December Discussion Thread - RULE UPDATE, PLEASE READ

[PeroxidePrincess]

Does this highly sought after tri-color pillar even exist?

[Schuyler]

Aww man, I would kill for the new store pets. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to buy C$...ugh.


EDIT:

Does this highly sought after tri-color pillar even exist?

I don't think so, it was just the picture on the adoption page. The only ones I have seen are the single-colored ones.

[Faybell]

Does this highly sought after tri-color pillar even exist?

No. No one has posted with it so we assume it's not.

[Angel Daiyu]

The Bandersnatch and JubJub bird are in the book - as mentions.

'`Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'

When I mean they never appeared in the book, I mean they literally never appeared; they had no physical appearance, thus all remakes of them are pure speculation.

I thought that was from the Jaberwocky?

Those lines are from the poem Jabberwocky...

But that is the only time the JubJub bird and Bandersnatch are mentioned, if I'm correct... which is Sata's point
They never appeared even once

[Neku]

The Bandersnatch and JubJub bird are in the book - as mentions.

'`Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'

When I mean they never appeared in the book, I mean they literally never appeared; they had no physical appearance, thus all remakes of them are pure speculation.

I thought that was from The Jabberwocky?

The Jabberwocky was a poem from 'Through The Looking Glass' - which is a part of the original Alice In Wonderland.

[iaan]

aww shoot! missed the silver blanket 2nd gen and adopted late...again

[.muse.]

Doesn't change the fact that the jabberwock and cheshire cat are directly based on the originals. I'm not saying omg copyright infringement they should be removed from cs this is blasphemy.
I'm just saying that I feel it's sort of rude to make a pet that is not the artists original idea and sell it for a currency that real money was used to purchase. That's what drove me off a few other pet sites when they started doing things like that.

Like the Eat Me and Drink Me dogs, they were inspired by the concepts of the bottle and cookie that alice ate and drank from. They weren't directly created from the actual bottle and cookie that she ate and drank from. And those are lovely pets that I had no problem buying. But two of the 4 of these are directly based on the creatures from the book. And I know it's not copyright infringement or anything illegal. It just seems rude is all. It's nothing to do with the actual pets either, I don't want to buy them for more reasons that I care to list, primarily I only collect store dogs so I've no need to use my C$ on them. But it's the concept of taking someone else's original idea and selling it.

I'm not trying to spark any fights or arguments, merely stating how I feel. I mean no disrespect to the artist. I've enjoyed that artists pets in the past and I'm sure future ones will catch my eye as well. It's merely the concept that my opinion is about. Thus I will not remark back on jabs to discredit the opinion I am entitled to have, and I will leave this at this point. This thread is for opinions if I am correct, and that was all I came here to do. Not fight or bicker, simply voice the opinion I am entitled to have.

[Neku]

Doesn't change the fact that the jabberwock and cheshire cat are directly based on the originals. I'm not saying omg copyright infringement they should be removed from cs this is blasphemy.
I'm just saying that I feel it's sort of rude to make a pet that is not the artists original idea and sell it for a currency that real money was used to purchase. That's what drove me off a few other pet sites when they started doing things like that.

Like the Eat Me and Drink Me dogs, they were inspired by the concepts of the bottle and cookie that alice ate and drank from. They weren't directly created from the actual bottle and cookie that she ate and drank from. And those are lovely pets that I had no problem buying. But two of the 4 of these are directly based on the creatures from the book. And I know it's not copyright infringement or anything illegal. It just seems rude is all. It's nothing to do with the actual pets either, I don't want to buy them for more reasons that I care to list, primarily I only collect store dogs so I've no need to use my C$ on them. But it's the concept of taking someone else's original idea and selling it.

And again, how is that any different then what Tim Burton did? The Cheshire is exactly identical to the one from the book - minus the color, because the images in the book were black and white. So is the Jabberwocky, for that manner. I'm not saying you have to buy the pets, I'm just a bit confused as to how you can claim selling the designs on CS is rude, but selling the designs in a big motion picture that made millions of dollars isn't.

[iHolli]

{The new store pets are just beyond amazing. Mai gurd, Ricorn, let me love you for Alice in Wonderland themed pets <3}
{All of this month's pets are very interesting for me. Pixel dogs? Purple Toxic puppies? The cats are so cute, with their little fishy blankets, and the pets from our new artist are stunning. The first time I saw the rats, I thought they looked like the Light Pawprint rat from 2008, and I like how the caterpillar turned out to have three outcomes, even if I did miss the blue one x3 Never mind, I have it now <3 I like that pony, too...it reminds me of Sugar Rush <3}

.Holli.

[Angel Daiyu]

Doesn't change the fact that the jabberwock and cheshire cat are directly based on the originals. I'm not saying omg copyright infringement they should be removed from cs this is blasphemy.
I'm just saying that I feel it's sort of rude to make a pet that is not the artists original idea and sell it for a currency that real money was used to purchase. That's what drove me off a few other pet sites when they started doing things like that.

Like the Eat Me and Drink Me dogs, they were inspired by the concepts of the bottle and cookie that alice ate and drank from. They weren't directly created from the actual bottle and cookie that she ate and drank from. And those are lovely pets that I had no problem buying. But two of the 4 of these are directly based on the creatures from the book. And I know it's not copyright infringement or anything illegal. It just seems rude is all. It's nothing to do with the actual pets either, I don't want to buy them for more reasons that I care to list, primarily I only collect store dogs so I've no need to use my C$ on them. But it's the concept of taking someone else's original idea and selling it.

And again, how is that any different then what Tim Burton did? The Cheshire is exactly identical to the one from the book - minus the color, because the images in the book were black and white. So is the Jabberwocky, for that manner. I'm not saying you have to buy the pets, I'm just a bit confused as to how you can claim selling the designs on CS is rude, but selling the designs in a big motion picture that made millions of dollars isn't.

That and Alice ate a CAKE, not a cookie