Wild Childz analysis (reblogged from Tumblr)
Reblog from mauesartetc:
It’s been a long time since a set of character designs has made me physically recoil in disgust. Putting aside the fact that the back-breaking poses and wasp waists are kind of a yikes for something being marketed to children (what if we had Bratz, but worse?), the faces are just so unappealing. The infantilized proportions coupled with human lips on animals is just so dang ugly. Couldn’t y’all have spread the features a bit farther apart on the face? Just so the characters don’t look like gross aliens?? (see image 2)
Also: Hate the toenails. Human nails do not look good on animal feet, especially when those feet have only two or three toes. The panda girl’s feet are the most human-looking, so the nails look somewhat okay on her. But the tiger and cheetah could just as easily have painted claws, and the zebra might as well have her entire hoof painted since hooves are basically toenails anyway. (see image 3)
And let’s be real, if the panda girl had a species-accurate body type, it’d look more like this: (image 4)
But the good news is the dolls themselves look a LOT better than the promo art. They’re made of fabric and have much more realistic waistlines as well as more appealing facial proportions (vapid expressions and sameface syndrome notwithstanding).
So apart from the possible controversies mentioned in the previous post, I guess I’d be okay with my hypothetical child playing with one of these.
The girls’ feral forms will definitely haunt my nightmares, though.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Thought I'd share this reblog of the Wild Childz post from a while back because it makes some interesting points from an anthro-art point of view and has a neat re-imagining of the panda girl (who as another comment noted is also named "Ling" and whose skill is "super good at math").
I just want to add that I did a little more research about the dolls and it appears the cloth dolls above aren't the "main" line and the plastic dolls that look like the promo art are still in development.