This Tumblr User “Normalizes” Cartoon Characters And Now People Can’t Decide Which Is Better

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.

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.

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.

I don't know why they insist on making the proportions so wack when the edited ones are SO MUCH BETTER!!!

These are people's art styles, you guys. No one corrects Pablo Picasso's work, because they respect his ideals and his style. What gives anyone the right to mess with someone else's art, with the goal to highlight the fact that it was invalid and incorrect to exist the way it does. Telling someone their imagination and creation is wrongly design is one of the most idiotic insults I get to witness.

For me the edit is not "human" enough

... Am I the only one who thinks the real one looks prettier? ._.

They ALL look better edited!

This is good.

I started this thinking that I would prefer the originals. But actually, I prefer the edits. Take note, Disney, there is a revolution coming.

I like the Edits better of all of them.

I understand the idea but honestly there is a reason they look like that, stylization. The character designers stylize their character, exaggerating different elements to better get across their personality. The main reason the these have large eyes is because they are protagonist and having larger eyes makes them seem more friendly. For Gothel it’s to help make her look young, it also makes her pupils looks small and creepy, it also makes it seem possible that Rapunzel would care about her and not immediately think she’s evil

The eyes are still WAAAAAAAAAY too large!

Just the eyes been made smaller 😏

Why work backwards? like the idea is to get away from reality it's art. people have been drawing people for centuries, what is the style here? no style? why try so hard to be basic? Talent yes, vison none. looks more like a cry out of unchecked insecurities.

There are logical reasons behind having exaggerated features on cartoon/animation - same reason why stage make-up in theatres is exaggerated, it makes it easier for the audience to know how someone is emotionally feeling quickly during a scene. It's also worth reading about the 'uncanny valley' effect - as this is a real issue for any such representation of humans via. animation/cartoon.

I like your creativity. No offense but I stick with the original

Old is better than new!

I think this is a very interesting study. In every instance, the eyes remain exaggerated, but the edited version is much more comfortable to look at. Cartoons are cartoons and aren't meant to be people, but I do like the edited versions better for some reason.

Eyes really have gotten a bit out of hand in the last two decades, especially when supposedly being 'pretty'. But some characters are better overdrawn, especially the 'baddies'

I think the artist should approach the cartoon companies with these edits. It would certainly improve future films to have this artist as a consulting editor/artist for future films

thisplanetneedsal!fe