➢ I think that was largely designed to be an anachronisism -
a 'foul' creature that believed himself to be God's gift to
girls. For as you may recall in the start of one of the
cartoons, he effectively cleared the perfume shop he
visited. Hmmm, maybe that is why a friend is studying
French - to try and develop an accent to improve his chance
of picking up..... Good luck, though he does have the
advantage of not smelling like a sprayed skunk...
There is that of course, and I imagine that said anachronism is part of the humor of the character. Yet, I suspect there is more to it. Have you ever seen a skunk walk? They have a particular stride that almost resembles a strut; as though they are showing off. This odd walk of theirs is so distinctive that even without the strip it’s a dead giveaway. Given that animation is the art of movement, I imagine that the skunk’s walk was a large part of the inspiration for the character.
➢ True, any desired characteristic can be exaggerated to the
point of blatant, a huge plus for advertisers.
Indeed. Yet there is more to it than that. Perhaps at its most banal, yet the same phenomenon is what allows are to be more pure, and sometimes even more intense than reality itself. By simplifying and exaggerating it is possible to extract something of an fundamental form of reality. Or give the little pink dragon really big eyes.
➢ I think you'd have to admit that 'cute and cuddly' are not
two words generally associated with snakes, so having
improved him in these regards makes him a more 'lovable
villan'. If it sells movie merchandise, they can't hate
that!
Also don’t forget that someone had to animate the character. Facial animation on a more snake like snake would have been a nightmare to say the least. Getting the required character animation into the character requires modifying it enough to effectively animate. Bambi is a good example of this.
➢ Totally agree with this! I was analysing characters at one
stage and trying to identify commonalities of certain
attributes. Cute characters tend to have rounder
construction shapes, softer lines and are generally more
effininate.
➢ Think about the Skunk Sisters for example. HEY! ATTENTION
BACK HERE!!!! You can think about yiffing them later...
Generally it is considered that Onyx is the cutest of the
three. Notice that her facial shapes are a little rounder
than either of her sisters? Notice too that the parts you
consider make her look 'cute' versus 'sexy' are DIFFERENT!
In poses where she appears more 'cute', she'll be standing
where her limbs make gentler curves as opposed to where
she's being more purposeful that tends to use longer,
entended arcs that tend to reduce the cute factor and
increase the 'that looks hot' factor. This brings on to
lines that make things look powerful etc, but we'll skip
over this for now.
➢ Girls with cute butts tend to be rounder of the posterior
than girls who have a 'hot' butt that as described above
will tend to have longer, less rounded lines in their
'construction'. The doesn't mean girls with 'cute' butts
are not desireable, or that they can't be some of both, but
it is something to consider when you're checking out the
sisters next.
Now I feel out of my depth, but I’ll note that to some cute can be sexy. Or perhaps cute is a fetish of sorts. There seems to be something of a dichotomy between sexy and cute. Sort of a forbidden fruit thing I suppose. It’s interesting that vertically compressed is one thing that makes things seem cute. Still, I was born without a single artistic bone, so don’t trust my instincts.
➢ 'Cos it's so easy to dress someone up in a bad costume and
churn out another B grade Sci-Fi... :-) Tends to follow
our thought trains (as discussed before) that humans are
the superior race (like we all believe we are 'above
average' drivers...), hence creatures that are 'similar' to
humans (anthropomorphic even, meaning having human-like
characteristics!) are more likely to be accepted by our
psyche as being possibly able to be smarter, faster, more
able to run the universe or whatever than we are. How many
aliens have you come across recently that don't follow the
'human' body model, even if they are a different size or
have a few different appendages? Don't see many 1" flying
salmon trying to take over the world? Equally as likely as
some 6" tall fox from another galaxy, but our mindset says
otherwise...
I think you’re being overly harsh. Or I’m being too kind. Still, it’s inherently difficult to wrap one’s mind around a truly alien perspective. While Sci-Fi books have indeed had all kinds of alien creatures, they do tend to ultimately center on something that humans can relate to; whether that be insects or animals or even fish and octopi. Aliens that are truly alien are pretty rare. And it’s even questionable whether one can really see from such a perspective. At best all we really can do is see from what we imagine the perspective of the other would be. And that’s bound to be tainted by out own views.
➢ A simple example (maybe too simple?). Many of you have a
dog (or know someone who does). If the dog was able to
walk on its rear legs, use its paws to manipulate things as
we do our hands, talk and generally interact with everyone.
Think about the way the dog behaves? Does it have
annoying habits, cleanliness, etc, that it would probably
bring with it in anthro form that would really grate? Even
if you did 'correct' it's physiology and make it a little
larger (say up to 4' tall), it would still look like an
upright walking dog with the same fur, potential for
collecing grime (as an anthro dog, it may be perfectly
acceptable to roll in things that smell...) and possibly
the same habits (anthro dogs view it okay to hose down any
vertical object they encounter, not brush their teeth, etc,
etc). Sort of take the shine off hey? Because we are
assuming because it is anthro it will want to use human
ideals, human logic and human way of dealing with issues.
Big assumptions here, I believe. Throw in the last part -
would you then want to have sexual relations with it, even
if it were compatable, allowing these other undesireable
attributes? Nope, not looking so bright. Though I think
another option, addressed a little further down is more
appealing.
I’d argue the problems run deeper. For example, a dog’s real legs simply aren’t built for supporting its full weight. There are key differences in the shape of the spine that would make it difficult if not impossible. Dogs don’t have shoulder joints like a human has, which would be awkward to say the least. Speech would be interesting since the Dog’s mouth, throat, vocal cords and such simply aren’t designed for speech. And it’s pretty much impossible to guess what would happen when you expanded the brain of the dog to human proportions as you’d need for him to have human-like intelligence. Presumably, the instincts of the lower brain would become suppressed like they are in humans. Would it even be possible to increase the dog’s intellect and not have it become more human-like in the process? Tough. How many of the ‘dog-like’ elements would survive the process?
➢ This gets my thumbs up. Addressing the above points: human
ideals - programmed by humans, so anything you want. Won't
roll in the dirt - may even hate the stuff! Human logic -
again determined by us, so it'll resolve issues and
dilemmas (the third point) the same way we would, or at
least the way we've told it to. Learning machines may come
about, but obviously things can be made to run within
guidelines (with the usual deviations inherently possible)
with the majority giving the desired results.
It’s also tough to imagine what a machine AI would be like. It’s quite possible that to achieve human-like quality an AI would have to develop mentally much like a human does. Programming something as intricate as a mind may be beyond us in sheer scope. And such an AI, while on the one hand seeming to conform to certain requirements, may also be very alien. The ability to learn will, of course, be a requirement of any true AI. Otherwise its limits would quickly become apparent. Passing the Turing test will require an AI that’s very flexible and adaptive.
➢ Many of the materials these days may not have the longevity
of self renewing flesh, but the look at feel etc, are as
good as (or sometime better!) than real skin. Some of the
synthetic furs etc are nicer than the real thing, depending
on application. Also removes the limits of colour and
texture etc.
Yeah, longevity will be a huge issue for androids. Even now, for example, the high tension steel tendons they use in robotic hands don’t last so very long. But the possibilities of having interesting colors or enhanced texture of feel is a strong advantage. In fact, they could be made exactly as the user desired I suppose…
➢ Tails, strength, stance, ears, muzzles, wings. They could
all be however we desired.
Within limits, sure. I imagine that actual flight would be out of the question without some kind of hover technology. Still, there are possibilities.
➢ They may even make small slips in speech etc as
humans do, just to 'keep the human feel'.
An old trick, though it will require more than that to pass the Turing test
.
➢ Imagine having one of the sisters as a life sized robot
(for lack of better description at this stage), that looked
exactly like you'd expect her to (as per JMH's drawings)
and reacted just like you'd want her to when you spoke to
her etc. And reacted the way you'd like in other
situations too!
Imagine it went beyond that. Imagine it learned your likes and dislikes, moods and behavior, and evolved to suit you better and better. Imagine it molded itself into exactly what you desired, both consciously and subconsciously; becoming your perfect mate physically and mentally. Given the ability of humans to project onto other things their own feelings and desires… the possibility of real love on the human’s part is very strong. As Spielberg said in an interview on the AI DVD, it wouldn’t be how machines considered humans, but how humans considered machines. I believe that a sufficiently realistic robotic creature could, even with its artificiality, induce very real feelings within humans.
➢ Refuelling could probably be handled by dropping what ever
was required into their mouth and swallowing it: "I'd like
1/2 litre of synthetic hydraulic oil and a serve of AA
batteries please..." would probably be an unintrusive
method. A give away they weren't human, other than they
were a 5' tall talking skunk...
Probably would be able to look after itself in this regard. Perhaps even eat normal human food, if not actually digest it, so as to pass as more living. The possibilities are both amazing and dangerous. I don’t think the effect of such high-level machine beings on humanity is even possible to know absolutely. It could alter society in ways we can’t even imagine.
If the formatting of this email is difficult, I am sorry. I'm new at this and have labored to make the formatting of this as clean as possible. However, I know not I have succeeded.
Received on Thu Aug 07 2003 - 02:45:59 CDT