>>49872954Pokémon don't have to resemble anything because it's fiction. Pokémon don't represent people and it doesn't matter if they "resemble" animals or not because what an animal *is* is not tied to physical apperance but by concept. And in concept and place in the Pokémon universe whatever Pokémon you have in mind is conceptually closer to any of the apes than it is to Tarzan. Tarzan is simply a person raised by wild animals, not a wild animal himself. Pokémon are the wild animals of their world, not people which i have to stress again Pokémon does not count Pokémon as. Pokémon has used the term "wild creatures" at least twice to describe Pokémon which is about as close as you can get to calling something an animal without saying it. As one reviewers for arceus put it, Pokémon plays hard and fast with the concept of capturing wild animals.
I will have look at that scene but I highly doubt it was serious and maybe the tone is lost to you.
And yes comparing it to other series is legitimate because Pokémon legitimates those context. Again, pokemon is very peculiar in how they choose to portray Pokémon. Why is Pokémon so adamant in the things I mentioned? And it's not just Pokémon not being the same as humans, they're *not* recognized as being people in the first place. That goes much more than "not being the same as humans".
Of course the image you posted presents an idealized image of what *you* think Pokémon are but not what they *are*. I doesn't take much to see pokephilia as cryptozoophilia because Pokémon is very adamant in pushing the angle of Pokémon as fictional pets and wild creatures, not as people. Given that Pokémon doesn't exist in a vacuum it's legitimate to compare it to other shows with pets and wild creatures or if you must even other series like Digimon. There's a huge contrast on how Digimon are presented and how Pokémon are presented for example.
