This Tumblr User “Normalizes” Cartoon Characters And Now People Can’t Decide Which Is Better
Have you ever wondered what makes the animated characters so cute? Sure, the colors and the fluff help, but the key selling point have always been their child-like features. And over the years animation companies like Disney have made that adorable look an industry standard.
Illustrator Roosa Karlsson aka TheNamelessDoll, calls it the "baby face": "The reason I call the phenomenon “baby-face” has nothing to do with a round face shape, but more with 'huge eyes+big head+tiny body'," writes Roosa. "Basically, when animated women are designed to have the same main features as babies/children. This has recently started appearing a lot in CGI animation, but has been very common in manga/anime for a while (especially shoujo)."
To highlight the technique Karlsson has Photoshopped a series of images where she gave famous animated characters a more realistic face proportions. The changes are subtle, but the overall impression actually changes quite a bit.
To the artist's surprise, her work has sparked a full-on debate on which version is better. Some say that animation doesn't have to represent real life, while the others think these unrealistic beauty standards are distorting our point of view. What do you think?
More info: TheNamelessDoll | Deviant Art (h/t: collegehumor)
This post may include affiliate links.
Honey Lemon In "Big Hero 6"
I prefer the Disney examples in pretty much every case. They have much more artistic power and expressiveness to them. While its weird they only used cgi examples... I do not see that anyone who has read Ollie Johnston and Frank Thomas' book on the mechanics of animation would think that the less expressive version was elastic enough to work. If you look aroiund a museum like the Guggenheim or the MOMA you will see the importance of exaggeration and distortion in making art. Even live action and stage actors use makeup to exaggerate certain features. And this impatient need for realism just smacks of the censorship of official state art of totalitarianism (Stalinist socialist realism, famously). But even if you do not view it on that political level, just compare how pathetic and weak the more realistic animation by Hanna Barbera or Filmation looks compared to more expressive choices used by Disney. The Disney style is much more in the style of modern art and caricature.
Aunt Cass In "Big Hero 6"
In this still frame the edited looks better, but I think in motion the non-edited version would work better due to it looking silly, and children enjoying that.
Ha! It only looks that way because the head is now smaller. Relative to the size of the head, they look bigger.
Load More Replies...Roxanne In "Megamind"
The edits are way better. The big eyes and big foreheads are, just weird.
I feel like the edit takes away from the uniqueness of the character even if it makes her look more realist.
Elsa In "Frozen"
Once you see the more 'normal' versions (they're still an exaggeration) the exaggerated eyes and tiny noses look strange. I much prefer the edits.
She looks much prettier in the edited version. I like it much better.
Elsa In "Frozen"
Like this very much! Looks more like a "human". I think we need more realistic shapes in our society. Especially for our children!
So what about cartoon animals? We don't need CARTOONS to be "realistic". We need to teach kids the difference between reality and fantasy.
Load More Replies...She looks more realistic and she still looks like Elsa! This is my favorite one. She is gorgeous!
Edited version looks a little like Emma Thompson. Looks better
Merida In "Brave"
Though u tried but I very much like the original. It attracts the kids attention
Wow... she looks so beautiful with more normal proportions.. She really is stunning! 😍
Susan In "Monsters Vs Aliens"
In this one I like the edited version better. lol I just can't decide overall.
Edited is better in the original I feel like she is a child alien but I haven't watch the movie in a while either way I think the editted would work if she was supposed to be in her 20's or 30's if 40's + a little too young but I'm pretty sure she wasn't that old
Colette In "Ratatouille"
Given the over all feeling of this movie the un-edited and sillier looking version is better.
The big eyes on the unedited versions, now you see them look a bit grotesque. Perhaps children subconsciously react better to large facial features since tose were the first they recognized.
The goal was to change the proportions, not key aspects of the character design. One of colette's key features is her larger than normal nose, so it makes sense to keep that.
Load More Replies...Anna In "Frozen"
Because they look more childish, so kids identify with them easier.
Load More Replies...Her cartoon-silly cross-eyed look is very out of place with the smaller eyes.
Elsa was only 18 or so in the movies right? So that makes her like 16? right maybe older 16 seems too young to get married but about those ages maybe a little older, so I think Anna is better edited but not age-wise she looks late 20's
To my understanding else is 21 in the movies, but I stand under correction
Load More Replies...The unedited version looks really creepy and slightly dis associated. Like she's not all there in the head when you she her next to the edited one.
Gothel In "Tangled"
Like the original better in this case , it looks more daunting and dramatic
Load More Replies...I don't understand. The "realistic" eyes are still about 8 times the size of human eyes. You went down from super deformed to just hyper ridiculously exaggerated. I don't get it. Was this a joke?
i don't get how they look more "normal". as far as I can tell it's just minor stylistic changes.
people can't decide because the artist just changed things up a little bit, but thoroughly failed to make them more "normal".
Mavis In "Hotel Transylvania"
Disagree. All the editors are doing is making the eyes smaller. Big difference.
Load More Replies...Animat should see this i bet he will find this better than the original!
Rapunzel In "Tangled"
The nose wasn't edited, so it's to small and to low for her face
Load More Replies...Linda "Rio"
Yes. If you check they are all flat to de-sexualize them.
Load More Replies...Trying to make cartoons/animation characters look more realistic... Why actually? There are dragons, unicorns, magic and all sorts of fantasy things/creatures in these movies. So why should the "humans" look realistic?
Because it's a whole new perspective that we can view and I think it's fun and a very good experience for the artist
Load More Replies...The characters are REPRESENTATIONS of people, and their shapes are supposed to be vague enough for people to see themselves in these characters. Otherwise, you might as well just stick to live action. Unrealistic beauty standards? Totally exists in magazines and fashion shoots, but this isn't the same thing. I actually think the edited versions project a more unrealistic version of reality because the animated women are perfect in their human form rather than a representation.
Let cartoon carater stay as they are. At the end, they are imagination and not supose to be like humans. Nice work, but i am prefer old version :)
Giving the characters big eyes makes it easier for children to recognise emotions as the eyes are a sort of window to the soul. I think that that effect is needed nowadays when kids are able to say horrible things because they're used to seeing a chatbox infront of them instead of real-life human expressions and reactions to the things that they say. These versions were very interesting to see definitely, but as an animation student i love the fact that you aren't limited by reality when making these types of stories.
Is it wrong I like the cartoon version better. There's a reason people watch cartoons and it's not to see realism. It's called imagination we know this isn't real but cartoons brings things you wouldn't see in real life into the equation. It's like anime.
I remember, back when I was a kid, 1990's/2000's, people used to kinda criticise all those Japanese cartoons I was so obsessed with because of their "too big eyes" while they used to praise Disney. Now.... Disney does the same thing... As for characters not needing to look realistic. Yes, I agree, they don't need to. It all depends on the genre of the cartoon, the target audience, and the effect you want to achieve. Personally, I have always preferred the beautified semi-realistic Japanese characters, Marvel and DC superheroes, Jem and the Holograms, Disney princesses and styles alike to the complete caricatures of, say, Cartoon Network or Nickledon (with a few exceptions here and there, of course, also I liked personified animals too). But that's just my own personal taste. Somehow I could (and can) sympathise with them better if they looked more like the world around me, and I could be more excited for the drama, and develop fan fiction in my head.
With disney we have to bear in mind they are fantastical fictional versions of human beings, so yes, we will naturally design them to look appealing to a wide audience. The button nosed youthful look is simply naturally appealing, and well, cute; we react to this in a similar way we react to puppies and kittens. The reasons the bodies are generic, is because that is what media depicts and teaches us is attractive. The people pointing out the creator over-analysing fictional characters are right- it IS just fiction, but these small things can and will effect certain people, although less so with bambi eyes because it's clearly unattainable. Body shapes however, we need more variety in, as it's simply more noticeable, and yes I get kids aren't automatically going to diet after watching a disney film, but there ARE members of the audience, not just kids, who are easily affected by this sort of thing. Overall, we should just try to include every type of body and face, and enjoy fantasy.
I will say that I for one, look forward to seeing a healthy plus sized princess :)
Load More Replies...Am I the only one who sees this, thinks the second versions are far more attractive, and worries that the attempt to make cartoons look like actual human beings just means it will be that much easier for little girls to compare themselves to the (still very difficult to attain) appearance of the more realistic human depiction, rather than to project themselves on the more cartoonish, obviously disproportionate and un-human proportions of the originals. In other words, it seems easier to differentiate yourself from something that is obviously not real than to differentiate yourself from something that looks like an actual idealized human. Sort of like how the proliferation of extremely fit and attractive instagram models (with a side of photoshopping) has had a negative impact on many older women's (and let's be real, men's too) body images. Perhaps it's better for us to go the opposite direction and make the cartoons more stylized, rather than more human.
But just to be clear, this was a very cool project, and it would be neat to see more experiments like this. :)
Load More Replies...Trying to make cartoons/animation characters look more realistic... Why actually? There are dragons, unicorns, magic and all sorts of fantasy things/creatures in these movies. So why should the "humans" look realistic?
Because it's a whole new perspective that we can view and I think it's fun and a very good experience for the artist
Load More Replies...The characters are REPRESENTATIONS of people, and their shapes are supposed to be vague enough for people to see themselves in these characters. Otherwise, you might as well just stick to live action. Unrealistic beauty standards? Totally exists in magazines and fashion shoots, but this isn't the same thing. I actually think the edited versions project a more unrealistic version of reality because the animated women are perfect in their human form rather than a representation.
Let cartoon carater stay as they are. At the end, they are imagination and not supose to be like humans. Nice work, but i am prefer old version :)
Giving the characters big eyes makes it easier for children to recognise emotions as the eyes are a sort of window to the soul. I think that that effect is needed nowadays when kids are able to say horrible things because they're used to seeing a chatbox infront of them instead of real-life human expressions and reactions to the things that they say. These versions were very interesting to see definitely, but as an animation student i love the fact that you aren't limited by reality when making these types of stories.
Is it wrong I like the cartoon version better. There's a reason people watch cartoons and it's not to see realism. It's called imagination we know this isn't real but cartoons brings things you wouldn't see in real life into the equation. It's like anime.
I remember, back when I was a kid, 1990's/2000's, people used to kinda criticise all those Japanese cartoons I was so obsessed with because of their "too big eyes" while they used to praise Disney. Now.... Disney does the same thing... As for characters not needing to look realistic. Yes, I agree, they don't need to. It all depends on the genre of the cartoon, the target audience, and the effect you want to achieve. Personally, I have always preferred the beautified semi-realistic Japanese characters, Marvel and DC superheroes, Jem and the Holograms, Disney princesses and styles alike to the complete caricatures of, say, Cartoon Network or Nickledon (with a few exceptions here and there, of course, also I liked personified animals too). But that's just my own personal taste. Somehow I could (and can) sympathise with them better if they looked more like the world around me, and I could be more excited for the drama, and develop fan fiction in my head.
With disney we have to bear in mind they are fantastical fictional versions of human beings, so yes, we will naturally design them to look appealing to a wide audience. The button nosed youthful look is simply naturally appealing, and well, cute; we react to this in a similar way we react to puppies and kittens. The reasons the bodies are generic, is because that is what media depicts and teaches us is attractive. The people pointing out the creator over-analysing fictional characters are right- it IS just fiction, but these small things can and will effect certain people, although less so with bambi eyes because it's clearly unattainable. Body shapes however, we need more variety in, as it's simply more noticeable, and yes I get kids aren't automatically going to diet after watching a disney film, but there ARE members of the audience, not just kids, who are easily affected by this sort of thing. Overall, we should just try to include every type of body and face, and enjoy fantasy.
I will say that I for one, look forward to seeing a healthy plus sized princess :)
Load More Replies...Am I the only one who sees this, thinks the second versions are far more attractive, and worries that the attempt to make cartoons look like actual human beings just means it will be that much easier for little girls to compare themselves to the (still very difficult to attain) appearance of the more realistic human depiction, rather than to project themselves on the more cartoonish, obviously disproportionate and un-human proportions of the originals. In other words, it seems easier to differentiate yourself from something that is obviously not real than to differentiate yourself from something that looks like an actual idealized human. Sort of like how the proliferation of extremely fit and attractive instagram models (with a side of photoshopping) has had a negative impact on many older women's (and let's be real, men's too) body images. Perhaps it's better for us to go the opposite direction and make the cartoons more stylized, rather than more human.
But just to be clear, this was a very cool project, and it would be neat to see more experiments like this. :)
Load More Replies...
