Animation Source Forums

And here I thought genetics didn't matter in an animated cartoon...

I'm not trying to bring them in here. The OP asked what you think pups from Kodi and Dusty would look like. I don't see any reason to harp on what I think. :/

Aren't we being just a wee bit hypersensitive? Harping was not the intent. But you took everyone to task in another topic for discussing genetics where a children's cartoon is concerned. And rather pointedly. I think it's fair to turn that around a bit and inquire the same here, thank you very much.

I think Ally may be responding to you and Mighty collectively. Regardless of any past discussions of cartoon heredity versus real heredity, I think here the following points are being presented.

Ally: Since they are cartoon characters, any pups Kodi and Dusty might have would probably resemble one parent or the other, with most resembling one and probably one oddball resembling the other, rather than a mix of the two.

Mighty: Cartoon genetics/heredity does not equal the real thing (point of information here, for anyone not in the know: since recessive genes tend to hide, a red husky would require a black mate to produce black pups, whereas two black huskies or a red and a black one could have red pups, so long as they both carried the gene). Mighty is also making it clear that she prefers realistic dogs and genetics.

JC: You note that Ally is being inconsistent with comments made elsewhere. By the way, I think if anyone was discussing genetics, it was Mighty.

Please correct me if I've read anyone incorrectly.

While we're on the subject, when my downstairs neighbors' dog had puppies, they didn't look much like a mix of their parents; one was light-colored like his father, while the rest were dark like their mother. Granted, they were dogs of the same breed (or similar; I think the father was a purebred whereas the mother is a mix), but when it comes to color, it was much like the kind of litters one sees in cartoons. Since Kodi and Dusty are also the same breed or close to it, it stands to reason that the same effect or a similar one could occur with any pups they might have. The pups might also be a blended color, I expect.

While we're looking to clarify things, I'd like to amend an assertion I previously made. I realize that saying an all-business attitude on Kodi's and Dusty's parts is unrealistic because it would make for a bad relationship is, to turn a phrase, putting the sled before the dog. I still maintain my initial thesis, that it's unlikely they would be like that, because it does not mesh with what was shown in the movie. Kodi was uptight when he was on the job, and both of them were uptight when they were in danger of losing their job. When the situation called for relaxing and fun, they relaxed and had fun, like any healthy-minded individuals. To consider the converse, I know someone who cares little about his work at any time, and I have it on good authority that he would make a terrible husband and father.

Gotta throw your usual contradictory 2¢ in there, huh, DT?



Gladly...


ITEM #1:



Mighty was responding to an earlier comment made in this topic concerning whether or not litter certain fictional dogs, simply because of their color, would then have to produce puppies of concurrent colors (and eye color).


In this topic, Mighty was hardly the first one to mention genetics, not by far. And if I were so interested, I'd sit here and sort back through the eighteen pages' worth of posts in this topic just to verify that fact. But I'm not. Still, beyond the post which Mighty was directly addressing, just a little over a year ago "re-join" posted one such in here:


/board/post1420601.html#p1420601


But then, you were quite aware of that fact. Or had it slipped your mind?


/board/post1420868.html#p1420868


In any case, my point was valid. And if you are so eager to see why I made my point, in hopes of refuting it (since that was obviously the ulterior motive all along), then have a look:


/board/post1492209.html#p1492209


ITEM #2:



There is no such thing as "cartoon genetics" OR "cartoon heredity". Those are things only fans will sit and pick nits over. Producers of animated movies or television series don't sit down over conference tables arguing Punnett Squares, pedigrees, and animal genetics. The very notion is ridiculous. (Unless you can give us some evidence to the contrary. ) Their intent in creating animation is to entertain and make money. And, in a small way (occasionally) to pay tribute to either some literary or real-life story of the past, even IF they muck around with it under the pretext of "dramatic license".


Period.

Once again, you assume too much. I was referring specifically to the conversation at hand, since other posts on the matter were not being discussed. If you're not going to sort through all those pages of conversation to prove me wrong about something I never said (i.e. that Mighty was the first one to mention the matter; all I said was that she was discussing it), please don't fault me for likewise overlooking posts by people who are not presently talking or being cited for any purpose except to escalate things needlessly.

I recognize that there are no unilateral laws of cartoon genetics, but there are certain conventional tendencies; Balto and Jenna's pups, as cited, looked mainly like either one parent or the other. Lady and Tramp's pups had the same characteristic. I'm sure you could name plenty of other examples yourself. There are no rules as such, but there are certain consistent formulae, so to speak.

Given your many unspoken machinations in response to things I have said or done over the last few years, which have come back to me via third parties (including some staffers). and even past debates and even arguments on this forum? I am quite certain I am not assuming much at all.


That's very clever. Changes nothing.



Then you have an obligation to clarify your points more clearly. Because, from your last post, I drew a few very obvious conclusions (and not at all based upon "assumptions"):

• you meant very much to point out "other posts" as a point of contention, even if you waved them off in the same breath ("I think Ally may be responding to you and Mighty collectively. Regardless of any past discussions of cartoon heredity versus real heredity...");
  
  
• you singled out Mighty as THE one, "if any", who was discussing genetics ("By the way, I think if anyone was discussing genetics, it was Mighty"). Seems pretty clear to me, from that parenthetical wording, that you were specifically calling out and pointing the finger at Mighty for bringing up the matter of genetics. There is no other way whatsoever to legitimately interpret that statement;
  
  
• you took Mighty to task for being the one ("if anyone") to be discussing genetics, and yet turned right around and went into a tangential reference to genetics yourself. Ummm...

Oh, and actually? You did say it--in so many words. Allow me to refer you back to the second point above. Kind of hard to contradict what you yourself put to text. If you didn't recall that other people had discussed it previously, then you had no business mentioning it, and singling her out, unless you took the time to review the topic posts first.


Don't "fault you"? How presumptuous of you to suggest that I am assigning blame. I simply noted that you were wrong in what you said in your post. Fundamentally and contextually different from saying "you're to blame. Yes, it's your fault for not seeing that other people spoke of genetics first." Once again, you have assumed too much, and are trying to characterize me as laying personal attacks.



What you refer to NOW as "conventional tendencies" (which you did not before) boil down simply to animation artists and other production people laying character designs based upon the very simple notion that offspring will look like one or both of the parents...as you now seem to want to point out, now that I've drawn attention to your previous point. It's no more complex than that. In the case of Balto 2: Wolf Quest, it was simply that they wanted at least five of six puppies to show more of the "husky" than the "wolf" and, thus, Jenna was more the representative of the breed than Balto was. And then, for the sake of a little dramatic interplay between two characters (father and daughter in Balto and Aleu), and a plot line, having one puppy appear more wolfish, like Balto...and dealing with the consequences of that.


No deeper thought of genetics, inheritance, familial tendencies, "conventions", etc.

Let me see if I have this straight. Are you implying that my post, the one attempting to sum up your, Mighty's and Ally's comments, was meant to somehow take issue with anyone? Then let me be clear as you have requested. With Mighty, on whose behalf you seem to be contending with me, I was making note of the following.

1) It was Mighty, not Ally, who spoke of it in terms of genetics. Ally was speaking strictly in terms of how things worked in the movie, and according to you such a concept as "movie genetics" does not exist.

2) Mighty's assessment of genetics came across as offering some assumptions which were not entirely accurate. If I've misread what she was saying, by the way, let her correct me on what she meant; she's more than old enough to speak for herself, and frankly I'm tired of having my words twisted.

3) As Mighty noted herself (even if genetics were wholly inconsistent with what Ally suggested, and I confess I never majored in genetic science, so anyone who did can correct me on this too), cartoon characters don't always play by the same rules as real ones. It shouldn't need to be explained, at least not to anyone old enough to know how to read, that the conventions I spoke of are what I meant by "cartoon genetics/heredity." Surely no one here needs a refresher on what a figure of speech is.

Well of course I am. Because you do that quite a lot...you seem to revel in that when you see certain postings by Catwhohas14tails, Mightybalto1925 or myself. I'm simply not someone to not speak my mind about it when you do this stuff, and then couch it in language that is designed to make it look like anything but that.



Nnnoooo...actually, their two posts are fundamentally no different from each other. To wit:



--------------------

There is but one difference between those two quotes above...that Mighty expressed disagreement with Ally over the question of the resulting colors of coats which would result from a litter that Dusty might have with Kodi. Just because Mighty used the words "recessive gene" and "genetics" does not make her posting any more a discussion of the question of genetics than Ally's. At all.



Well, firstly, I'm making no attempt to speak FOR Mighty. I'm simply dealing with your latest attempt to use someone else to curry another exasperating and lengthy debate with me over something you shouldn't have in the first place, because it didn't concern you. And if you're going to use Mighty in order to try and dig at me, I'm going to speak up about it. You're just going to have to come to terms with that, big boy. XD


Hmm. Now, let me seeeee...I have to ponder for a second or two on the concurrent "accuracy" of this statement:


Yep. That suuuure much more accurate than anything Mighty (or anyone else prior to that) said. Yup yup.



Then don't open your mouth in a way that will draw argument and contradiction because of the way you said it. Or simply because you didn't like the fact that I said something to another member. Frankly, I'm tired of entering into a topic (or being told of one) where I have to read through an exasperating and wordy debate, where you've also made certain to fall back on that list of special words you've probably saved on your desktop (XD), just to be all showy and to make an attempt a dig which presumably is meant to NOT look like one (case in point in the next quote below). Because necessity, personal dignity and good sense dictates that I respond as I have each and every time you engage in this exasperating game of targeted debate and contradiction. It's quite annoying actually.


I don't care what you care to call it, you still were using it to debate a point, as well as to point fingers at Mightybalto1925 simply because you know very well that her and I get along. Because I happened to earlier point out the error of Ally's previous posting (that started you on this exasperating path once again), you specifically targeted Mighty as having first made a statement about "cartoon genetics/heredity" when, in fact, as I pointed out earlier in this latest of a long line of irritating little debates you draw me (or Cat, or Mighty or, occasionally, even others) into, you were quite well aware of the fact that someone else had discussed the question of "cartoon genetics/heredity" earlier in the topic, because you responded to the topic directly. The issue of your then claiming that you couldn't possibly recall a post from a year ago is not my problem. I certainly can recall discussions I have had with people going back a year or more...even if it is a single exchange of postings. But then, that's me.


Regardless...the concept of a "figure of speech" does not apply here. You can't turn around and call it that after it's been pointed out for the inaccuracy that it is. You meant it as you typed it...not as a "figure of speech". It doesn't equate as one anyway...because a "figure of speech" is:







Your usage didn't qualify as a figure of speech. Unless, somehow, you actually didn't mean to say "cartoon genetics/heredity" at all. Which means you didn't really mean at all what you actually said. Sooooo...yeah. Let's not beat around that there bush thing there.

This is getting beyond ridiculous. I could point out multiple cases of you doing the very same things I'm supposedly doing in this topic alone, but I'll cut right to the chase. I have nothing against Mighty personally; I have even asked that she personally respond to things I have said, and as she can verify herself, I recently complimented her on her artwork. I get along well enough with her, except for when you step in.

As for Cat, I'm not even going to dignify that with a response, except to say that someone with such an interest in history as yourself should have a better memory.

Frankly, I'm disgusted. I used to consider you a good friend and a valuable source of information, both on history and on matters of this site. Today, however, I get along better with the same kind of people you used to warn me away from than I can with you. I know you'll think this is a victory on your part, but I'm done talking to you.

Okay, Mr. Melodrama. XD Whatever you say. You see: a) I'm not for some sort of "victory" or whatever else you wish to call it. YOU are the one couching it in that context. And that's your problem, not mine. I have simply dealt with yet another of your exasperating arguments aimed at me. b) As to considering me a "good friend", I think you ought to reconsider how many times you put your foot in your mouth by insulting me with your religious debates and proselytizing, and your thoughtless statements, and how many times I told you I had had it with you. I never viewed any of your behavior, or our interaction, as that even approaching "good friends". Not in the least. c) As to your larger statement earlier, my awareness of recent history is just fine thank you. However, you may wish to check yours. XD

I've been disgusted with your double-talk; your secretive ploys where you act nice to people (including me) on the surface but, behind the scenes (and in secret) try to get them into trouble with moderators and file secretive reports; your attempts to play like your some sort of licensed therapist to minors, to whom you have no business rendering any sort of therapeutic advice or analysis; your attempts to curry favor with some and yet consistently target others for exhaustive, wordy "tl/dr" postings with selected (and repetitively-used) "big words" (especially, strangely, in responses to me, or arguments aimed at me); your holier-than-thou attempts, over the years, to proselytize on this site (and believe me, many people, including many former members with whom I still talk with on a regular basis...including many WELL-KNOWN former members, talk about it with some degree of disgust and quizzical, sarcastic humor), which are very MUCH against the rules; your constant self-advertisement; your equating Cat and her ilk with hellspawn and evil incarnate, etc. etc. etc. (and whether or not you're "done talking to me", I am not going to go into a drawn-out instance of citing examples because you ask for them. We've been over this ad nauseum.)


I've been done talking to you for a while, chief. The only thing which draws me back in occasionally is having to deal with these incendiary and argumentative posts of yours.
YOU, of all people, have no place to thump your chest and strut like some fancy game rooster.

..... Back on topic: Personally, I'm a fan of Ralph and Dusty. Their pups would be cuter!

Thank you very much.

I'm not sure, they weren't compelling characters, but I've seen some cool fan designs. Perhaps I could go with AU's (Alternate universes), but as for movie canon I'd have to say no. That's just my take however.

When you think about it, no fanfiction can really claim to be movie canon. So, according to a dichotomy such as you describe, all fanfics are AUs.