FA+
Shop
7427
Views
Views
982
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 905 x 1280
File Size 432 kB
Report this content
More from jollyjack
M'Ress, from the classic Star Trek animated series.
Voted for by my patrons - https://www.patreon.com/collectedcurios
Process video - https://youtu.be/HSyoOUkYT2c
Voted for by my patrons - https://www.patreon.com/collectedcurios
Process video - https://youtu.be/HSyoOUkYT2c
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 905 x 1280px
File Size 432 kB
Hum, maybe overthinking this, but you bring up some good points. If her feet are prehensile, then shoes might seem silly. I was thinking about the general case, however. I’ve seen anthro horses wearing horseshoes, which doesn’t make much sense (they would tear up the bedsheets and upholstery). In an all anthro-world, like Zootopia, it also kinds makes sense. But in a mixed world, wouldn’t the anthro-characters wear shoes as well, for the same reasons humans do?
Well, it could depend on the species, or on the individual who owns the anthro character. Some people that have anthro characters such as anthro cats/dogs/etcetera have their feet be human-like plantigrade feet while other prefer to have them to have traditional digitigrade feet like their non-anthro counterparts.
To have plantigrade feet like humans means all of the the bottom surface of a foot (toes, sole and heel) is walked on, and all the bodyweight is distributed over the bottom of the feet when standing/walking.
Whereas to have digitigrade feet means the individual walks on their toes and front section of the foot where the toes connect while the heel is raised and never touch the ground, all the bodyweight distributed on the toes and front of the foot.
A good example of digitigrade feet with the pic of M'Ress here, if you look at her feet, you see that her toes and part of the feet they are connected to are flat on the floor while the heel is raised back and higher.
We humans can easily feel what it would be like to stand/walk with digitigrade feet by simply standing on our toes and the front part of our feet that they connect to while keeping the back of the foot and heel off the ground. In seconds of doing so, the calf muscles will start to ache because they are being stretched taunter then normal, and walking feels different as your bodyweight distribution and center of balance is altered due to being on your toes and front of the foot.
To have plantigrade feet like humans means all of the the bottom surface of a foot (toes, sole and heel) is walked on, and all the bodyweight is distributed over the bottom of the feet when standing/walking.
Whereas to have digitigrade feet means the individual walks on their toes and front section of the foot where the toes connect while the heel is raised and never touch the ground, all the bodyweight distributed on the toes and front of the foot.
A good example of digitigrade feet with the pic of M'Ress here, if you look at her feet, you see that her toes and part of the feet they are connected to are flat on the floor while the heel is raised back and higher.
We humans can easily feel what it would be like to stand/walk with digitigrade feet by simply standing on our toes and the front part of our feet that they connect to while keeping the back of the foot and heel off the ground. In seconds of doing so, the calf muscles will start to ache because they are being stretched taunter then normal, and walking feels different as your bodyweight distribution and center of balance is altered due to being on your toes and front of the foot.
Good points. Some women (and men) who constantly wear high heels have trouble walking in flats because their calf muscles are distorted. I believe it is Wolfe-Nail who has a chart on just how anthro a commissioner want the legs and feet to be.
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/12236283/
https://www.furaffinity.net/view/12236283/
Actually, she did appear several times in the DC Star Trek comics set in between the end of Star Trek VI and before Star Trek VI. She also appeared in a few of the post TAS/pre-ST:TMP novels in the 70s, as well as a couple of New Frontier novels and comics.
As well as in IDW's Star Trek/Transformers crossover mini-series comic :P
As well as in IDW's Star Trek/Transformers crossover mini-series comic :P
give them time. they may have trouble deciding what to do next. their 2nd pony crossover ended, which I want the weapon accessories to be real, and with halloween coming up another ghostbusters crossover may be in the works. heck, I'm curious on what they'll do with sonic.
That is because CBS and Paramount kept flip-flopping on whether or not the animated series was canon or not.
When it first came out in the early 1970s, it was announced as being canon, as it had all of the original cast members doing the voices. Then in the 80s it was declared non-canon, then later back to canon, then non-canon again. Then about 12 - 13 years ago, CBS and Paramount once again declared the animated series canon, and they haven't changed it since, even including a Caitian in the cast of the latest animated ST series "Below Decks".
When it first came out in the early 1970s, it was announced as being canon, as it had all of the original cast members doing the voices. Then in the 80s it was declared non-canon, then later back to canon, then non-canon again. Then about 12 - 13 years ago, CBS and Paramount once again declared the animated series canon, and they haven't changed it since, even including a Caitian in the cast of the latest animated ST series "Below Decks".
I’ve always considered spin-offs or things like an animated shows of a live action series to be their own little world, so, non-canon, I guess. I only expect the idea of ‘canon, continuity, to apply in a series, only because not having it can be jarring.
The idea of canon, however, plays a large role in fanfics and when the original artist does a side story that could impact the larger narrative. Sort of ‘what if’ scenarios.
The idea of canon, however, plays a large role in fanfics and when the original artist does a side story that could impact the larger narrative. Sort of ‘what if’ scenarios.
It was a legal issue, who exactly owned M'Ress? In 1989 Filmation closed shop and was purchased by the French division of L'Oreal in attempt to diversify its business portfolio.
What? a makeup company bought a cartoon studio?! Sounds crazy, but here's the proof. (Scroll to page 94 of the PDF document)
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi.....1989-02-13.pdf
Anyway, M'Ress, Arex and any other elements that were created specifically for the cartoon series became a legal grey area. Who exactly owned them? Paramount, which owned Star Trek in general, or L'Oreal, which owned Filmation? Until the specifics were ironed smooth by the legal departments of both companies, it was in the best interest of Paramount to avoid using characters, places, ships and anything else that had not already been shown or mentioned in the original live action series. Had they wanted, "Next Generation" could have depicted a sehlat, but they could call Spock's birthplace "Shi'Kahr" as that name was only stated in "Yesteryear".
Complicating matters was an assistant and "mouthpiece" for Gene Roddenberry named Richard Arnold. Because it could weaken Paramount's case to openly state any specifics about the legal proceedings, he presented the excuse that Roddenberry had declared the cartoon no longer part of the continuity. Possibly Roddenberry did start to have reservations about that material, but really, he was little more than a "figurehead" in terms of day to day decisions regarding the incumbent series (Next Gen) and Arnold used personal biases (he did not like the cartoon) to "speak for" Roddenberry, more or less declaring, "Gene says the Cartoon is NOT official!"
Of course, Roddenberry eventually passed and (I assume) Arnold took another position and, most importantly, the matter was settled with L'Oreal, finally deciding Paramount DID own what was created and depicted specifically for the Filmation production. Thus we got things like "Shi'Kahr" appearing in the distance for the "remastered series" TOS episode "Amok Time", looking very much like the background plate from "Yesteryear". At that point it was simply a matter whether or not a given production WANTED to use something from the cartoon. From a legal standpoint, they finally had the "green light".
Thus we finally get a Caitian who is a main character (well, at least part of the extended cast) with dialogue almost every episode of "Lower Decks", Dr. T'Ana. CBS grants a license to Hallmark to make and sell a Lt. M'Ress (and Arex) hanging ornament quite faithful to the Filmation model design sheets (which I own).
Primarily, it was an issue of legal ownership in the late 80s that prevented M'Ress or Caitians in general being presented in any Trek materials (series, novels, comics, etc.) at that time, not because Roddenberry supposedly said, "Nah, I don't like it."
Sincerely,
Bill
What? a makeup company bought a cartoon studio?! Sounds crazy, but here's the proof. (Scroll to page 94 of the PDF document)
https://worldradiohistory.com/Archi.....1989-02-13.pdf
Anyway, M'Ress, Arex and any other elements that were created specifically for the cartoon series became a legal grey area. Who exactly owned them? Paramount, which owned Star Trek in general, or L'Oreal, which owned Filmation? Until the specifics were ironed smooth by the legal departments of both companies, it was in the best interest of Paramount to avoid using characters, places, ships and anything else that had not already been shown or mentioned in the original live action series. Had they wanted, "Next Generation" could have depicted a sehlat, but they could call Spock's birthplace "Shi'Kahr" as that name was only stated in "Yesteryear".
Complicating matters was an assistant and "mouthpiece" for Gene Roddenberry named Richard Arnold. Because it could weaken Paramount's case to openly state any specifics about the legal proceedings, he presented the excuse that Roddenberry had declared the cartoon no longer part of the continuity. Possibly Roddenberry did start to have reservations about that material, but really, he was little more than a "figurehead" in terms of day to day decisions regarding the incumbent series (Next Gen) and Arnold used personal biases (he did not like the cartoon) to "speak for" Roddenberry, more or less declaring, "Gene says the Cartoon is NOT official!"
Of course, Roddenberry eventually passed and (I assume) Arnold took another position and, most importantly, the matter was settled with L'Oreal, finally deciding Paramount DID own what was created and depicted specifically for the Filmation production. Thus we got things like "Shi'Kahr" appearing in the distance for the "remastered series" TOS episode "Amok Time", looking very much like the background plate from "Yesteryear". At that point it was simply a matter whether or not a given production WANTED to use something from the cartoon. From a legal standpoint, they finally had the "green light".
Thus we finally get a Caitian who is a main character (well, at least part of the extended cast) with dialogue almost every episode of "Lower Decks", Dr. T'Ana. CBS grants a license to Hallmark to make and sell a Lt. M'Ress (and Arex) hanging ornament quite faithful to the Filmation model design sheets (which I own).
Primarily, it was an issue of legal ownership in the late 80s that prevented M'Ress or Caitians in general being presented in any Trek materials (series, novels, comics, etc.) at that time, not because Roddenberry supposedly said, "Nah, I don't like it."
Sincerely,
Bill
More likely by Stephen Kandel who wrote "Mudd's Passion" (and created Harry Mudd for the original series) as he provided notes in his script detailing M'Ress' appearance and mannerisms. Norm Prescott and Lou Scheimer probably saw the advantage of using her as a semi-regular (M'Ress was in only 6 of the 22 episodes while Arex was in all of them) and D.C. Fontana was far more involved with the day to day affairs than Roddenberry who probably just "sign off" various approvals.
Comments