesn't understand how bad things are in the creative fields right now. A privileged critical view that willingly throws hundreds of hard working artists under the bus who are just trying to stay afloat.

It's an odd situation because while Zootopia 2 was worked on by small-town creatives, it was also produced by Disney. The megacorp shouldn't be criticized for money or weak brand-dependent ideas — especially as it prepares to officially enter its territory with confirmed plans for Disney+ to introduce new features where users can produce short AI-generated content while also consuming things created by others. This will use Disney IP as well, so you can already imagine how big of a garbage fire this will end up being.

Nick, Judy and Snake fall in Zootopia 2.

Simply scrolling through TiKTok will reveal AI-generated parody trailers of random Pixar movies. Will Disney+ deliver exactly the same in an official capacity?

Characters from movies and shows — like Zootopia 2 — that were once curated with an intimate level of care and attention to detail will inevitably be powered by an AI model to spit out garbage.

A child might be delighted that Judy Hopps can now do whatever she wants on TV, but at the same time, it strikes me as the point of no return for the biggest media company on the planet. The Guardian's review lacks this important context, using generative AI to make quick and easy digs instead of saying anything comprehensible.

Critics have a greater responsibility than ever in the age of generative artificial intelligence

However, I don't feel it's beneficial to pile on this review too much because calling bad movies, shows and games generative AI when they feel bad or lazy is slowly but surely becoming a very common criticism.

But what happens when we cross the Rubicon and there is no discernible difference between what real human talent created and what a random computer conjured up? Our critics will have to be smarter, more astute and consider gigantic productions like this. Either that or we run the risk of shutting ourselves out altogether.

At the end of the day, corporations don't want us to differentiate between what experiences were created with generative AI or with the help of human talent, they just want us to continue to consume whatever they churn out and give them money. Those working in the production mines on something like Zootopia 2 are incredibly talented and want to create something special, but are probably painfully aware that their livelihoods hang in the balance every day.

How long before the skill they trained for years suddenly becomes cheaper and better with Disney's AI model? Mainstream audiences don't care about ethical concerns and they are the same people who inflate the box office numbers.

It's unclear whether Zootopia 2 used generative AI in any form during production, but during industry screenings the team was reportedly very keen to make it clear that it was a project spearheaded by hundreds of real people. Despite advances in generative AI, it's also not at the level of Pixar's trained artists.

A review might decry something for being so unimaginative it might as well have been created by generative AI, but the beauty of any work of art—regardless of quality—is that it was created by a living, breathing pair of hands. I never criticize something with the desire for it to be bad, but when it is, the review still has a soul of its own.

Critics owe it to themselves and their audiences to recognize the role AI is beginning to play in the media we consume, or we risk becoming complacent and irresponsible in the face of its progress.