>What’s the point of the characters being animals with human bodies
>why not make them fully human?
This is why
>Whats the point of the characters being animals with human bodies. >why not make them fully human?
>What’s the point of the characters being animals with human bodies
>why not make them fully human?
This is why
nice selfie
Arthur's author was a pussy who couldn't handle the criticism the original Arthur got (who actually DID look much more like a real Aardvark) because a few people thought Arthur looked ugly.
So he eventually scrapped all the more animalistic designs as the books went on and by the time the TV show aired they all looked like mutated semi-humans. Half the time on Arthur your could barely tell what species the fricking animals were. None of them have Tails and all have weird almost human faces. Not to mention they have actual animals in the fricking show. Like for example Arthur has a dog called Pal but then like half of his friends are also anthro dogs?
Also why the frick are they all mammals too? That pisses me off. It's like Zootopia where they didn't include any fricking reptiles, fish, amphibians, or even birds! It shouldn't be considered a zoo if the only animals are mammals!
>original Arthur got (who actually DID look much more like a real Aardvark) because a few people thought Arthur looked ugly.
When I use to read that book he reminded me of a young Mr. Ratburn
That explains why they have no genitals in fact of course
>Like for example Arthur has a dog called Pal but then like half of his friends are also anthro dogs?
Maybe regular dogs are just lesser beings of the same species. Like regular humans and midgets.
Give him hair
That's just Stevie from Malcolm in the Middle.
Don't post pictures of me
Oh god! what the frick is that?! kill it!!
They aren't as attractive if they're "just human"
>filename
heh, i always thought prunella and her sister were rodents.
someone somewhere said she was a poodle and i believed them
Look at their ears and Mr Ratburn’s ears
Eh it still looks cursed
>still looks cursed
but he's literally me!
Conservatives and fascists (though I repeat myself) can't understand art. That's why they like representational art, like a picture of a cabin on a lake. They look at it, and they go "ah, that's a cabin, and it's on a lake. See? Trees. I'm getting good at this." and that's the whole extent of their understanding of art. No insight, no emotional response, just recognition of shapes, like a child.
The reason artists use animal-people is because they are a good way to de-personalize and help people empathize and put themselves in the shoes of a character. It's not *necessary*, but it helps.
Uh, in English doc?
character look like man, compare self to man, not match, too real, no compare
character look like animal, too alien, not good compare
character look like animal-man, relatable and comparable without too real
Hmm, grug think about this
grug think about that
og think of bonk then hump
Are you implying only conservatives like nonhuman/anthros while liberals would make every character human, even if set in a fantasy/sci fi world because only humans matter?
Then again, that explains current media.
>The reason artists use animal-people is because they are a good way to de-personalize and help people empathize and put themselves in the shoes of a character.
Did you have a stroke?
To be nice, I read your whole post.
Still a shitpost, though.
Bald
Because humans suck and aren't as endearing as animals.