I think that this page should receive a new image. Since this page now covers what formerly was Petting Zoo People, I think a compilation image featuring a variety of anthropomorphic creatures should be the image for this page. The Beauty and the Beast 1987 picture just doesn't cut it any more, in my opinion.
Hide / Show Replies
https://www.deviantart.com/aliciamartin851/art/Sing-2-new-show-movie-look-897918728
How about something like this, a crowd scene featuring a diverse array of beast folk?
(One with better image quality, of course)
What happened to the original Petting-Zoo People article, the one with Fox as the trope image? Weren't this and Beast Man entirely separate articles before?
Hide / Show Replies
A bunch of people somewhere else on the wiki decided to remove that page. They didn't even do it in the discussion for that page.
Wow. They removed all traces of Petting-Zoo People from the entire site. No link to any discussion leading to that or anything?
I came to this trope via a link from the Always Male index. So is it really gender netural, or is it the Spear Counterpart of Beastess and/or Cute Monster Girl?
What exactly is the difference between Beast Man and Petting Zoo People? Their doesn't really seem to be much distinction between the two.
"The beast man (or woman, this is a gender neutral trope) is a human who has several animalistic physical and even behavioral traits. They will have claws (even on the toes), fangs, either heavy hair or actual fur, and the eyes will usually be structurally different or yellow. Also, don't expect them to shave or wax, or have good oral hygiene. "
"The most dramatically anthropomorphic characters, these are people with animal characteristics, often of the 10% variety: the ears and tail of their matching animal. Additional features, such as abilities, claws, and instincts, may apply. "
Seems to say the exact same thing.
Hide / Show Replies
Petting-Zoo People are "of the 10% variety", visually it's purely cosmetic with things like cat ears, but it's always very clean and even cute at times. Whereas the Beast Man can go up to 50%+, is a lot less pretty to look "like a human and an animal feature", comes packaged with animal instincts (aggression, territoriality) and is more closely tied to nature and farther from civilization. Lastly, PZP seem to be themed on specific animals, but the beastman is a mishmash of animal features.
The example sections bear out the difference, there's very little crossover.
Edited by Earnest
Any explanation as to why Beastman really isn't that cool?
Edited by MrGorilla
It feels like something went very wrong with this trope and the ex-trope Petting-Zoo People being TRS'd.
According to this trope's definition, the difference between Beast Man and Funny Animal is that a Funny Animal is considered to be whatever animal they're drawn as, while a Beast Man is considered to be a separate, fictional species. There also was the third trope, Petting-Zoo People, which was similar to Funny Animal, but with the difference (which was too nebulous or insignificant) that they were more human-like in their body shape.
But with the moved examples, it looks like all Petting-Zoo People wicks were just blindly replaced with Beast Man wicks, even though Petting-Zoo People was about how the characters looked, rather than how they were classified in the setting.