I agree 100%! Lol

Haha I hope people fully read your journal before commenting XD

Well yeah especially considering they have a charecther that is based off pokemon, no originality.

On a side note what is your opinion about people who have there fursona with feral/ anthro version (I'm not saying it's bad, I would like your opinion)

If there fursona is original, they've got every right to tweak and change it how they see fit. It's theres.

Here's another thing, there are some people with my little pony chars. O.o but at least thy give it a new cutie mark and colour job and stuff.

Don't ask me how I know so much

*is not original* ;_;

Well, my current character is still better than my previous character at least... which really was just a generic charmander, except wearing a backpack and baseball cap. I at least tried with my current character :P http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3379763/ I like the idea of a gradual evolution rather than an instantaneous one, so there it is.

eh I somewhat agree with you. Just depends on who the artist is I guess. If they're good the character doesn't look so bad but most of the time you are right they suck

too true, kudos to those who take time to evolve a persona from scratch, like i did with myself :3

BUT I HAS A FREAKIN MANADRAGON AND A ANTHRO MODIFIED VERSION OF A POKEMON IM GONNA TROLL AT YOU *headexplodes*

XDDD

OMGNO!

talking more srs........ and offtopic


i might have a bunch of anthros but i'll always love ferals more.
therefore i like guilmon over renamon just because he looks more feral

I think that you should draw a few ferals that are tweaked and distorted forms of popular anthropomorphic characters. That's show 'em! And as always, they don't necessarily have to be showing the lurvs to each other, but it's a very nice option... 0w0

Haha! Genius!

Glad you like it! I've really nothing to offer an artist other than ideas. I think this one might be fun!

Look! It's Disney's Robin Hood! *A fox* Best of luck with the bow and arrow now you noble scamp!
And Bugs from Looney Toons! *A Rabbit* He'll show that Elmer Fudd yet!
And, and uh... who's the dog again? Oh yeah, it's Colleen from Road Rovers! Still strangely attractive... If that's wrong I don't want to be right!
Anyway, that's it for the anti-non-unanthro show! Last one out has to clean the Thundercats' litterbox.

I'm all for ferals. I've seen well made anthros, but they seem unnatural. As a feral dragon, I know I have no right to say this, but there it is

I think it really depends on the skill and style of the artist when it comes to anthropomorphizing characters on if it looks good or not. :)

getting sore from the fapping are we?


:p

I second that. Most anthros don't appeal to me, but some just work.

True.. anthromorphic dolphins tend to usually look good XD

*trills* why thank you:) *poses*

I've embraced my unoriginality very, very long ago, but well, I've got a mondo crush on Charizard, and it's not leavin', hahaha.

Yeah, it was lazy, but it's fun. That's what matters most to me. ;]

And the super-effective jokes that come with it are worth it, haha.

Feral dragons, at least, seem more "right" to me, but Im not gonna shoot down good art just because its an anthro rendition. Now bad art of an anthro rendition...bad art is bad art =P Ive seen some anthro conversions that are OMG amazing artistically speaking and I can absolutely appreciate the art. Sometimes its also interesting to see a person put a new twist on an old classic, especially if its a character rarely done (I really appreciate originality, especially in the supersaturated world of FA).

I guess it's annoying if you feel it takes away from the overall character of the character. I also prefer ferals more though, but I don't really care if someone draws anthro versions of things; I'll probably just not be looking for it. :P

However, I feel your frustration if you're talking about trying to search for art of a character, and the only things that come up are anthro versions, when you're specifically looking for nonanthro.

I agree with the whole cartoon thing, aside from the OMGNEERRRRDDRAAAGE parts I've seen some go through if you mention ANYTHING about modifying the already modified creature they like to see in porn. I think I might be calling the kettle "Black" but, dragons by legend myth and lore are normally large Feral shaped reptiles some with wings some with breath weapons. etc.. etc... But there are just as many instances where dragons have either made themselves Anthropomorphic, Or fully human, elven etc. So I can't say that a dragon being an anthromorph is all that out to lunch. However little Skippy Fufu the poodle?

You can see where the line gets blurred. Yes I know I know, "What about Were-Everythings?" No, juuuust no. Werewolves, Raksasha, and such are culturally centralized. But like dragons either they're diseased or magical beasts in nature. But that's my stance *Chuckles* please don't take this the wrong way I'm just putting up the civil debate on this sort of topic.

However! Still seen some very good and very tasteful renditions and modifications. (Kaji for one.)

Rithy

I've seen some morphs that look all right (I guess it depends on the artist and their depiction). But I am more for ferals. In fact I'm better at drawing ferals than anthros.

Some of them are so cute though! xD

rarely, i've seen a nice one.. but yeah, usually they are pretty awful

Well, I think the reason people anthropomorphize things like pokemon is the same reason they anthropomorphize animals in general. They want a cross between a human and animal to varying degrees. Why not complain about people taking a duck, a dog, or a cat and their anthropomorphizing of those creatures?

Fan characters is one thing, what I find annoying is when someone just takes an existing character (like Tails) and just edit him or her a little (or sometimes not at all), give him or her a new name and call him of her their own.

a lack of origionality can be annoying, but then there are some characters you'd really like to see anthro, if for no other reason then to let them have hands. case in point, the sweet joanna you just drew has no need for an anthro version; she has hands and is gorgeous by herself without mods. but, say, jake the rattlesnake from Rango is a completely non-anthro snake, and some might wonder how he'd look as an anthro with regular revolvers, as opposed to a 6 gun rattle on his tail.

as for hideously distorting copyright chars, yeh, it can get kinda ugly. I don't even want to *think* what an anthro dolphmon would look like, ick:P

Yah, I've seen a few artists turn toothless anthro. oh god he looks so 'wrong' anthro >.<

But for Jake the rattlensake from Rango, I still say he's fine the way the creators made him. If your only into an anthromorphised version of the character, then your not into the character at all. Your into a completely different creature that has similar features/colors.

yah, precisely. especially the ones who make toothless female and big him big breasts; oy...

and jake is perfectly fine the way he is.

as for us phins, I love both sides, and listen to both sides of the argument, prefer to keep an open mind.

Generally speaking I think the issue here is the level of Anthropomorphism. On one hand by the true definition of Anthropomorph, one can simply have a character of obvious animal (IE: Non-Human) Characteristics in body, but with the intelligence and mental capabilities of a human. On the other hand, still by the true definition of Anthropomorph, one can take the body of an animal, and tweak and transform it into one that can be characterized as human (Still with the mind of an animal).

So, if you can have the Body of an animal and human like mind, or the mind of an animal and a human like body to be considered Anthropomorphic... what degrees of either will generally be tweaked by the person who created the character.

Now, when you take "Feral" characters and modify them to be "more" Anthropomorphic, you are simply getting into user preference type stuff. So, while (for instance) most Disney characters would be considered Anthropomorphic they do still have an "Animal" Body, which can be altered at artists discretion to fit the whims of whomever.

Now, where the line gets blurred is in regards to characters like Pokemon and Digimon. These creatures are Animals. They have human like intelligence and mannerisms, but they are still animals. They have not been Anthropomophed or blended with a human in any way, seeing as they are in their original state from creation. This is evidenced by the fact that there are no "Dumb" Pokemon. All pokemon can talk and communicate. There are no discernible levels of cognizance within the various species. It's not like Meowth is a special pokemon born differently than others. He's a regular Meowth that taught himself how to speak our language, as could any of the other pokemon. In fact, as shown in hte Pokemon Mystery Dungeon Series, they have their own towns and cities.

So, in reality the only Anthropomophic Pokemon are those Pokemon who have been altered in body to resemble humans, as their mind is already on par with humans and thus does not need to be altered.

I think the whole issue of feral/anthropomorphic/human is a moot point since humans are a species of primate, a type of mammal, which is an animal.

So what if we have technology. I can name at least five other animals that do. And so what if we have self awareness? At least one parrot had that. *shrug*

Many different species have been proven to have self awareness now. Many types of birds, horses, cetaceans, primates, and a few others.

Well I haven't seen the things on that, but I know it was determined that individuals of a few species proved to at least have some sense of self. Gorillas and parrots mostly (and as a species, crows may have self awareness and oral tradition), but my info is a few years out of date.

Have they checked Octopi? It would be awesome if at least a couple Octopi had it.

I'm not sure if they've checked Octopi, but they have tested cuttlefish and found they have self awareness as well. Out of all the species they've tested that I've read or seen documentaries about, dolphins seem to have the best sense of awareness. Dolphins would go to there trainers to get marked on by there trainers and then would instantly swim over to the mirror and check out there new markings, then swim back to the trainer to get another marking lol

Hummm. Well now that I think about it, given that an Octopi's nervous system is a one-way system (they have to actually watch their own arms to know what their arms are doing), I guess they must have self-awareness. Otherwise that system would totally fail.

Eww, pokemorphs....bleh

lol

Yahhh, pokemorphs are hoooorible XD

Lol...

...What about original characters that are members of a non-original species? :3

I think that depends. If it's a non-original species that exists naturally, like wolves or horses or whatever, there's no 'original creator' involved. While I usually don't like the way most anthros look, I don't see any problems since the 'original' design doesn't belong to anyone.

well suppose it's a fictional race
like what if someone creates a Na'vi character (weird, but hey to each their own), but the character itself is completely original, with fitting backstory and all kinda goodies like that

If it doesn't look like what the original creator designed Navi to look like, then it's not a Navi, it's a new creature with similar features.

no no, not what I meant
I mean, say this person's character was not one taken from the movie and entirely fictional, with distinctive markings and specialties, and their own goals and motivations, all dreamed up by the creator - but it was still a Na'vi

That's the thing. What define a Navi are what the original creator of the race has set. When someone sees an animal or a race, they are identified by particular physical features. Markings being different make sense, especially for a sentient tribal creature. So in the case of a Navi, they are defined by there hair, that they are blue, tall, and the overall physical structure of there body. Anything beyond that is pretty open I think.

For example, there's somebody on FA(no clue who it is, just seen them in art) that has a black charizard character. Other then being black, the physical structure of what defines a charizard is still completely there. So I've got no real problem with this character, despite how unoriginal it is. They stayed true to the original creators design(whoever in Nintendo that designed Charizard) and only tweaks it's markings, personality, and story.

Now, if they took that original charizard character and made it completely anthro, or added a tentacles to it's back, or anything that changes the physical definition of a charizard, and they still try to call it a charizard, they are retards lol.

Lol see, now I have a handy way around that, hehe
My character is a D&D 3.5 silver dragon
Thing is, right there in the Monster Manual, it says that silver dragons can freely shapeshift into any humanoid form (a human, elf, dwarf, etc...). Like, it's actually a racial ability outlined right in the D&D rulebooks. So I simply shift into a human silver half-dragon (half-dragons being ALSO outlined in the monster manual), and since it's magic, the aesthetics are up to me - so I choose a very dragon-y half dragon, i.e., an anthro. It's perfectly within game rules to do so, too

I shall reply fastly and without much effort.

Seeing a few anthro Lion King characters, even really well drawn ones, just looks awful. When it's a character that is already a character, changing them like that just looks wrong. It'd be like drawing Hitler without a mustache. It's just wrong. Ferals and Anthros are awesome though, and a characters can be either or neither or both. But when you make a character not look like themselves for our own personal tastes, you're kinda butchering the character and that is not really very good.

Damnit that was longer than expected.