So if it looks like "Humphrey" was going to walk on four legs all the way to some random house, but then stand up in a Anthro-way, it's now "bad"? Because "Disney" didn't do this? Are you saying that an "anthro" movie that was inspired or even not should only have one or the other? While it may looked like it was going to be at what I said first, I think if the "second" part I mention was on purpose, then it is a style and not something to bring up, if this isn't what you meant, then never mind.
It's possible people can aim for a similar style but then add new styles over it. People has done this with new animation, cartoons, etc all the time. And A&O1/2 has done this, and people seem to actually like it as it's own thing. Your idea of "looks like" is biased based on people expecting "pixar" and "disney" when they can understand that it wasn't directly meant to go that way.
There isn't any proof that they were aiming for both directly anyway. To me, they just wanted to make there own view, but use inspire by some Disney kind of designs but add there own mix on it, as it's own new Anthropomorphic culture. Even if they didn't intend that on purpose, it still looked like it at the least. For that, it's not fair to compare it because one part took a style at one point. Especially if people enjoyed it as it's own thing, even if it wasn't meant to go that way.
Speaking of "unnatural", Disney has had a similar role at the start, then they started doing the same thing. (I.E. many anthro shows, movies, etc.) Many starts from what I seen, looked very unnatural, but then people liked it as it's own new style. This isn't anything new.
However, I did not see the full trailer, didn't feel like it, but since you mention this part as an "unnatural" example, I'll take a look real fast to see if we are on the same page - - - OK, I looked, the pups? I took a look at it, just now and honestly, I don't see how it went wrong maybe, was it when one was biting the other's tail? Or when they landed off? The landing off seemed to look like it wasn't enough speed, if that's what you mean, then I agree, but I won't agree it's major though, or that it's not-style because the way they looked BEFORE they jumped off didn't look like earth pups way.
If you were referring to the way the body moved, or looked, then honestly, that IS a style, I think the movie was meant to be part anthro (Un-expecting moves that wolves can't do on this planet and crazy wild movements, I.E. freedom). Though, yeah they should of made it look like they would make it to the cliff maybe. But a movie that is part natural and part "not" natural, if it's recognized, I think it's fair to question it as a style, therefor, no need to "highlight" that part except for maybe speed issues.
I'm not saying every single animation was perfect, not even a style, I was mainly talking about anthro moves (Like standing and dancing (Not matching this planet's Wolves)), that IS a style, not an error. And looking at the whole movie, while not perfect, it's not something to look down just because of a couple of errors or if one thought the whole animation was messed up which can be argued because everyone has a different view of interest for it, so I said if people enjoyed it, it's kind of a new possible style, just like NES games are now...
Sorry for long reply, but I just don't think it's fair at all to always compare to Disney or any other known style because of similarity, compare real-life to something that's not meant to be, or even if it looked like a certain style (before I said real-life), but then complain because it wasn't what any expected and realized it was another style close to Disney or something. Might as well slap a "not 100 % known style to known movie", and "not 100 % this Earth wolves" sticker on the box if people always like to expect a certain thing.
So if it looks like "Humphrey" was going to walk on four legs all the way to some random house, but then stand up in a Anthro-way, it's now "bad"? Because "Disney" didn't do this? Are you saying that an "anthro" movie that was inspired or even not should only have one or the other? While it may looked like it was going to be at what I said first, I think if the "second" part I mention was on purpose, then it is a style and not something to bring up, if this isn't what you meant, then never mind.
It's possible people can aim for a similar style but then add new styles over it. People has done this with new animation, cartoons, etc all the time. And A&O1/2 has done this, and people seem to actually like it as it's own thing. Your idea of "looks like" is biased based on people expecting "pixar" and "disney" when they can understand that it wasn't directly meant to go that way.
There isn't any proof that they were aiming for both directly anyway. To me, they just wanted to make there own view, but use inspire by some Disney kind of designs but add there own mix on it, as it's own new Anthropomorphic culture. Even if they didn't intend that on purpose, it still looked like it at the least. For that, it's not fair to compare it because one part took a style at one point. Especially if people enjoyed it as it's own thing, even if it wasn't meant to go that way.
Speaking of "unnatural", Disney has had a similar role at the start, then they started doing the same thing. (I.E. many anthro shows, movies, etc.) Many starts from what I seen, looked very unnatural, but then people liked it as it's own new style. This isn't anything new.
However, I did not see the full trailer, didn't feel like it, but since you mention this part as an "unnatural" example, I'll take a look real fast to see if we are on the same page - - - OK, I looked, the pups? I took a look at it, just now and honestly, I don't see how it went wrong maybe, was it when one was biting the other's tail? Or when they landed off? The landing off seemed to look like it wasn't enough speed, if that's what you mean, then I agree, but I won't agree it's major though, or that it's not-style because the way they looked BEFORE they jumped off didn't look like earth pups way.
If you were referring to the way the body moved, or looked, then honestly, that IS a style, I think the movie was meant to be part anthro (Un-expecting moves that wolves can't do on this planet and crazy wild movements, I.E. freedom). Though, yeah they should of made it look like they would make it to the cliff maybe. But a movie that is part natural and part "not" natural, if it's recognized, I think it's fair to question it as a style, therefor, no need to "highlight" that part except for maybe speed issues.
I'm not saying every single animation was perfect, not even a style, I was mainly talking about anthro moves (Like standing and dancing (Not matching this planet's Wolves)), that IS a style, not an error. And looking at the whole movie, while not perfect, it's not something to look down just because of a couple of errors or if one thought the whole animation was messed up which can be argued because everyone has a different view of interest for it, so I said if people enjoyed it, it's kind of a new possible style, just like NES games are now...
Sorry for long reply, but I just don't think it's fair at all to always compare to Disney or any other known style because of similarity, compare real-life to something that's not meant to be, or even if it looked like a certain style (before I said real-life), but then complain because it wasn't what any expected and realized it was another style close to Disney or something. Might as well slap a "not 100 % known style to known movie", and "not 100 % this Earth wolves" sticker on the box if people always like to expect a certain thing.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.