| abstract | - Another specific application of Law of Conservation of Detail, saying that the use of non-human characters must be justified. If your character is a dog, for instance, you might do well to have the story be about his being man's best friend while making references to other dog stereotypes. If your cast is a perfectly normal family doing perfectly normal things, except they happen to all be anthropomorphic spoons or something, some audiences are going to wonder what the point is. There are reasons for a cartoon to use anthropomorphic animals instead of humans:
* The show is being geared towards children, for whom animal characters form an automatic shorthand for child-friendliness. So much so, that if the show isn't for children, people will ask "What Do You Mean It's Not for Kids?"
* Trying to use humans in CGI animation is likely to dig up the Uncanny Valley. Early CGI-animated movies avoided human characters as much as possible (although they did make sure to use plots that had other reasons for nonhuman leads).
* Even in 2D animation, some people believe that Furries Are Easier to Draw.
* The creator, scriptwriter, or artist is secretly in the Furry Fandom. (Or, in some cases, openly.) Consider the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism. If a character is a realistic animal, Nearly-Normal Animal, or Talking Animal, then it is easy to justify its animal state; you don't want a human to play a perfectly normal dog any more than vice versa. But if a character is a Funny Animal or a Humanoid Animal, then you may need to throw in some deliberate references or allusions to help justify it. Also consider the Rule of Animation Conservation, another good reason for a filmmaker to use an animal cast- namely, to justify the use of animation. This is circular, natch -- each justifies the other. Examples of Rule of Personification Conservation include:
|
