'Detective Pikachu' trailer is anthropomorphic
Detective Pikachu will be hitting theaters May 10 of next year. Hopefully, Pikachu talking goes down a little better with the fans this time.
This is the first live action Pokémon movie, and it's neither an adaptation of the popular anime series, nor the popular video game series you'd expect. Instead an adaptation of the spin-off game Detective Pikachu. Which is more or less Japanese-exclusive as it didn't get a release outside of Japan until March of this year.
Though the Pokémon franchise and its related monster characters aren't usually as fully anthropomorphic as this film, furries don't actually seem to care and just like this franchise anyway. Besides, this movie will feature a fully voiced version of franchise mascot, Pikachu, provided by Ryan Reynolds.
There is also a bit more fandom involvement when it comes to the film as well. A well known "realistic Pokémon" fan artist RJ Palmer helped some with the character designs of the movie. The movie versions are a bit closer to the cartoon versions of the creatures. They certainly didn't seem to take some of Palmer's more radical reinventions, such as the Gengar becoming a giant flightless bat, or Dragonite as a giant salamander, but the artist's influence may be seen in details like Charizard's skin texture.
About the author
2cross2affliction (Brendan Kachel) — read stories — contact (login required)a red fox
New teeth. That's weird.
Comments
First off, let's be thankful they don't look like RJ Palmer's art because that would have been horrific.
Now to the more important part. The Detective Pikachu trailer is not anthropomorphic! Pokemon are not (usually) anthropomorphic. Anthropomorphism means ascribing human traits on entities that do not have them.
Sure, pikachu normally don't speak human language but we know the pokemon have their own language. That is clear in the Mystery Dungeon games where a human transforms into a pokemon and can speak with them and in the anime where meowth learns the human language. There's also several other examples but the overall point is that pokemon speaking is not anthropomorphism. In fact, according to the trailer, Pikachu can't speak human, it's just that one particular human can understand for whatever reason. Other people still here "Pika pika!"
The body is also not altered in any way to make pikachu (or the other pokemon seen) appear anthropomorphic. It's certainly possible to draw pokemon in an anthroporphic style but that would look completely different to this trailer. Again, there is no anthropomorphism.
The key test is, what would it be like if it weren't anthropomorphic? Given what we know about the games and anime, it would be exactly the same. This trailer shows the default, non-anthropomorphic version of pokemon.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Like last ten articles from this guy, he tweets he while in the queue he thinks he's going to make people angry again.
I post an innocuous trailer for a cute talking mouse movie, and he goes off on it. *shrug emoji I don't know how to make*
Two. Last two...
I don't mind the trailer. I mind the poor choice of wording. We talked about this at length seven years ago. Although maybe you just didn't agree with me. In which case, let's try again. :) http://www.flayrah.com/3541/opinion-redefining-furry
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Umm, it's a tribute to Fred and his frequent "is *fill in the blank* anthropomorphic/*fill in the blank* is anthropomorphic" headlines/ledes.
I think I put the same thing you did better in one sentence in the Equestria Girls review; basically, who cares if it's "anthropomorphic" or not. Is it furry?
Then I followed with the sentiment that I'd let readers decide.
Of course, if you want to argue that the movie trailer isn't anthropomorphic, which the headline syntax can be read as implying, no, I guess it doesn't have a human form/and or intellect, but that's probably a good thing.
Judging by the conversation, he's mentally anthropomorphic, and that's good enough for me!
Frankly, though, that's essentially true for Ash's Pikachu as well. (It's especially evident in the parts of the movies aimed at young children where you see the pokémon interacting more directly with each other.)
I don't think my joke worked; I mean the trailer (not the content of the trailer) isn't anthropomorphic. Like it's not a humanized version of a trailer. It's a normal trailer; the movie is anthropomorphic, and the scenes shown contain anthropomorphism, but it's a non-anthropomorphic trailer! Get it! Get it? No?
Syntax jokes, oh dear.
In the phrase "anthropomorphic movie trailer", "anthropomorphic" is an adjective that could be describing the single word "movie" or the compound word "movie trailer". If "anthropomorphic" in the headline is describing the movie Detective Pikachu, then it is correct. However, the joke I'm am struggling to make is that if "anthropomorphic" is applied to the actual "object" (for lack of a better term) that is the Detective Pikachu trailer (which the phrasing of the headline can allow), then this would be false, because the "object" of the Detective Pikachu trailer features neither mental nor physical characteristics of a human.
So the trailer itself remains just a trailer.
I don't even know how a movie trailer could physically be anthropomorphic, but a few trailers could (tongue in cheek) be argued to be mentally anthropomorphic, as they can get pretty self aware.
I think they would look far less horrific if they'd gotten them closer to Palmer's "realistic Pokemon" series. (It's a texture thing. I didn't see a single Pokemon they gave fur to that looked like it had the proper texture of fur. Kinda looked lazy, especially on Pikachu.)
Btw, making a fictional universe in which nonhumans have language is still anthropomorphism, in a meta way at least, because complex language is a human trait. ;)
Anthropomorphism doesn't require physical design change. It also doesn't require any awareness of such thing.
Having human thoughts on the inside is another way of being anthropomorphic, even if the person can't talk in English. And the Pokemon are anthropomorphic or at least close where it doesn't much matter. So they are anthropomorphic or are still aliens similar to human thinking. Same with My Little Pony, and most other anthropomorphic films and TV shows. Even those that are two-legged.
I think it's easier to just share this: https://www.deviantart.com/another-realm/art/Alpha-and-Omega-Comparing-635511156
It's like you're trying to convince me of things I already know. I have stated on several occasions that mental anthropomorphism is a thing and not only physical. Even in the comment you reply to I say "The body is also not altered." Also, because the first thing I discussed was the mental aspect.
What you fail to address is the lack of any non-anthro version. The canon version has all the attributes you call anthropomorphic so there is no addition. You aren't anthropomorphising a character if it already possesses those traits.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
It just sounded like you were they aren't anthropomorphism period.
And looked like to me you went off to act like they must be altered to look anthropomorphic and acted like not talking in English makes them less anthropomorphic too.
If you're trying to say they are not anthropomorphising because they already are anthropomorphic, I think you should be more clear on that, especially because you kept acting like the Pokemon are not anthropomorphic at all.
Example of what you've said I think.
"This trailer shows the default, non-anthropomorphic version of pokemon."
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Yes, they're not anthropomorphic at all. The movie just shows pokemon as they normally are; there is no anthropomorphism on a base pokemon. Pikachu is not speaking English, just the one person understands him. Same as how normally we don't understand pokemon but if you watch "The Island of the Giant Pokemon" there are subtitles that show they have a clear language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxH7AS712vU
There are also plenty of canon examples of pokemon speaking because that intelligence and capacity for advanced language is a part of normal non-anthropomorphic pokemon. Several pokemon are smarter than humans. For example, in Alakazam's pokedex it says:
"Its brain can outperform a super-computer. Its intelligence quotient is said to be 5,000."
There has to be a change from what a pokemon (or any character) normally is for it to be called anthropomorphic. That is not the case here.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
That goes back to my general original point then I think, where I am saying they do not need to have physical changes, nor do they have to speak English either, partly, or fully, in order to be anthropomorphic. I say this for almost many different characters not human.
Heck, even similar human mind might not be required because there might be another way to be anthropomorphic.
Though it's kinda a bit understandable to argue they aren't in terms of mind. After all, Pokemon might have different intelligence, but what about humans because some might be more smart in brain? What is "correct intelligent" to count as anthropomorphism? Plus in the Mystery Dungeon games, you're as smart as an average human basically. There are villages and shops, you control the Pokemon through human thought with no intelligent limits trying to limit it. With the species having that reminds me of My Little Pony Friendship is Magic in terms of thinking and villages.
While I'm not sure if all Pokemon thinks enough, many Pokemon I see listens to humans kinda like how a human does, and they have their own culture similar to the ponies. One Pokemon is even smart enough to learn how to talk and speak to every human being (i.e. That Meowth).
The super computer thing is weird if Alakazan is similar to almost any Pokemon with the villages, because unless a "super computer" and "5000" is so many times better than ours, it sounds so wrong. I don't think a computer's brain from our planet has enough can make villages, listen to humans, and learn how to talk like Meowth did.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Let me simplify this.
Non-anthropomorphic character + Human trait it doesn't possess = Anthropomorphism
e.g. a wolf + the ability for complex speech = an anthropomorphic wolf.
Cool?
Now, considering pokemon canonically have intelligence comparable to humans and complex language, if you want to claim that pokemon are anthropomorphic you need to show the non-anthropomorphic version of the pokemon and say what human trait it gained that now makes it anthropomorphic.
What is the human trait that pokemon didn't possess before but do in the trailer?
Where is the evidence that canonical pokemon lack that trait?
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
I think I might get what you mean. There is no known Pokemon that "isn't anthropomorphic" because by default in any known canon, right?
NOTE: I'm talking about Pokemon alone, not only in the trailer.
But however, Zootopia while based on our animals never had full non-anthropomorphic animals in that world. They just naturally show up like that, like they are just another species happening to share similar features like us despite that trailer claiming but not understanding anthropomorphism fully. Pokemon are also based off our animals, but much more custom. Because of that, I don't see much of a difference. | Anthropomorphism wouldn't require to show a canon non-anthropomorphic version (otherwise most or maybe all anthropomorphic characters we know are not anthropomorphic then), so what might be the only part of this argument other than that, is to see if Pokemon is based on our animals or not maybe.
Though, "animal" isn't the only thing that can be anthropomorphised.
Of course, these creatures are like "different species", like aliens, or even "monsters", even though Nick Wilde can be seen as similar (kinda) realistically in terms of aliens. If somehow Pokemon aren't anthropomorphic, I think it's just similar enough that it doesn't much matter and should still count as an example of legal furry.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Big difference.
Zootopia is full anthropomorphism of real animals. Lionheart is a lion. Bellweather is a sheep. Judy is a bunny. Nick is a fox.
Pokemon are based on real animals but are not real animals. Pikachu is not a mouse, it is a pikachu. Ninetales is a fox in the general sense of the word but it is not any real species, it is a ninetales. As such, there is no non-anthropomorphic ninetales that pokemon builds off. The only ninetales is the canon version.
Aliens are much the same as pokemon there. No canon version of an alien can be anthropomorphic because there is no other version.
Yes, they are similar. Again, that's something I've said. I linked my talk from Eurofurence here before but take a look at slide 35. https://forum.zafur.co.za/download/file.php?id=5859
I explicitly mention there are different levels. There are things that are not furry, things that are furry-related (like dragons and pokemon) and then there is true furry.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
The reason why I see it similar is because the result at the end of each is still different. They now look like a different species and feel like one. You might be talking about basic anthropomorphism.
The only difference in Pokemon is that they've changed patterns, and have their own nature. But in a way, some forms of anthropomorphism might be there.
I don't really think I agree with the "true furry" thing through these comments. I depend on some dictionaries more outside sometimes, and I think there are some forms of anthropomorphic that counts. Especially since "objects" can also count. I think that if a custom species has human characteristics, or similar enough, there is some form of anthropomorphism, especially because the dictionary might apply do it (i.e. objects, natural phenomenon, and animals) which I think can be combined.
What if I made a talking, and walking fox based off a fox, but added red lines over the face, and said it's new species that's similar to a fox? Is it no longer "anthropomorphic" because it's not 100% directly "linked" to a non-human animal now? Not that two legs and talking is required to be anthropomorphic, just an example.
Most anthropomorphic characters these days are mainly customized beyond anthropomorphism alone, to the point that it's like different species far more than Zootopia. You're basically saying those aren't "furries" maybe.
Pretty sure the whole point of liking an anthropomorphic creature is because they "aren't animals anymore", but more like a different species with connection to some.
I don't think it's required that "only anthropomorphism", and nothing else is the only legit thing to count as anthropomorphism. When a species is based off a non-human animal, and/or object for example, and there is human characteristics, then it's anthropomorphic, even if the species is more "new" now because that first part still happened. To say "it's no longer anthropomorphic" when 98% of furry creatures is more "sci-fi", is scary.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Let me guess... your character isn't in the movie so you're butthurt about that. It would have been cool though, all your fantasies could come real
I'm getting a more kid friendly "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" vibe from this one.
Shhh... Rakuen, down here.
Okay, if you can ignore the anthropomorphic flapping anus for a minute, there might be a interesting discussion; I recently was thinking of ways the various Disney movies were furry (for a project that just never panned out, but anyway) and one thing I thought of was what I called "Cute Animals". Basically, creatures that are treated as basic animals in their world, but would be considered "anthropomorphic" in ours.
So, while if a raccoon started acting like Meeko does in the real world, that would be news, in Pocahontas, he is not seen as exceptional. What I mean is nobody's like "wow, that's a really fucking smart raccoon!" They're like "oh, you have a pet raccoon, that's nice". I think Green Reaper has used this to talk about how How to Train Your Dragon is really, totally furry, you guys because Toothless acts smart sometimes. But it's important to note Hiccup's reaction to this; his relationship with Toothless is still a relationship between a human and an animal, as is Pocahontas's relationship to Meeko, or the average Pokemon Trainer is to his or her Pokemon. You could not do what you do to Pokemon if they were not the baseline "animal" of their world (probably arguably you shouldn't even do that sort of thing to animals, but that's beside the point).
Now, look at the reaction of the human character in the trailer; he's freaked out. He drops the stapler, anyway. (Just by the way, why the hell does Pikachu point at his butt there? I'm wondering if something got bowdlerized for the trailer.) This is not a normal Pikachu. That's the entire point; watching the trailer, the relationship between the two main characters is one of two intellectual equals, not one of human/animal. The guy is the Watson to Detective Pikachu's Holmes. Detective Pikachu specifically offers his services as a detective, not a Pikachu.
That's what you're missing; I'm totally on your side when you say Pokemon, in general, aren't anthropomorphic/furry/whatever, but this is definitely a case where the character in question is, within the rules of his own universe, different.
I think I can make something simple here:
Anything that is originally based off a real animal, with human like characteristics in fiction is anthropomorphic. Even if such character is considered a "new species" in that fictional universe because the first part still exist.
Otherwise, most fursonas and non-fursona furry characters aren't anthropomorphic.
If Nick Wilde was found in another universe and was made by nature in real life, that particular creature would not be anthropomorphic (but would still be very intelligent) because in that example, that's not made by anyone but nature in that universe, and of course isn't fiction. What about that?
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
Not blowing my mind here, Diamond Man. By the rules of his world, he's not anthropomorphic; but, by the rules of ours, he is. And our world is the one that matters because it's real.
You can't thought experiment Zootopia into not being anthropomorphic, sorry, dude.
Then the same applies to all anthropomorphic creatures: Pokemon, MLP ponies, most fursonas, and much more. Pokemon are anthropomorphic too in our world.
They all are anthropomorphic in fiction here on this planet, but I still believe they aren't in real life (e.g. another universe), same in there own world alone in terms of rules regardless.
I do think you can "thought experiment" it because in a way because it's possible to theorize it even if somehow there is no other world out there making it possible. Multiverse theory may also exist.
"To say "it's no longer anthropomorphic" when 98% of furry creatures is more "sci-fi", is scary."
"Otherwise, most fursonas and non-fursona furry characters aren't anthropomorphic."
Okay, seriously. Where are you getting these numbers and ideas? Here are the numbers. http://vis.adjectivespecies.com/species-popularity/
The vast majority of fursonas are normal anthropomorphic animals. Basic cosmetic changes don't change that.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
"Basic cosmetic changes don't change that."
And neither does changing the Pokemon's original based. Since "basic" might be subjective and yet, who can say that "basic" doesn't count?
Most fursonas that are say, wolves, are likely gonna not be "basic" real world animals with human characteristics anymore: I.e. Many fursonas are likely gonna be blue, red, patterns, and some more and almost every single one, even the ones without those changes are treated like different species like how Pokemon is a different species. That's why it's the same.
Vulpix: Based on fox, has human like features, but changed so much and treated like a different species in the other world.
Blue fox fursona: Based on fox has human like features, but changed so much and treated like a different species the other world.
The only thing that makes sense here is that so many fursonas, and Pokemon for example, are anthropomorphic in our world, but not in their world. This includes Zootopia. To say when is something is "true furry" in all this is really scary. I refuse to consider a certain fursona I like to "not be true furry".
Though it probably doesn't matter because they are very sentient similar to us but still.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.
It's certainly an interesting idea and at least respectable. As opposed to something like Zootopia not being anthropomrophic which is patently ridiculous. I'm not saying I would disagree with you here but I'm also not sure I would say this does anything to really blur the lines between furry-related and true furry. I would put your cute animals as furry-related. Kinda of Meeko = furry-related, Nala = true furry.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
Yeah, yeah. I think we're on the exact same page, here. This, exactly.
Do you actually believe the crap you spew? *shakes head*
Ummm ...
Merry Christmas?
Damn, you usually have to have rules telling regular members not to bite newbies. Never seen it the other way around.
Post new comment