Why are Pokemon based on inanimate objects (or look human-like) the least liked?

[Goddess Yami]

It's a shame. I like some of the object base Pokemon. As for humans I don't care for the Machop, Jynx, and the Mr. Mime lines. However I find Mime Jr. and Smoochum cute. Out of those three lines Mr. Mime creeps me out the most. His 3D animation doesn't help.

I guess people view Pokemon as animals and forget that Pokemon stands for Pocket Monsters. An object being a Pokemon works because monsters don't always have to be based off of animals. As for humans well we are animals. We're mammals.

 

[RedJirachi]

As mentioned, I think its because they tend to not be very inventive with most inanimate object Pokemon. This is especially in the case with Pokemon like Voltorb. I appreciate Pokemon like Palossand for being creative

 

[Churtlesaur]

I have no problem with the Pokemon based on inanimate objects but I do have two issues with them.

1. I find them difficult to explain and justify. Animal based Pokemon are obviously easy to explain but sandcastles, ice creams, piles of trash, chandeliers and key chains are difficult to justify as living creatures.

I became a fan in generation 1 and as a child Pokemon like Voltorb, Electrode, Magnamite and Magnetron, Grimer, Muk etc. didn't seem hoaky.

2. I just hope they don't get ridiculous with the inanimate Pokemon to the point where it feels like Moshi Monsters. I wouldn't want to see a door, computer chair, envelope, wheel, bottle etc Pokemon. Because I think the more they churn out ridicukous inanimate object Pokemon the more I believe it compromises the integrity of the brand.

Dhelmise is starting to push the boundary a little.

 

[Soopdupe]

I have been playing since red/blue and like others have said pokemon have always been more on the creature side. A Chandelure/chandelier or inanimate is something familiar to us. I think the key is familiarity. A bulbasaur on the other hand is something that doesn't truly exist and sparks our imagination.

 

[Mysterious Gray]

People like to be a mob. Its comforting. So because it has become "safe" to hate the inanimate objects, now everyone does. Misery loves company, etc. Its often easier to make friends over a mutal dislike than a shared interest.

 

[Ketaru]

People like to be a mob. Its comforting. So because it has become "safe" to hate the inanimate objects, now everyone does. Misery loves company, etc. Its often easier to make friends over a mutal dislike than a shared interest.

Well that's awfully reductive and dismissive, huh...

I feel like this has a very simple answer. People want to treat Pokemon as pets, which means that, of course, the animal-based Pokemon are the most popular. The people that don't like inanimate objects or human-like Pokemon generally don't like them because it's a little harder to see things like them as pets.

I feel this is it. It's a very popular trope, the boy and his dog. Pokémon itself frequently plays into it with the rather idealized relationship between characters like Ash and Pikachu. Not to mention other franchises, like Hiccup and Toothless How to Train your Dragon or Usagi and Luna from Sailor Moon.

For me, I often need to remind myself that humans and Pokémon in the Pokémon universe don't necessarily have a servile master-pet relationship, though some do. Other times, it seems more like some Pokémon have a more symbiotic relationship with humans where they are (ostensibly) on equal ground- such as how you often see Machoke and Machamp involved in the construction industry. But Pokémon like Machamp, Gallade, Allakhazam, or Jynx don't at all fit well with the "boy and his dog" image.

It's a theme Black/White briefly touched upon, but I do wonder if the series will eventually reach a point where it will have to reckon with the possibility Pokémon start wondering why they show such deference to humans in the first place.

 

[CaillouAndBoris]

They're more uncreative.

 

[Nockturne]

There is no real standardized measure of creativity though, so the question becomes why do people see human/inanimate objects as uncreative?

You could argue it's more creative to look at an inanimate object and re-imagine it into a "living" being, than it is to take something that already functions as an animal and then just throw some elemental motifs on it and call it a Pokemon. The majority of more animalistic Pokemon designs are just lifted straight from nature with little to no human creative input on the foundation of the design.

 

[Sαpphire]

I actually think that they sometimes just have poorer designs, because it can be so hard to actually give a cute or cool design to an established inanimate object. I also quite like a lot of them, especially those that are Psychic- and Ghost-type, and regularly use them. I really don't feel like there's a "hate bandwagon" sort of phenomenon occurring, just like I don't think that occurs in other branches of the franchise that commonly claim it happens. And as a sort of final point, I think a lot of it comes down to personal preference and taste, so admiration for them and disdain for them should be equally respected - to each their own.

 

[Bowlbasaur]

I wouldn't describe them as more uncreative, there are plenty of animal-based ones that aren't bursting with originality either. The thing that makes any pokemon creative is it's personality/dex entry/backstory, whatever you want to call it. Palossand is just a sandcastle until you know it can devour you at any moment.

 

[Waves01]

I wouldn't describe them as more uncreative, there are plenty of animal-based ones that aren't bursting with originality either. The thing that makes any pokemon creative is it's personality/dex entry/backstory, whatever you want to call it. Palossand is just a sandcastle until you know it can devour you at any moment.

lol well said. just like mimikyu is just and old rag till u lift it up and it kills u. i really wish they didnt make popplio a female only starter bcuz popplio doesnt look like a boy in its final form mine is a boy and his name is gerald.

 

[lemoncatpower]

I think it's about relation. Most people have favorite animals, have pets they love, and creatures they wish existed. With the pokemon based on living things, this brings those parts out of people and they can easily identify favorites based on their favorite animals, etc. But with inanimate objects, people usually don't relate to them as well. Like unless you love building sand castles, are you really going to relate to the sand castle pokemon? Compared to if you're favorite animal is lions and you have a cat and so on. It's also easier to imagine them alive and interacting with life how their real life counterparts would. Otherwise you just have magnets floating around that you have to give personality too, making it a little bit tougher. Not saying it's tough in general, but I think this would play a part in it.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

I actually love the inanimate based Pokémon and have several witty nicknames I have given them such as Missing Keys the Klefki and Majory the Garbodor after a character from the show Fraggle Rock.

 

[Zoruagible]

I don't like most of those Pokemon because they feel lazily designed. I do love Slurpuff/Swirlix and Muk though.

 

[Samayouru]

I actually love the inanimate based Pokémon and have several witty nicknames I have given them such as Missing Keys the Klefki and Majory the Garbodor after a character from the show Fraggle Rock.

A personal favourite nickname of mine is Boo-Boo Keys, based off of a joke from Spongebob (in fact several pokemon have ended up being named after things from Spongebob).

I guess people don't really identify or connect with Pokemon based off of inanimate objects in the same way they do with others like Charmander. What would be easier to bond with: a wide-eyed, yellow rodent that to most looks absolutely adorable, or a sentient pile of sludge that happens to be incredibly stinky (and may or may not consist of human waste)? Pokemon that are essentially living objects can be seen as odd or even off-putting to some people, which is a shame, because a lot of inanimate Pokemon are actually some of my favourites.

 

[KyogreThunder]

Personally, I don't have any problems with the majority of them, and I actually like stuff like Magnezone, Aegislash, Gallade, or Muk. I guess people just don't find them as creative as Pokemon based on living things.

 

[Silversea]

The only one I dislike is vanilluxe. A levitating ice cream with a silly cartoon face. Why?

I'm fine with klefki, magnemite, and so on.

On the other hand, inanimate object pokemon aren't very natural. If I want a pet, I'll choose a cat or dog, not floating fairy keys.

 

[Golden_Latias]

While I have nothing against Pokemon based on inanimate objects or humans personally, I think a huge part of the hate for inanimate object Pokemon has to do with the name Pokemon. It's short for "pocket monsters," and to a lot of people, monsters are supposed to be organic and animalistic only.

Humanoid Pokemon are probably an uncanny valley type of thing. They try to be stylistic and humanoid simultaneously, and it just looks off to a lot of people (Jynx and Mr. Mime are good examples of this).

I have noticed that people seem to be perfectly fine with inanimate object Pokemon if they happen to be Ghost types. Chandelure and Aegislash are both very popular Pokemon, and they're both based on inanimate objects, for example. I think that's because it's easy to imagine them as being objects possessed by ghosts, which is a little less strange than a sentient ice cream cone or trash bag.

 

[Cat's Eye Draco]

I tend to go for the more animal-based Pokemon mostly because I happen to be an animal lover, so they're generally the first to grab my attention. ^_^

I can't say as I've ever found the humanoid/inanimate Pokemon to be "unimaginative" or "dull", though. Heck, Klefki, Gardevoir, Aegislash, and Dugtrio are pretty high up on my list of favorites, and I've always thought the Vanilluxe line were kind of cute.

 

[pacman000]

Not sure. Mewtwo's technically humanoid, & Jigglypuff's technically a balloon. As far as I know they're well liked. Probably just a knee-jerk reaction to stylistic changes, & an attempt to justify it.