HOME | DD
wwwarea β Art Styles of Anthropomorphic Creatures
by
Published: 2014-03-16 12:00:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 7296; Favourites: 21; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
DISCLAIMER - Fair Use
I believe (Not too sure) that this is not intended to infringe copyright!
The purposes of this upload is for Criticism or Commentary, and Education. Might have other purposes.
I DO NOT ASK FOR ANY COURT CHALLENGES. IF DA ISN'T SURE IF THIS IS FAIR USE AND PLANNED TO ASK ME FOR SOME COURT THING, THEN I SUGGEST JUST DELETING THIS OR TELLING ME TO DELETE THIS INSTEAD. I CANNOT HANDLE A COURT THING AND I DO NOT WANT TO.
_____________________________________
For educational purposes I think.
The reason why I made this (Well I didn't make the 3 pictures though. xD) was because some low-idiotic morons attacked the art style of the characters from a movie (Or movies?) with the name of "Alpha and Omega". Some selfishly make there own art-style versions of them and pretending it's "better". When really it's not. It actually ruins something for what it is by turning it into something it's not (Loosing personality of them originality). Some also idiotically compare these to real-life wolves.. What the flying hell?
Comparing will always be a threat.
_______________________
Now I like to teach that the designs of Alpha and Omega is just like any other art-design. They are perfect for what they are, and NO OTHER art style is better in a critique sense.
And that's the critique. Some people abuse critique which is just flat-out offensive!
Now on the left, we have Mickey Mouse, Mickey Mouse looks NOTHING like a mouse at all much, but people still like it, and people know this is good for an anthropomorphic type of mouse and it's extra simple style too.
In the middle, we have the Mane 6 from My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic, in ways, they don't look much like real-life horses or "ponies", but while they were based off them, the artist wanted to make a style for them. Just like Mickey Mouse.
And now on the right, we have Kate, and Humphrey. They are based off wolves, and they ALSO have an art style of the creatures. They look in bits more different (Just like the first two) and also does "impossible" (Is that the right word?) things like the first two also.
All three has a personality often based off the anthropomorphic like styles.
Oh and one moron claim they "didn't" look right as anthropomorphic creatures... That is flat-out wrong.. Every anthropomorphic creature can look different in many ways.
Anthropomorphic creatures can have many kinds of designs. INCLUDING human hair, and human-like faces.
________________________
I like the designs a lot, and the visuals look perfect on them.
Changing the designs would probably just lose my interest.
If some people personality didn't like it, then stop watching and and leave the art-style alone for others that DO like it...
Really, how do you like it if people started to judge My Little Pony designs JUST because He/She thought it was "weird"?
Same goes for Mickey Mouse.
I like them in there own style. And if you don't like it, get over it! And stop complaining about the styles that other people ACTUALLY like!
Also no, these wolves should not look like Balto. If you want to make a Balto version, fine go ahead maybe, but don't express it like it's "better" because it's a fact that it's not.
An art-style should never be allowed to be brought up in good critique criticism.
The movie and others are good on there own of them.
Also, haters should learn to leave other fandoms alone, let them embrace the greatness of Alpha and Omega to them and focus on your own personal interest.
Related content
Comments: 36
THIS. FUCKING THIS.
And yes, I'm pretty pissed about a certain comment I saw.
Some person who thinks he's all knows it all thinks that these designs are flawed because they don't look like generic wolf designs, and because he doesn't like the hair design.
Personally, these wolves look better that way. It makes them look more better, and they look very unique apart. You don't need to change that to be better.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like Alpha and Omega's art direction
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't see anthropomorphic amd semi-anthropomorphic as humans, but human like.
π: 0 β©: 0
My Little Pony characters and Alpha and Omega characters are NOT anthropomorphic.The ponies do dress up like humans,but they DO NOT have the same functions of humans.They only grab things by their teeth(or magic by unicorns)and walk on fours.And the Alpha and Omega characters are just wolves.They don't grab things with their hands,talk in English,and don't walk on their hind legs.Mickey Mouse,I can agree he's anthropomorphic,but for the rest,no,they're not.And anthropomorphic means to act like humans(as in walk on two,hold things in our hands,etc.).The two examples(except Mickey Mouse),as I said,aren't anthropomorphic.
π: 2 β©: 1
Actually they are. They still have human characteristics.
They do not need to stand up in order to be anthropomorphic. They don't need to have everything at once.
Anthropomorphic characters are allowed to have some possible limited, but they have done a lot of human characteristics.
Example: The ponies have a similar culture to humans, they can stand up a lot, etc, etc. They do a lot of human characteristics, even though they have some limits to their own type of species.
The Alpha and Omega characters also has some characteristics too and even in the first movie, Humphrey grabbed a lot of stuff, etc. They also talk in English in the movie, and they even stood up on hind legs and danced. (Did you watch the movie?).
You should avoid the stereotype that you must require "Standing, grabbing, etc." all together in order to be anthropomorphic. It's not the case.
Even a rock can be anthropomorphic if it acts like a human character. Even though it can barely stand up, etc.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropoβ¦
I hope I'm not coming off as mean. It doesn't look like you are one of those awful people who starts fights, just stating a normal debating.
π: 0 β©: 2
I kinda see the ponies and the wolves as semi-anthropomorphic, such as bambi and all the other characters from the movie.
π: 0 β©: 1
I heard Bambi didn't have a lot of human characteristics.. Or I'm thinking of another movie?
The ponies have a lot, and the wolves nearly the same maybe.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah Bambi didn't have a lot of human characteristics.
π: 0 β©: 0
I can agree My Little Pony is anthropomorphic in some parts,but Alpha and Omega....the film is trying to imitate a wolf pack life,not giving them to be somewhat human....And don't they act like real life wolves more?Plus,they're speaking wolf language,translated.And Wikipedia is not unreliable.Try something else.
π: 0 β©: 1
You can still try to imitate, but it can still be anthropomorphic as an addition. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't do any of that unexplained stuff. Especially if they made a story completely (or most) based off anthropomorphism (E.g. The Great Wolf Games).
An actual animal doesn't really have a secret language. In RL, it's just patterns, etc.
In the movie, not only they have something different, but has done a lot of new stuff RL wolves don't do.. Showing it's anthropomorphism.
It can be argued that All Dogs go to Heaven counts too..
You can have a mix as well.
It's just part of it's atheistic style.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have a question. Its not much to do with this upload but whatever.Β
What if I do not like an art style because it looks different to how the artist intended the design to be like, and MAYBE consider it a flaw?Β
I just saw some pictures of A&O. The adult wolves look like a mix between human and wolf in their facial expressions, but mostly wolf. Then I saw the pups... I hate to say it to you, but they are the opposite of how I imagine a wolf pup in A&O style. They are just... Different.
Unlike to their adult counterparts, they look more human facial wise than wolf wise. Its like they were drawn by a completely different artist or are completely different species.
In other words, A&O pups do not look like A&O pups IMO. To me, their style is out of place. Unless the style is supposed to be varied (as in Disney style crossovering Warner Bros 
Yes, this is biased, especially since I am judging by pictures and have not watched the film yet. But if someone criticized an art style for this reason, what do you think?Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I think I see what you mean if you are connecting that with the "I just saw some pictures of A&O. The adult wolv..." part. xD
Good point I think. To be honest, it's possible that the artists are indeed different. However, I swear I saw the pups in the first movie (Or are you talking about that? xD)
I am not very sure how they are different though because puppies often look a bit square or so like in RL, so like the adult wolves, (like they are intimidating some RL wolf parts but with some mix and other personality), didn't they kinda did the same for the pups?
Openly, what do you consider to be more A&O style as pups?
Hmm it could all depend still. If someone wanted to have two different styles on purpose (However this one is unknown) then it could be odd to judge but if they were trying to make the pups be the same direction, then they could make a point, there could be disagreements within it, but I'm not so sure.. Like you know, how do you make a puppy look more Alpha and Omega style?
π: 0 β©: 1
images3.static-bluray.com/reviβ¦ He looks like one of those novelty toys I had as a kid, where you would squeeze the animal and their eyes would pop out xD idk, he just reminded me of those.Β
Of course, real wolf pups are plump and stuff, and the plumpiness is fine (although they look too plump imo, but I can ignore that)... but the faces... nope, no resembalnce to their adult counterparts. They just need to have a slight change in face shape and I think it would look more like A&O.Β
Really, they just needed to get the design of the adult wolves and make them stumpier, a little fatter, a little less longer, bigger eyes (not too big) and a slightly bigger head. Imagine Humphery if he was chibified. Yes, thats it. Make them the chibi versions of adult wolves and they would be fine.Β
But instead, they gave them completely different faces. They look more like human children than wolf children IMO, and that kinda throws me off. I cannot see them as a happy wolf family, but more an adopted family. I love adopted families, but if you are going to make your characters biologically related, try to make them look like the same species XDΒ
That reminds me, as a kid, I watched Charlottes Web 1 and 2. The second one was drawn by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT artist. It really put me off because I was so used to seeing the original art. I would not have minded so much, but it was supposed to be canon to the first, not a fan made or non canon TV show. The art style was cute, but it was inconsistant.Β
I think the artist tried to hard to make them look like human kids than wolf kids. Its not looks that make children relate to characters, its their personalities. I loved Tigger and Piglet as a kid because I could relate to them personally, not appearance wise. Now I can relate to Rabbit xD.
Pooh's Grand Adventure was the first film that made me cry as a kid. Yes, Winnie the Pooh made me cry as a kid. That says a lot huh?Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Ehhh, I wouldn't say that the MLP characters are anthropomorphic, it's kinda hard to explain why I think that, but I think that something like this would be anthroΒ Β not just the regular ponies, sorry if i sound like i'm being mean T_T
π: 1 β©: 1
Actually anthropomorphism can apply to feral looking creatures too. 
Another thing to note is that it's not just the designs: They have a lot of human-characteristics too. Examples: Applejack in one episode has stand like a human, and hold an apple like a human, ponies has built houses, etc. xD If you read more info on what 'anthropomorphism' means, you might see examples on creatures that are "animal shaped" but having human-characteristics in there intelligence.
And I don't think you are.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't like ponies, They look nothing like actual horses in my opinion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ponies are probably supposed to be a different type of species anyway, so they are supposed to look different maybe. xD
π: 0 β©: 0
Like it's unfair to the artist to compare his/her work to something else that the artist didn't intend or something.
Example: "Minecraft sucks because the graphics are not as good as Bloodborne"
π: 0 β©: 1
So somebody's making a comparison to some other work. As annoying as it is when people compare completely unrelated things on silly attributes, how is that "threatening"?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, calling a work bad because the person thinks that the graphics must be as good as PS4 sounds "threatening" in terms of bad critique attempting or just being rude.
Better example: I find it "threatening"/unfair to compare a movie that's purposely about cartoons/mix and anthropomorphism to real life ('That isn't') and then consider it a flaw because it wasn't like our crappy limited life. Haha
Maybe I should've of said "Comparing in critique will always be a threat, unless the artist was trying to imitate or avoid something"?
π: 0 β©: 1
It makes sense that you'd think it preposterous for someone to criticize a work for lacking certain attributes for an evident reason (for example, like you said, criticizing cartoons for lacking realism if that's not the point or style the cartoon is going for) but the use of the word "threat" is still... I guess inappropriate? Like, a threat would be more along the lines of "If you don't stop making your cartoon with this specific style, I'm going to boycott everything you make and put a bomb in your mailbox!" as opposed to "I don't like this thing and wish it was more like this unrelated thing." Plus calling it a "threat" sounds really defensive when you're talking about criticism; sounds like someone taking critique as a personal attack.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I guess I meant threat in another way.
It can sometimes be personal attack though because some people keep yelling against an artist based off bias things and probably effect the public about it based off personal opinion.
I can sometimes base "attack" over an art it's self rather than the artist.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, I think I get what you mean. Like, people badmouthing an artist because they're not "doing it how I want them to do it" and therefore giving them a bad name?
π: 0 β©: 1
How the hell am I making them look bad?
There is nothing wrong with there designs.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ponies are basically just a small horses. They're TECHNICALLY horses but they don't grow as big when they're adults
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah I wasn't so sure maybe, but I think I mean that the "designs" and such like the "colors", "wings", "horns", etc were based on Earth horses. xD
π: 0 β©: 0
P.S. It's not even "past" anatomy, and even if it was, that's not bad.. It's not anything different than Mickey or any other anthro-like creature.. Considering that: Anthropomorphic is about having different parts. And as a whole, that is the style of anthropomorphism.
π: 0 β©: 0
Yes it is. Every art-style is good on there own.. And I already explained why.
If not, then I find your art-style bad, and it's a flaw then becuz I saiz so (Which is what you do).
Honestly pal, you are one of a very idiotic biased person I have ever met on here.. I think. You don't bring out any good points, you just force your shitty opinions on others just because you hate something you don't like... Get the hell, over it.
It's sadly hard to believe there really is people like you, people who just can't control them selves that far. Amazing...
Oh, and you abused proper critique and offend other artists.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh and if you don't like an art-style, then STOP LOOKING AT IT and MOVE ON..
You remind me of a dumb idiot who goes see a anime movie and bring out anime as a flaw on a anime movie..
π: 0 β©: 0
