Regarding Anthropomorphic Animals & Non-Anthropomorphic Animals

C

cochise7969

New member
I realize that this thread serves little purpose, but I was thinking about this subject the other day and I thought that it might be worth discussing. There have been numerous animated programs that featured both anthropomorphic animals and non-anthropomorphic animals. The question that I wished to ask was:

What goes through your mind when you see anthropomorphic animals interacting with non-anthropomorphic animals in an animated program? Particularly if they’re both of the same species.

I realize that the suspension of disbelief comes into play and I’m sure all of us readily accept such things, but it’s always been something that has perplexed me.
 
In the case of the same species thing, I sort of like to think of it like a human interacting with a monkey. The Anthropomorphic animal is just interacting with a lesser-evolved version of their own species.

You could also apply this to a different species case, if the universe the show takes place in has other species of Anthropomorphic animals.
 
I don't see what is completely horrible about Anthropomorphic Animals interacting with Non-Anthropomorphic animals, as long as if it is serious, there IS some differentiation in name.
 
I just have to agree with this thing. I supect, somewhere along the line, the species got cut in half. One half stopped evolving, and the other half kept on going. :shrug:
 
I know that little kids seeing Arthur and Little Bear for the first time, and watching them play with their respective tiny-brained dogs while they can speak and walk upright, probably caused their brains to implode.
 
When it comes to the old Goofy and Pluto issue, the official explanation has always been that Goofy isn't a dog, but a human being represented by a cartoon dog, whereas pluto is just literally a dog. It's the same reason Donald can't fly and Mickey gnaw holes in drywall.
 
Like the others said, Goofy/Pluto and other such pairings can be explained as being like humans and monkeys----both primates, only humans evolved to live in houses, drive cars and watch "Wheel of Fortune" while lower primates, well, stayed animal-like. Thus, I have no problem Goofy and Pluto co-existing, or see why there's so much anxiety related to such---we humans co-exist with chimps and gorillas pretty well without the general public's brains collapsing ;-) .

-B.
 
Creeps me out, frankly. I can put up with Goofy vs. Pluto, but barely. I think the worst example was when I saw a horse (Quick Draw McGraw?) riding a horse in some toon or other. I mean really. A horse riding a horse. Come on. If you're going to make anthro animals that human, then why not just make them human and be done with it? IMO, if anthro animals are too human, they lose their worth, their charm and the whole point of making animals talk, which is the human desire to communicate/identify more closely with the "other". If the animals in a toon are too much like humans, then there's no "other" there.
 
funny thing in the story I was making this was a problem

but all I did was have the charater thing their 4 leg form are "intresting" but some can talk to them but it like chinese and japanese speaking to each other in their languages
 
I'm with Judy here. Part of the appeal (for me, anyway) of cartoon animals is that, despite their exaggerations and human-like behavior, they're still just that: animals. Having animal characters walk upright, talk and occasionally wear clothes is one thing, but when it gets to the point of say, Arthur, where the anthros have human digits and anatomies, own pets, save cats from trees, ride horses and go to zoos to look at "real" animals, that's when it crosses the line from cute to creepy. JMPO, though.
 
.

Maybe that's because Goofy's design is rather ambigious. Sure he looks somewhat like a dog, but for all we know he could be his own species entirely! :p
 
I always thought that the Goofy/Pluto thing was a mistake, concidering they were never seen together in the original cartoons, but then they would show up in House Of Mouse and Mickey Mouse Clubhouse together and it would look rather awkward.
 
I look at it like the concept of animals and Animals in the novel Wicked, which implies a bit of prejudice and racism. This, in turn, makes even some of the lighter cartoons darker to me.
 
I cannot stand Arthur for the very reasons you mention. Plus he's an aardvark without a tail. I don't get it. If the tail is such a problem, why make him an aardvark at all? What was the artist thinking - "I'm only going to use the good parts of an aardvark?" :confused: When I first saw him, I thought he was a hamster.:sad:
 
Was watching some of the Huck Hound box set recently. There were some instances of this:
--Huck as a Mountie (Tricky Trapper?). He has a sled dog who walks on fours and does not talk. Yet they BOTH eat dog food (from same bowl)--they growl at each other in a bit of "my territory" then both eagerly lap up the food.

--Huck in various occupations being pestered by a non-anthro dog (mailman; fireman trying to get a non-anthro cat out of a tree). Though in one cartoon the other dog, while walking on fours, etc. DID talk a bit.

Some examples from other sources; Arthur was mentioned of course, and...

--Once Upon a Forest: while most of the characters are anthro,
they do meet up with some rats (seen briefly in a sewer) and an owl
who are not anthro

--Family Guy: many dogs in the series don't walk upright, talk and DRIVE like Brian does. One episode has him allegedly impregnating
Mr. Pewterschmidt's (non- anthro) dog.

and I may think up more later

We can picture the anthro animals as being a substitute for humans and there are non-anthro animals about as well, in the same series/cartoon
 
Back
Top