Was Venonat supposed to evolve into Butterfree?

[Shiny Grimer]

Something that I always found weird as a kid was how much Venonat and Butterfree looked alike.

The eyes, mouth and hands are definitely similar. The feet and antennae are somewhat similar as well.

Someone on TVTropes has speculated that perhaps the sprites were switched for Butterfree and Venemoth:

This Butterfree/Venomoth peculiarity actually appears to be a mistake. While there are plenty of different species that look similar, it's clear that Butterfree and Venomoth had their sprites switched somehow (Personally, I like to imagine it happening like those old Reese's Peanut Butter Cups commercials). First, compare the appearances of Venonat and Butterfree: Butterfree shares Venonat's feet, hands, mouth, eyes, antennae, and body colour - especially notable considering the fact that Venonat is nothing more than a purple puffball with said features. Venomoth, on the other hand, has absolutely nothing in common with Venonat. Next, compare Venomoth to Caterpie and Metapod. Again, they have a suspicious amount in common. They have the same eyes, the same basic body structure, and the same forehead crest - compare Metapod's head to Venomoth's. Butterfree looks nothing like it's evolutionary family. There's really no denying it - Nintendo made a mistake. It seems like they slipped up in the first generation of Pokemon games - rather than owning up to their blunder, they left it as it was.

I suppose it's possible that Venemoth was meant to be the evolution of Caterpie and Metapod and Butterfree came from Venonat. It woudl xplain the identical faces.

What do you think? Is there a Venonat-Butterfree connection?

 

[Aisling]

Hm... An interesting thought, but personally I doubt it. The similarity only exists if you describe it vaguely... "Round mouth, two teeth, segmented eyes". Their Sugimori art (I've always assumed they were done first, before the sprites, but I'm not sure) looks quite different...

Butterfree's eyes are "cuter", and the two teeth are smaller, and you'd think that was the other way around. Venomoth, on the other hand, has even bigger fangs than Venonat.

Besides, (inferring again that the Sugimori art came first) you'd think Butterfree would also have brown hands and feet to match Venonat's, instead of changing to blue.

On that note, Golem doesn't look much like its evolutionary family either, so just the fact that Venonat and Venomoth don't have much in common doesn't mean much. I mean... Geodude and Golem: humanoid faces upon gray boulders, gaining limbs with evolution... and Golem: suddenly losing that new pair of limbs, growing a dark shell and a dinosaurian face. At least Venonat and Venomoth are both purple. :P

 

[Yarnchu]

Unless Butterfree is supposed to look like a cuter Venonat, I don't think they were supposed to be related. However, it is still a possibility since a lot of pokemon don't resemble their evolutions(like the aforementioned Graveler/Golem evo, or Rhydon/Rhyperior). But we must remember something: they are both bugs, so they will have some general features, like the mouthes and the eyes. Paras has a similar mouth to Venomoth, and similar eyes, but he doesn't evolve into Venomoth.

Still, nice theory there.

 

[Shiny Grimer]

For future reference, I am only judging based off of the early sprites since that is where any supposed "mix up" would be most likely to happen. Anything after red, blue, green, and yellow would have already cemented the idea of Venomoth evolving from Venonat and Butterfree from Metapod.

Hm... An interesting thought, but personally I doubt it. The similarity only exists if you describe it vaguely... "Round mouth, two teeth, segmented eyes". Their Sugimori art (I've always assumed they were done first, before the sprites, but I'm not sure) looks quite different...

The similarity is very obvious in the original, sucky art (which is sucky because the artist(s) chose very boring poses and had really bad coloring skills), where their faces were practically identical. The sugimori art is newer and based off the FR LF/ RS sprites (I think).

Butterfree's eyes are "cuter", and the two teeth are smaller, and you'd think that was the other way around. Venomoth, on the other hand, has even bigger fangs than Venonat.

In the red/green sprites, the eyes are just as ugly and bug-like as Venonat's. The teeth are smaller, I'll give you that, but I suppose this is a Caterpillar > Butterfly change. The caterpillars with immense spikes don't keep them after turning into butterflies. Venomoth's fangs aren't very visible in the RBGY sprites, as well.

Besides, (inferring again that the Sugimori art came first) you'd think Butterfree would also have brown hands and feet to match Venonat's, instead of changing to blue.

The Sugimori art did not come first; I believe that the sucky art or the Red/Green sprites came first, and I'm not sure if the art or the sprites were first. If we take the sprites to be the original, notice how the legs and arms on Venonat and Butterfree are the same color. I don't know why they're different colors; presumably, the sprites are based off some sketches by Satoshi Tajiri and we don't know what those looked like.

That is pretty weird, and I'd say that it's somethign that keeps me from putting too much faith in this theory.

On that note, Golem doesn't look much like its evolutionary family either, so just the fact that Venonat and Venomoth don't have much in common doesn't mean much. I mean... Geodude and Golem: humanoid faces upon gray boulders, gaining limbs with evolution... and Golem: suddenly losing that new pair of limbs, growing a dark shell and a dinosaurian face. At least Venonat and Venomoth are both purple. :P

It's true that many evolutions look nothing alike, such as Golem and Dragonite. However, Venonat is notable not because its evolution is dissimilar but rather because there is another Pokemon with notably similar features that would make sense for Venonat to evolve into. Like I said, as a kid (and even now), I noticed that Venonat and Butterfree had extremely similar faces whereas Venomoth didn't even have the same eyes. I'm not strong on the 'Venomoth was meant to evolve from Metapod' theory, but they do have the same eyes and Metapod, Caterpie and Venomoth share the same pointy crest on the head. It could all be coincidence, but I think this theory merits more dicussion. ;)

Unless Butterfree is supposed to look like a cuter Venonat, I don't think they were supposed to be related. However, it is still a possibility since a lot of pokemon don't resemble their evolutions(like the aforementioned Graveler/Golem evo, or Rhydon/Rhyperior). But we must remember something: they are both bugs, so they will have some general features, like the mouthes and the eyes. Paras has a similar mouth to Venomoth, and similar eyes, but he doesn't evolve into Venomoth.

Paras doesn't really have that similar a mouth. I mean, I guess you can kind of see the resemblance, but it's not really strong. The eyes are the same, though.
Venonat is pretty darn close to Butterfree, though. The same eyes, same mouth, same antennae, similar feet, and even really similar color are very suspicious. I think there's a strong enough resemblance between Venonat and Butterfree to warrant some more thinking.

 

[Aisling]

The similarity is very obvious in the original, sucky art (which is sucky because the artist(s) chose very boring poses and had really bad coloring skills), where their faces were practically identical. The sugimori art is newer and based off the FR LF/ RS sprites (I think).

The artist is one and the same, Ken Sugimori. He's gotten much better, can't you tell?

The Sugimori art did not come first; I believe that the sucky art or the Red/Green sprites came first,

Exactly. Except, it's all "the Sugimori art" (as stated above; I'm referring to the older watercolor looking ones). I tend to think the art came first though since it's easier to base sprites off of larger illustrations, than the other way around.

If we take the sprites to be the original, notice how the legs and arms on Venonat and Butterfree are the same color.

Because Gameboys didn't have a lot of color back then. ;p


The theory does have some merit, I just personally doubt it's true. I'd chalk it up to coincidence since the designs of all the Pokemon up until R/S/E were done by the same guy (with some suggestions from Satoshi Tajiri, I'm sure, since he and Ken were friends even before the creation of the first Pokemon).

EDIT: Not to derail the topic but I just found something random and kind of interesting with maybe some slight relevance to "Which came first, the sprite or the art?" question...
I was going through Psypoke's Picdex reassuring myself as to why I like the old Sugimori art better and came across Cloyster...

Art

Green/Red sprite

Red/Blue sprite
He's been flipped ninety degrees! Wonder what to make of that?

 

[Shiny Grimer]

The artist is one and the same, Ken Sugimori. He's gotten much better, can't you tell?

For the G/S pictures, yes. For the block color pictures... no.

Exactly. Except, it's all "the Sugimori art" (as stated above; I'm referring to the older watercolor looking ones). I tend to think the art came first though since it's easier to base sprites off of larger illustrations, than the other way around.

Well, I'm referring to the block color illustrations used in the Official Pokemon guide. Those were the ones seen everywhere; I don't recall the watercolor illustrations existing until Gold and Silver. For instance, each poster or guide for Pokemon Red, Blue, and yellow that I've seen uses either the really old art, the 3D models, or the sprites. None use the watercolor pictures.

Because Gameboys didn't have a lot of color back then. ;p

Yeah, I said that. What I meant was that it was possible that Butterfree and Venonat did have the same limb color but that due to the limited abilities of the Gameboy, Butterfree ended up with blue limbs when it might have had something else originally (possibly closer to Venonat's current limb color).

The theory does have some merit, I just personally doubt it's true. I'd chalk it up to coincidence since the designs of all the Pokemon up until R/S/E were done by the same guy (with some suggestions from Satoshi Tajiri, I'm sure, since he and Ken were friends even before the creation of the first Pokemon).

Well, according to this one site I saw, Satoshi Tajiri designed over a thousand Pokemon (most of them bug-themed) and from there, picked the most monstrous ones to go into the games. A game full entirely of Bug Pokemon would be a little weird. :x

Not to derail the topic but I just found something random and kind of interesting with maybe some slight relevance to "Which came first, the sprite or the art?" question...
I was going through Psypoke's Picdex reassuring myself as to why I like the old Sugimori art better and came across Cloyster...

Art

Green/Red sprite

Red/Blue sprite
He's been flipped ninety degrees!

It's weird; the first sprites were the Green/Red ones, but then for red and blue, it changed, and then for gold and silver, it went back to the original form...

Maybe it was based off a really weird Cloyster?

 

[Ambipom]

Hey, can I have a link to the site that said Tajiri designed thousandsome Pokemon? It seems intresting.

 

[Aisling]

For the G/S pictures, yes. For the block color pictures... no.



Well, I'm referring to the block color illustrations used in the Official Pokemon guide. Those were the ones seen everywhere; I don't recall the watercolor illustrations existing until Gold and Silver. For instance, each poster or guide for Pokemon Red, Blue, and yellow that I've seen uses either the really old art, the 3D models, or the sprites. None use the watercolor pictures.

Block color pictures?

These ones? (I always kind of assumed they were watercolor but block color works too) Psypoke refers to them as "Sugimori art" and all the Pokemon cards with this series of pictures in the illustations are credited to Ken Sugimori. Is there even older art I'm unaware of? I think we're still referring to the same ones...

Wikipedia has this to say about Ken Sugimori:

Ken Sugimori (杉森建 ,Sugimori Ken?) (born January 27, 1966 in Tokyo) is a Japanese illustrator most famous for being the art director of the Pokémon franchise. A friend of Satoshi Tajiri, the creator of the franchise, Sugimori is responsible for the bulk of Pokémon art and almost single-handedly designed the first 251 Pokémon (since Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, others have helped to design the characters). He is also responsible for designing many of the main characters in the Pokémon video games, such as Red, Blue, and the various Gym Leaders. Also among his work is a majority of early Pokémon cards.

Bulbapedia sez:

Sugimori's change of style over the years has been noticeable. Initially, he used a stiff, lightly-shaded style that was very reminiscent of the early works of Akira Toriyama. However, in recent years, his drawings of people and creatures have had more muscle definition, shading, and more natural and fluid poses.

The original artwork for the games was drawn by Tajiri's friend, the artist Ken Sugimori.

Sorry if you weren't implying Sugimori didn't do the first set of art seen in the guides and booklet that came with the game and etc. and this was a waste of post. :B It doesn't really contribute to the debate itself about Venonat and Butterfree... maybe it can be used for future reference or sommat?

 

[Shiny Grimer]

Hey, can I have a link to the site that said Tajiri designed thousandsome Pokemon? It seems intresting.

It was a site called either 'Pokedream' or a much older one which unfortunatley, I don't remember, but I don't think it exists anymore. :( A quick google search on Tajiri 1000 pokemon doesn't reveal anything; it's possible the site was making it up, but I found it to be interesting. Maybe someone with better google-fu could have better luck finding it.

Block color pictures?

These ones? (I always kind of assumed they were watercolor but block color works too) Psypoke refers to them as "Sugimori art" and all the Pokemon cards with this series of pictures in the illustations are credited to Ken Sugimori. Is there even older art I'm unaware of? I think we're still referring to the same ones...

Sorry if you weren't implying Sugimori didn't do the first set of art seen in the guides and booklet that came with the game and etc. and this was a waste of post. :B It doesn't really contribute to the debate itself about Venonat and Butterfree... maybe it can be used for future reference or sommat?

That is the style of art to which I refer to. I call it 'block color' because the shading (which I guess is cel shading, not block shading) is colored in blocks, not smoothly. I don't know how old it is, but I first recall seeing the Sugimori art YOU refer to in the Gold/Silver generation, but not during Red/Blue/Yellow.

In that case, I wonder what kind of art I'm talking about. I'm not so sure was to when it was made or who made it - I only know that it's very old and rarely used anymore.

 

[nothing to see here]

The official strategy guide for Red/Blue used the "watercolor-ish" original Sugimori art (like the Cloyster picture someone posted.) I have a copy of the thing right in front of me.
They were also used for the box art of the games (for the US version at least; maybe even in the Japanese version, though it's been a while since I've seen the Japanese box art), the instruction manuals, the first few sets of the card game, and pretty much everything else.

I don't remember ever seeing the "block color art" used in anything official; mostly just in old magazines and such. I'm pretty sure it's more recent than the watercolor Sugimori art, though... it probably wasn't around until after the anime came out, since the ultra-simplified shading and details are much closer to the anime's style than to the Sugimori art or even the sprites.

 

[Aisling]

That is the style of art to which I refer to. I call it 'block color' because the shading (which I guess is cel shading, not block shading) is colored in blocks, not smoothly. I don't know how old it is, but I first recall seeing the Sugimori art YOU refer to in the Gold/Silver generation, but not during Red/Blue/Yellow.

In that case, I wonder what kind of art I'm talking about. I'm not so sure was to when it was made or who made it - I only know that it's very old and rarely used anymore.

Oh, the anime art. I think it's properly called cel-shaded. Yes, that for sure came later than the images I posted. Those were in the actual booklets that came with the Red and Blue games- I still have mine for Red. I didn't see any art like yours until I got the "Pokemon Handbook" (I posted it in another thread but forgot which one) a few years later. I'll have to find it and check the copyright dates inside it, but the anime came after the games either way.

 

[Murkrow]

I think it's possible. They do look similar enough...

I had a similar, yet probably less likely theory. I thought that Gastly and Haunter didn't look too similar, and Gastly, Cloyster and Tangela looked more similar and I thought they were related. However, this is less likely because they're just... black blobs.

Venonat and Butterfree look waaay more similar in my opinion. I can't believe I didn't notice that before.

 

[Bombsii]

Wow. I noticed the eye thing before but i've only just found all of the similarities. Venonat is too cute and awesome for butterfree though.

 

[ultraviolet]

Even in the D/P art it looks like it could fit.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Wow. Yeah, I hadn't noticed those similarities before. The whole metamorphosis thing doesn't really explain how the eyes could switch. Even if that was the case, though, it's far too late for anything to be done about it.

*bangs head* How did I miss the similarities?

 

[Yarnchu]

Wow. Yeah, I hadn't noticed those similarities before. The whole metamorphosis thing doesn't really explain how the eyes could switch. Even if that was the case, though, it's far too late for anything to be done about it.

*bangs head* How did I miss the similarities?

Well, Graveler completely changes BODY structure when it evolves, not just the eyes.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

That's true, but there's no other pokemon that might have evolved into a golem, so it couldn't have been accidentally switched.

Your theory has quite a lot of merit, I must say. But we'll never know unless someone official admits it or proves it wrong.

 

[Darksong]

Now that I notice, it does seem like it would. Also, Caterpie is a silkworm; and silkworms become moths, not butterflies.

 

[Aisling]

Now that I notice, it does seem like it would. Also, Caterpie is a silkworm; and silkworms become moths, not butterflies.

They don't become bumblebees with drills for hands either. :p

I think the key to figuring this out is figuring out if the art or the sprites were done first. The Sugimori art definitely doesn't lend itself to this theory as much as the sprites do... Not many evolutions back then looked so much cuter than their base forms.

 

[ultraviolet]

Well obviously the sugimori art would have been done first - it's concept art. Anyone who's tried to scratch anything knows that it's a pain in the ass to scratch sprite without having some kind of sketch to follow.