I think I might get what you mean. There is no known Pokemon that "isn't anthropomorphic" because by default in any known canon, right?
NOTE: I'm talking about Pokemon alone, not only in the trailer.
But however, Zootopia while based on our animals never had full non-anthropomorphic animals in that world. They just naturally show up like that, like they are just another species happening to share similar features like us despite that trailer claiming but not understanding anthropomorphism fully. Pokemon are also based off our animals, but much more custom. Because of that, I don't see much of a difference. | Anthropomorphism wouldn't require to show a canon non-anthropomorphic version (otherwise most or maybe all anthropomorphic characters we know are not anthropomorphic then), so what might be the only part of this argument other than that, is to see if Pokemon is based on our animals or not maybe.
Though, "animal" isn't the only thing that can be anthropomorphised.
Of course, these creatures are like "different species", like aliens, or even "monsters", even though Nick Wilde can be seen as similar (kinda) realistically in terms of aliens. If somehow Pokemon aren't anthropomorphic, I think it's just similar enough that it doesn't much matter and should still count as an example of legal furry.
I think I might get what you mean. There is no known Pokemon that "isn't anthropomorphic" because by default in any known canon, right?
NOTE: I'm talking about Pokemon alone, not only in the trailer.
But however, Zootopia while based on our animals never had full non-anthropomorphic animals in that world. They just naturally show up like that, like they are just another species happening to share similar features like us despite that trailer claiming but not understanding anthropomorphism fully. Pokemon are also based off our animals, but much more custom. Because of that, I don't see much of a difference. | Anthropomorphism wouldn't require to show a canon non-anthropomorphic version (otherwise most or maybe all anthropomorphic characters we know are not anthropomorphic then), so what might be the only part of this argument other than that, is to see if Pokemon is based on our animals or not maybe.
Though, "animal" isn't the only thing that can be anthropomorphised.
Of course, these creatures are like "different species", like aliens, or even "monsters", even though Nick Wilde can be seen as similar (kinda) realistically in terms of aliens. If somehow Pokemon aren't anthropomorphic, I think it's just similar enough that it doesn't much matter and should still count as an example of legal furry.
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.