>>37071615I disagree. Charizard is iconic for good reason - it's a perfectly balanced design for the context it is designed for.
It looks monstrous enough to capture the feeling of a dangerous, violent dragon while just as easily feeling friendly mostly in thanks to its memorably tubby belly that grounds it to a more cuddly/goofy state. Neither side is particularly sacrificed in order to make room for the other. The only other draconic design I can think of which finds that same balance is Toothless (however this doesn't necessarily take away from other designs as this was not the intent for most in the first place). As a result, the design can go either way, striking a balance between the two or even being able switch them up at ease makes it incredibly easy to project numerous different personalities onto without relying on any sort of external portrayal to do it. Charizard emulates the intent of "build your own personal team" perfectly through appearance alone; allowing any player to "build" their own personal identity for it.
In addition, the simple feature of fire on the tip of its tail makes it instantly recognisable no matter how heavily altered or off-model a rendition may be. You see it, you know what it is. This just further boosts its flexibility by giving freedom for fans to reinterpret its design to new extents while still being easily identifiable. What this makes for is one of the most ideal representations of a Pokémon you can get.
