|
Post by کیوان on Oct 20, 2023 10:32:25 GMT -5
With the release of the sneak peek from the new Ultimate Guide, a handful of fans have a bone to pick with Brightheart’s design for lacking the severity of her canon injury, with some going as far as to claim that Harper-Collins is ableist for dumbing down the injuries of other cats as well. As a result, a number of Twitter artists have taken it onto themselves to post artwork of Brightheart; if you look up #warriorcats on Twitter, you could build a repository of Brightheart content.
But what do we think? Could the community manifest another phenomenon like this in the future? Does Harper-Collins need to change, or are the official designs fine? I personally have a crack theory that Brightheart’s TUG 2.0 design is a PSYOPs designed to aggravate the fandom into garnering more attention for Brightheart as a character, but who knows? At the very least, Brightheart’s figurine stays solid.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Oct 20, 2023 11:25:57 GMT -5
I think the Warrior Cats fandom throwing a screaming tantrum about small design things is pretty typical honestly, and HC is doubtful to care anymore than they did when the issue was Dovewing's eyes or Scourge's collar.
Brightheart's new design isn't unrealistic at all, and there's plenty of pictures of wild cats that have suffered horrific injuries where the fur grows back a good deal over the wounded area.
|
|
Aroace
#ffa100
Name Colour
𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑
Villain Enjoyer
Taking a break from the forums because my cat died. Will probably be back mid to late October.
|
Post by 𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑 on Oct 20, 2023 11:38:27 GMT -5
Here's the Brightheart (and Cloudtail) art in question just in case: And here's list of injuries Brightheart gained from the ADP dog attack: - Torn face on her right side - Missing right eye - Huge claw marks on her muzzle - Missing ear While I personally wouldn't be surprised if some of the people complaining have never heard of the concept of fur growing back over injuries (although this even got showcased in the series with Rain's eye injury in AVoS having fur grow over it not that long after Darktail had done it), with Brightheart specifically, she is indeed stated to have lost an ear and an eye in the text so this version of her seems to be toned down in terms of those details, for sure. Although granted, as was the case with her GN version where her ear is torn but still mostly intact. I don't think either Owen Richardson or James L. Barry are really to blame for that though. If anything, they were probably both just following guidelines/directions from HC or WP in regards to how characters should be depicted, I'm sure. And thus, Brightheart would be no exception. My guess is that it was toned down in both cases to appeal more to children/be more family friendly. And even though that's kinda understandable, since there is a differene between just describing severe injuries in text and then depicting them in actual art, it becomes quite a bit redudant when simply looking at Brightheart's old art in the original TUG. Just saying. Here it is for reference: This new version of her is indeed kind of a downgrade, in my opinion. But my theory is that it was not changed to intentionally cause an uproar on Twitter (or X, or whatever else Elon the Clown calls it these days) and rather because some parents might've complained about her old art being too graphic/gory for children. Just a thought. Either way, it's definitely a good thing that at the very least her merch (plush and mini) are accurately depicting her canon injuries as they got described in the books.
|
|
|
Post by stupidflower on Oct 20, 2023 11:50:20 GMT -5
Honestly the only problem I have with the art is Brightheart’s ear. It’s a little silly that there isn’t even a single scar there. And her whole is ear supposed to be gone. Ears don’t grow back! I’m fine with the face though. It makes sense that the fur would grow back, and this is still technically a kids book. They can’t realistically show her with half her face ripped off if they want kids to read it and no parents to complain.
|
|
|
Post by lazzylake on Oct 20, 2023 12:21:36 GMT -5
Hmm, could I draw how I imagine Brightheart’s injury to look like and post it here?
|
|
|
Post by کیوان on Oct 20, 2023 12:37:49 GMT -5
Hmm, could I draw how I imagine Brightheart’s injury to look like and post it here? Feel free! Nobody is stopping you.
|
|
|
Post by Hollyfall on Oct 20, 2023 13:43:41 GMT -5
Official art has never been that grotesque anyway I don't think? In the books themselves you have throats being torn out and cats being eviscerated, while in the actual visual representations there's minor injuries and blood but that's really about it. As far as I can remember anyway, I might be wrong. Yes, I would love if we could see her injuries depicted, but I don't think this is anything new for the series.
Either way, I'm in agreement with everyone else here with it being toned down. Like, even in Brightheart's graphic novel, the torn is pretty explicitly torn while we know it's completely gone, and Brightheart's icon on the tree shows this as well. Maybe HarperCollins just forgot about the ear? Or discrepencies between artists? It's not like they have a track record with remembering details to begin with. Personally I think it's just a minor thing that twitter can rally behind to lambast as "ableism" and show how terminally online they are.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 14:27:09 GMT -5
I think it is inconsistency, but I personally don't like it because it makes her look too "soft". I don't know how to explain it, but she went through so much and she is a survivor. And she rocked those torn ears and missing eye, but now its just as if she has a few scratches over a permanent wink?
I love the nose scar though.
Also it kinda makes Princess and Daisy look bad if they freaked out over Brightheart having some scratches.
Ngl, I want to cuddle and pet her so much.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Oct 20, 2023 14:37:15 GMT -5
Brightheart's ears were already inconsistent in TDH, so the notion of this being some new censorship doesn't hold water to me.
Emphasis mine.
There's other bits in TDH where it's mentioned she only has one ear, to be fair, but I don't think it's considered to be a large part of her character design by the team behind Warriors hence why it's freely inconsistent.
|
|
Aroace
#ffa100
Name Colour
𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑
Villain Enjoyer
Taking a break from the forums because my cat died. Will probably be back mid to late October.
|
Post by 𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑 on Oct 20, 2023 15:42:19 GMT -5
Brightheart's ears were already inconsistent in TDH, so the notion of this being some new censorship doesn't hold water to me. Emphasis mine. There's other bits in TDH where it's mentioned she only has one ear, to be fair, but I don't think it's considered to be a large part of her character design by the team behind Warriors hence why it's freely inconsistent. That was only one inconsistency in the text in her regard though and has happened to other cats with missing body parts as well. Such as with Berrynose, who lost his tail as a kit due to the foxtrap but still got mistakenly described to still have his full length tail on at least four seperate occasions (once in Dark River, twice in The Forgotten Warrior and once in Veil of Shadows). These mistakes don't change the fact that Berrynose's tail is amputated, since we even see it happen on-screen. Or that Brightheart's ear (and eye) is gone because of the dog attack. All of her injuries (which I've listed from the wiki in my first post on this thread), got either pointed out by Fireheart after the attack while she was recovering in the medicine den during ADP or by Cinderpelt, who specifically said that she "couldn't save her ear or eye". And, as you said yourself, this mistake of Brightheart still having both ears happens only once in TDH but then again stays consistent in mentioning her with just one ear multiple times in the same book. There is also the fact that Brightheart was depicted as having a missing eye and ear in both her merch versions (as a plush and mini). So her design is consistent with her canon injuries there. And yes, I know the team that makes the merch and manages the shop is a different one from the story team or website team but still.
|
|
|
Post by ! (Ġray) ! on Oct 20, 2023 18:40:02 GMT -5
I don't have nearly as much of a problem with Brightheart's design as Crookedstars, but that's mainly because of this:
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Oct 20, 2023 20:11:20 GMT -5
Brightheart's ears were already inconsistent in TDH, so the notion of this being some new censorship doesn't hold water to me. Emphasis mine. There's other bits in TDH where it's mentioned she only has one ear, to be fair, but I don't think it's considered to be a large part of her character design by the team behind Warriors hence why it's freely inconsistent. That was only one inconsistency in the text in her regard though and has happened to other cats with missing body parts as well. Such as with Berrynose, who lost his tail as a kit due to the foxtrap but still got mistakenly described to still have his full length tail on at least four seperate occasions (once in Dark River, twice in The Forgotten Warrior and once in Veil of Shadows). These mistakes don't change the fact that Berrynose's tail is amputated, since we even see it happen on-screen. Or that Brightheart's ear (and eye) is gone because of the dog attack. All of her injuries (which I've listed from the wiki in my first post on this thread), got either pointed out by Fireheart after the attack while she was recovering in the medicine den during ADP or by Cinderpelt, who specifically said that she "couldn't save her ear or eye". And, as you said yourself, this mistake of Brightheart still having both ears happens only once in TDH but then again stays consistent in mentioning her with just one ear multiple times in the same book. There is also the fact that Brightheart was depicted as having a missing eye and ear in both her merch versions (as a plush and mini). So her design is consistent with her canon injuries there. And yes, I know the team that makes the merch and manages the shop is a different one from the story team or website team but still. On the other hand, Berrynose has never had a drawn design without his tail either. Whereas Brightheart had two beforehand at least which were also signed off on. I think that if you were to look at a hypothetical series bible, Brightheart’s ear is likely to be omitted from her description from a very early point as something just not that important
|
|
|
Post by nowarriornameshere on Oct 20, 2023 22:54:12 GMT -5
Toned down? Yeah, especially since she's supposed to be missing an ear. Ableist? Get reaaaal.
|
|
|
Post by Slightdapple on Oct 20, 2023 23:23:32 GMT -5
It’s toned down, but it’s most definitely not ableism. More like inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Oct 20, 2023 23:47:51 GMT -5
Brightheart’s appearance has always been inconsistent, as with many things in these books.
|
|
|
Post by dahliadove - #1 nightpelt fan on Oct 21, 2023 0:13:44 GMT -5
Wouldn't say it's ableist but them toning it down was definitely weird. I hate it when people lessen Brightheart's scar so it "looks less bad" - it gives me weird vibes.
Appearances of cats have always been inconsistent, so I'd just say it was a mistake and not intentional.
|
|
Aroace
#ffa100
Name Colour
𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑
Villain Enjoyer
Taking a break from the forums because my cat died. Will probably be back mid to late October.
|
Post by 𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑 on Oct 21, 2023 2:51:43 GMT -5
That was only one inconsistency in the text in her regard though and has happened to other cats with missing body parts as well. Such as with Berrynose, who lost his tail as a kit due to the foxtrap but still got mistakenly described to still have his full length tail on at least four seperate occasions (once in Dark River, twice in The Forgotten Warrior and once in Veil of Shadows). These mistakes don't change the fact that Berrynose's tail is amputated, since we even see it happen on-screen. Or that Brightheart's ear (and eye) is gone because of the dog attack. All of her injuries (which I've listed from the wiki in my first post on this thread), got either pointed out by Fireheart after the attack while she was recovering in the medicine den during ADP or by Cinderpelt, who specifically said that she "couldn't save her ear or eye". And, as you said yourself, this mistake of Brightheart still having both ears happens only once in TDH but then again stays consistent in mentioning her with just one ear multiple times in the same book. There is also the fact that Brightheart was depicted as having a missing eye and ear in both her merch versions (as a plush and mini). So her design is consistent with her canon injuries there. And yes, I know the team that makes the merch and manages the shop is a different one from the story team or website team but still. On the other hand, Berrynose has never had a drawn design without his tail either. Whereas Brightheart had two beforehand at least which were also signed off on. I think that if you were to look at a hypothetical series bible, Brightheart’s ear is likely to be omitted from her description from a very early point as something just not that important Yeah, true (about Berrynose). I just used his example to point out that mistakes regarding previously established injuries have happened in the series on other occasions as well. But Brightheart's missing ear is important in the sense that it was part of the injuries she was listed to have though. And again, the fact that she has been depicted to be missing an ear in merchandise designs is also there. Yes, I agree that her missing an ear but it not being depicted as such in every art or design of hers is not the end of the world but it certainly means that her new design was toned down, at least in that regard. Since both ears are fully intact. At least with her GN art, while both ears are largely intact there as well, they are still torn a bit to indicate it. Same with her old TUG art. Granted, it could be deliberate or just a mistake, who knows (not me).
|
|