Hey bro, what the director says isn't always right. I'll give you an example.
In a verse where you can invade a castle while riding on a giant ginger bread man, I don't think having animal heights be 1-1 with their real life counterparts is that important.
And that's where you're wrong. Before the first Puss In Boots movie, he made his first appearance in Shrek 2 which was directed by Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, and Conrad Vernon. By your logic, they're the ones who actually created Puss so Kitty's statement in PIB1 would be automatically incorrect just because Chris didn't come up with the original concept for the character. Of course, I don't actually buy any of what you're saying because they all clearly had a part in it and none of them should be prioritized over the other.
Do you have any evidence other than a baseless assumption that the director is incorrect?
And they say I'm the fool.
Are you talking about being okay with Puss being 2.5 feet tall?
This. I think WOG is correct in this case.
Bro, are you really okay with using 2.5 feet coming from a single person instead of Kitty's statement which sounds more reasonable, and is closer to the height of a house cat?
And do you have any evidence that Kitty is wrong other than the director's statement?
The fact that "about 2 feet" is an approximation in the first place? Who do you think is more reliable, the creator himself or the character he created?
The only thing they accepted is that the calculation is mathematically correct, not whether the stated height is correct. They said it themselves that they don't have evaluation rights. You can't add this without permission from a thread mod/admin but you did anyway. You literally broke the rules.
Are you telling me that if Adam Wingar said "Godzilla is 300 m" but in the movies he says he's 120 m, are you telling me that it's more reliable to use 300 m than 120 m just because his creator said so?
False equivalence fallacy. You'll need to prove that info from Puss' director is unreliable instead of pointing to a different director who has nothing to do with the character we're currently discussing.
And you will have to prove that Kitty is wrong and another thing, the director is not its creator
I don't have to. Look it up. Her statement uses the word "about" which is used to indicate an approximation or a rough estimate so her statement of Puss being 2 feet isn't necessarily precise or accurate. She's pretty much making a guess based on what she saw and remembered.
He is along with others. A director's role is to provide creative leadership for a production, ensuring the project's vision is realized from start to finish. This involves interpreting the script, guiding actors' performances, collaborating with various departments, and ultimately shaping the final product (I just copied that from Google by the way).
Ok. Get a mod/admin in here and settle this.
But bro, but from 0.6096 m to 0.762 m there is a lot of difference and also if Puss was 0.762 m tall why didn't he say something like "You're wrong Kitty, I'm not 2 feet tall but 2.5 feet tall?", if he really was 2.5 feet tall and also Puss isn't that much taller than Kitty, only by about 3 cm at most for him to say that Puss is 0.762 m tall
But bro, but from 0.6096 m to 0.762 m there is a lot of difference and also if Puss was 0.762 m tall why didn't he say something like "You're wrong Kitty, I'm not 2 feet tall but 2.5 feet tall?", if he really was 2.5 feet tall and also Puss isn't that much taller than Kitty, only by about 3 cm at most for him to say that Puss is 0.762 m tall
Well, as I said, because these are the reasons why we should use the height of 0.6096 m rather than 0.762 m:
Well, as I said, because these are the reasons why we should use the height of 0.6096 m rather than 0.762 m:
Irrelevant.
Why would he? Her statement was vague.
Things aren't always animated to scale, but do we know Kitty's exact height?
Do you have proof that it is poorly animated?
I didn't say it was poorly animated (nor is that something one could 'prove').
So you can't say it's not well animated.
Why irrelevant? It's the average height of a cat, 2 ft is more credible than 2.5 ft.
I didn't say it was not well animated. I said things aren't always animated to scale, in fiction, in general.
Because even if he weren't a fictional cat: not every cat is average height.
Kitty's statement
Please stop using the term "word of God", it is a bit blasphemous.
Also if Puss was 0.762 m Death would be 3 m tall and no, on the other hand if we use the 0.6096 m Death would be 2.35 m tall, without the ears he would be 2.13 m tall and I already know what you're thinking "And when he's next to humans?" I knew you were going to say that so I made the comparison and the man next to him is 1.91 m tall but using the 0.762 m that man would be 2.45 m tall so don't come to me saying that 2.5 ft is better than 2 ft
Or maybe it could have been felt at 0.762 and regarding the subject of the height of Death, I can make a thread that Death can change its Shape and therefore also its height, just wait until I gather the information, give me like 5 minutes and that's it.
How close is it? Maybe in the US system of units maybe yes, it was only 0.5 feet, but in the International System 0.5 feet is equivalent to 15.24 cm, so it's not close at all.
???
Also you haven't answered my question, if Puss was really 2.5 ft, why didn't he correct Kitty even though her statement was vague? Why didn't Puss say something like "You're wrong Kitty, I'm not 2 ft, I'm 2.5"? But Puss never denied that height, so Puss is 2 ft because he never corrected Kitty.
