Post by cubern on Apr 10, 2016 3:10:15 GMT
Feel free to move this to a more appropriate subforum if needed, I just really feel the need to talk about something.
I've been browsing the Palaeofail tumblr a lot recently, and sure, I can get behind it's overall premise, but I feel as though there's a lot of posts that seem downright cynical. More specifically, the posts targeting dinosaur art that's clearly not aiming for realism. (Some examples here: x x x x) There are two posts in particular that disparagingly target the character designs in the anime film You Are Umasou, even bluntly saying "Neither of these looks anything like a dinosaur and you know it."
While that may be true, here's the thing: it's a cartoon. In animation, especially two-dimensional, less realistic, more stylized designs are bound to occur, whether it be for easier animation, or more broad character appeal. This obviously isn't a real mouse, this clearly isn't an actual sea sponge, these these are about as far from a real dog and cat as you'll ever see. And yet, audience can still accept these as characters, because sometimes, more realistic doesn't mean more appealing.
Now, whether or not the stylistic choice actually works out from a design standpoint is a whole other debate. But criticizing designs with scientific jargon, and making accusations of anatomical sins when the designers of whatever "palaeo fail" you've found clearly weren't going for accuracy, just doesn't add up in my mind. And as a cartoonist who has always been fascinated with dinosaurs and paleontology as a whole, I feel as though this mindset is honestly really discouraging.
Sorry if this seemed at all like whining, but that's just my perspective. I don't intend this as an attack on this forum or anything like that, I'd just like to know whether or not palaeofail's tone isn't reflective of the paleontology community as a whole.
I've been browsing the Palaeofail tumblr a lot recently, and sure, I can get behind it's overall premise, but I feel as though there's a lot of posts that seem downright cynical. More specifically, the posts targeting dinosaur art that's clearly not aiming for realism. (Some examples here: x x x x) There are two posts in particular that disparagingly target the character designs in the anime film You Are Umasou, even bluntly saying "Neither of these looks anything like a dinosaur and you know it."
While that may be true, here's the thing: it's a cartoon. In animation, especially two-dimensional, less realistic, more stylized designs are bound to occur, whether it be for easier animation, or more broad character appeal. This obviously isn't a real mouse, this clearly isn't an actual sea sponge, these these are about as far from a real dog and cat as you'll ever see. And yet, audience can still accept these as characters, because sometimes, more realistic doesn't mean more appealing.
Now, whether or not the stylistic choice actually works out from a design standpoint is a whole other debate. But criticizing designs with scientific jargon, and making accusations of anatomical sins when the designers of whatever "palaeo fail" you've found clearly weren't going for accuracy, just doesn't add up in my mind. And as a cartoonist who has always been fascinated with dinosaurs and paleontology as a whole, I feel as though this mindset is honestly really discouraging.
Sorry if this seemed at all like whining, but that's just my perspective. I don't intend this as an attack on this forum or anything like that, I'd just like to know whether or not palaeofail's tone isn't reflective of the paleontology community as a whole.