Well they are sitting targets. However, it's not as though I arbitrarily singled out any random "I don't like Trubbish/Garbodor" post. There are plenty of those, and yet, I zeroed in on the one that claimed Pokémon based off of waste products to be a new phenomenon and that, because they are based off of trash (supposedly unlike any other Pokémon), their designs were lazy, which is obviously not the case, since there are other trash-based Pokémon with much more basic designs. It's not as simple as "oh no, he said he didn't like Garbodor!!1! i have to insult gen 1 now to show him how wrong he is!!" It's a matter of clearing up the faulty logic behind a hypocritical statement.
Regardless, I'm actually quite fond of Muk. I think he's cool. But the point is, saying that Garbodor has a "lazy" design is absurd when you actually stop and apply logic to that statement. A quick Google search will define "lazy" as "characterized by lack of effort or activity." Muk is Grimer drawn bigger, which is already a simple blob in the first place. Weezing is Koffing². Garbodor is essentially a complete renovation of Trubbish's garbage motif; whereas Trubbish is a small garbage bag with minimal leakage providing the "arms" and the top knot forming vague "bunny ears," Garbodor is a mountain of trash, with a completely ruptured trash bag that serves as a face, that also incorporates discarded tubes as appendages and various scraps for body features, as well as completely redesigned ears. Garbodor's design involves a radical change from that of its previous stage but retains the garbage motif, whereas Muk and Weezing's designs simply take the design of their precedent forms and either fatten it up or copy/paste it onto itself. Now, which of those two artistic ventures require less "effort or activity"?
Hmm... good point.
(As a rather ironic coincidence, I just realized that technically speaking, Wormadam's Trash Cloak essentially makes it, too, a pile of garbage.) xD
Last edited:
