TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Non-Indicative Image: Petting Zoo People

Go To

Ryusui Since: Jan, 2001
#1: Oct 20th 2010 at 5:38:17 PM

Okay, I'll admit Firefox-tan (or whatever she's called) is adorable, but judging from this YKTTW, I think she obscures the point behind the trope somewhat. At the very least, the pic should illustrate the two ends of the spectrum: the "ears and tail only" style currently depicted, and the "humanoid Funny Animal" this YKTTW is talking about.

RegShoe Awfully negative from over there somewhere. Since: Jan, 2015
Awfully negative
#2: Oct 21st 2010 at 6:38:59 AM

But this trope says that it is only about the "10% variety."

In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded. Terry Pratchett 35 tropes so far.
HappyMaskMan Rock Solid! Since: Aug, 2009
Rock Solid!
#3: Oct 21st 2010 at 6:49:39 AM

This trope is currently under discussion in the Trope Repair Shop. It's hard to decide on images when the page itself is under dispute, so it would be best to wait until the Repair Shop matter is settled before worrying about the image.

EdnaWalker Since: Mar, 2010
#4: Oct 30th 2010 at 12:55:53 AM

What image are you going to pick for this trope?

Raso Cure Candy Since: Jul, 2009
Cure Candy
#5: Oct 30th 2010 at 1:04:08 AM

If this is the 10% one then this one would be perfect.

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
EdnaWalker Since: Mar, 2010
#6: Oct 30th 2010 at 7:36:03 AM

Raso says, "If this is the 10% one then this one would be perfect."

The 10% trope is now Kemonomimi, Petting-Zoo People now describes animals with humanoid bodies, or furries.

Can you think of a picture that fits for Petting-Zoo People?

Raso Cure Candy Since: Jul, 2009
DRCEQ Since: Oct, 2009
#8: Oct 30th 2010 at 8:39:23 AM

^Star Fox qualifies for the 50% furry variety.

10% would be Makoto Nanaya from BlazBlue, or Felicia from Dark Stalkers (yeah, she's the Innocent Fanservice Girl, but she still counts,) or any number of catgirls from anime.

... Then again, the definition is so vague and screwed up that it doesn't really say exactly what percentile range the Human to Furry ratio has to be.

Stratadrake Dragon Writer Since: Oct, 2009
Dragon Writer
#9: Oct 30th 2010 at 1:55:32 PM

Yes, we've relaunched the article with its new definition. No percentage numbers anymore.

For lack of a better alternative at this time, I'm putting up the Star Fox image.

We can still discuss better alternatives for the Petting-Zoo People, as well as the "kemonomimi" or whatever-we're-going-to-call-it article. @DRCEQ, those two examples are mildly NSFW, we'll need something more family-friendly.

And no catgirls please, they're common enough to be a separate trope altogether.

Let's see, Googling...

edited 31st Oct '10 10:07:23 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
DRCEQ Since: Oct, 2009
#10: Oct 30th 2010 at 4:55:54 PM

^ Wait, there used to be percentage ranges before?

I'm even MORE confused as to what range characters are suppose to fall into all three without that.

Stratadrake Dragon Writer Since: Oct, 2009
Dragon Writer
#11: Oct 31st 2010 at 10:06:39 AM

Percentage numbers impose artificial precision on a scale that is a smooth spectrum with blurred lines and edge cases. Sure, we can use the "ten percent" variety as a nickname for "kemonomimi", but we can't it as a criteria for the trope.

Summing up the differences:

edited 31st Oct '10 10:10:27 AM by Stratadrake

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#12: Oct 31st 2010 at 11:11:13 AM

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
EdnaWalker Since: Mar, 2010
#13: Nov 1st 2010 at 10:32:47 PM

I started a Trope Repair Shap Discussion talking about how to rework the definition of Funny Animal so that it includes the difference between their body shape and the body shape of a Petting Zoo Person.

Gilgameshkun Gilgamesh Since: Jan, 2001
Gilgamesh
#14: Dec 27th 2010 at 1:13:15 PM

The image of Fox is very appropriate. John Blacksad might be more so, but Fox is certainly the more recognizable of the two. Generally the difference between Funny Animal and Petting-Zoo People is that Funny Animal is essentially a talking/walking animal, but still an animal. Petting-Zoo People are people first with animal appearances, and general act and live more the way humans do. Animal stereotypes might brush against the audience from time to time, but their overall lives are quite human.

I find that, whether Petting-Zoo People have very animal-faces or just human faces with animal ears, is not entirely relevant. The latter has its own trope, Kemonomimi.

edited 27th Dec '10 1:14:54 PM by Gilgameshkun

Ookamikun This is going to be so much fun. (4 Score & 7 Years Ago)
This is going to be so much fun.
#15: Jan 2nd 2011 at 7:42:33 AM

I... don't think Fox is the prime example, but rather Blacksad or LeBrock. While Fox is definitely belongs in Petting-Zoo People, his short stature and rather cartoony look gives him a rather Funny Animal feel. The other two examples are more distinct and direct to the point.

ExpiryBot Since: Dec, 1969
#16: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:04:08 AM

This thread expired after 60 days of inactivity.

Add Post

Total posts: 15
Top