1.1Mviews
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.
The scary thing here is that the "my edit" photos seem like the originals that were then edited after the fact for the movies' release.
1st one goes with her crazy character though the second one makes her look like barbie
Ah! You make the body bigger, and well as 'downsize' the head. Tok me a while to spot it. Very well done. (I do something similar with anime characters. I call it "enfattening" ( - which should more accurately be called "de-skinnifying'', I suppose.) It also involves thing like shortening leg-length and sometimes lengthening skirts. It is very satisfying.
Wow! Now the original face looks really strange! Really wonderful edit!
I'm having Barbie vibes. Must be the pink powder. But really pretty still.
She already looked 'normal' in the first one. She looks more unrealistic now
Wow, you make the characters much more boring to look at and less able to convey expression. The exaggerations have always been there for a reason since the early days of cartooning. You need a new hobby. Go shrink all the boobs in porn movies. That will make you feel good.
Aunt Cass In "Big Hero 6"
Roxanne In "Megamind"
The edits are way better. The big eyes and big foreheads are, just weird.
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.
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!
Merida In "Brave"
Susan In "Monsters Vs Aliens"
Colette In "Ratatouille"
Anna In "Frozen"
Gothel In "Tangled"
Mavis In "Hotel Transylvania"
Linda "Rio"
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... The edited versions would turn me off of cartoons forever. Like if you never want your kids to enjoy childhood show them realistic cartoons. Egh.
Awwww.... No Final Fantasy for your children then... Ah well, it was meant for adolescents anyway...
Load More Replies...
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.
I think the edited versions are actually cuter, more pleasant to look at...
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 appreciate this because, if you look at research done on mating preference, the ideals for women are actually right on the cusp of being unhealthily skinny. Like 0.1 bmi point lower and it would push them into the underweight category. Men do not have the same stereotype, but how would they like it if there were more movies where the husband is not the prince? Perceived intelligence, social standing, and resources are perceived as attractive qualities for men according to national institute of health articles. If men in movies were 97% of the time rich, Mensa member, influencers, then wouldn't the men want normalized male depictions too? This normalization done by the artist, to me, says - hey, you may have thought you were a failure because you have an 8.5/10 face (according to measurements) and a healthy but not perfect bmi (20 not 18), but you can still have confidence in your appearance and not let yourself be treated like you're unlovable. Unrealistic images, unrealistic ideas.
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 more realistic it looks the more you hit the uncanny valley and people reject it. Animators have already known this for a long time. Also the more you exaggerate the features the more you can make the expressions elastic for sight gags like eyes popping out or tongue rolling out to floor. Dreamworks makes this mistake, why you see that meme of their characters making the same "smirk" face
They went from Big head, little bodies to tiny heads, big bodies. Most of them still don't look proportional, even after "normalization".
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.
Here's an idea? How about we congratulate someone on the skill of even morphing these in the first place? Ok, so you like the animated version, great! Why knock someone who likes it to look more realistic. That's the other wonders of animation. Some people LOVE to see someone who has the skill to normalize their creations and some like exaggerated. I'm trying to understand why people are complaining about others giving praise of a this artist's work????
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 prefer the realistic one. Sometimes you just realise how fake the movie one is after you checked out the realistic one. By the way the "realistic/edited" Elsa from Frozen has 100 % my face proportions, thats so damn strange XD X'D and looks like me, except the hair colour, bcs I coloured mine brown.
I love most of the original ones rather than the ones you "normalized" the only one I like the difference of is Linda from Rio. Other than that keep It orginal. They are animation characters for a reason, they aren't supposed to look realistic. The normalizing Of a lot of them make them look terrifying or manly. Not cool.
I will admit this is really amazing and gives a new perspective of Disney characters. But, the was the original was shown is the signatures style of Disney...While it would be nice to see a variety in figure, I don't agree with making them look more 'realistic', they are classics, we should not have to change that. If they wanted them to look more realistic they would have used real people and not made it animation.
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.
You're edits are way better. The one turn off watching disney animated shows is the ridiculous bug eyes and scrawny stick necks. Your edits are far more appealing, wish they'd switch to yours.
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'
This is kinda rude since, in a way, they're all their art styles. Imagine you drew something the way you imagine it, and people corrected it into something they deemed proper and correct/valid?, that's kinda messed up, you guys...
I totally agree. As a person that also draws I can totally relate to this. I find this disrespectful towards the artists.
Load More Replies...
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
Realistic characters actually freak out most of the people. There was a quite good article in the topic. While a realistic character will look good on a still image, it will be very "zombish" on a motion picture. These characters are not meant to be "pretty", but to be lovable. And the totally intended imperfections make them lovable.
I disagree. The realisticly designed unrealisticly beautiful Final Fantasy characters are far from zombies and far from creepy in their motion pictures. And yet, the films are much less successful than the games... Also, Last of Us, where characters do look realistic, even more than FF, actually, they don't look nothing like creepy and the game was not only successful, it's a modern classic already!
Load More Replies...
Overall it's the story that matters whether it's fantasy or not. A lot of you are just stating your preferences about how faces should look in how you'd want to indulge yourselves in Animated films; which is ok but nonetheless irrelevant. I appreciate the time the editor took to show the alternative..
Realistic how? their eyes are still enormous! And oh my goodness the distance between their eyes would be an enormous birth defect
By playing around with eyes and cheeks? Animation characters are tend to be unrealistic. So?
Why are you trying to make then realistic? They are CARTOONS! Our children need imagination, not freaking feminism at age 5.
Really loved the idea to "normalize" the characters but people must understand that the artist has his own unique style to represent in his cartoons, anyway despite that normalized characters might look a bit normal but they become a bit "meh meh" big eyes and face being very round is especially implemented for females straight face big jaw and strong defined nose is for man thats why this normalization is alienating the characters.
Part of the appeal those moves have is the art. It's easy to make them look normal, but it's may harder to make all sorts of random looking characters fit into the same world. Besides, if we want realism we can just watch a normal movie.
Doesn't look bad but its not their style! :P Big ol eyes is what makes them lovable I think...
I like the originals better, by far ... I have never and will never expect "realism" from cartoons, let alone any from Disney ... it's fantasy ... keep it that way ... Disclaimer: the comment above is strictly an opinion.
okay so where are all the huge shoulder, tiny waist, giant chin freak looking leading men types in these discussions? i mean all the stupid "unrealistic body images" c**p for the likes of Barbie and s**t. Where's the same outrage over He-Man or any other overly muscled six-pack toting Super Hero body types for men and boys? Nowhere! Because only idiot bull dyke feminist hate spewers make a big deal out of this c**p. Okay let the hate and down votes start flowing..........
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... The edited versions would turn me off of cartoons forever. Like if you never want your kids to enjoy childhood show them realistic cartoons. Egh.
Awwww.... No Final Fantasy for your children then... Ah well, it was meant for adolescents anyway...
Load More Replies... 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.
I think the edited versions are actually cuter, more pleasant to look at...
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 appreciate this because, if you look at research done on mating preference, the ideals for women are actually right on the cusp of being unhealthily skinny. Like 0.1 bmi point lower and it would push them into the underweight category. Men do not have the same stereotype, but how would they like it if there were more movies where the husband is not the prince? Perceived intelligence, social standing, and resources are perceived as attractive qualities for men according to national institute of health articles. If men in movies were 97% of the time rich, Mensa member, influencers, then wouldn't the men want normalized male depictions too? This normalization done by the artist, to me, says - hey, you may have thought you were a failure because you have an 8.5/10 face (according to measurements) and a healthy but not perfect bmi (20 not 18), but you can still have confidence in your appearance and not let yourself be treated like you're unlovable. Unrealistic images, unrealistic ideas.
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 more realistic it looks the more you hit the uncanny valley and people reject it. Animators have already known this for a long time. Also the more you exaggerate the features the more you can make the expressions elastic for sight gags like eyes popping out or tongue rolling out to floor. Dreamworks makes this mistake, why you see that meme of their characters making the same "smirk" face
They went from Big head, little bodies to tiny heads, big bodies. Most of them still don't look proportional, even after "normalization".
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.
Here's an idea? How about we congratulate someone on the skill of even morphing these in the first place? Ok, so you like the animated version, great! Why knock someone who likes it to look more realistic. That's the other wonders of animation. Some people LOVE to see someone who has the skill to normalize their creations and some like exaggerated. I'm trying to understand why people are complaining about others giving praise of a this artist's work????
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 prefer the realistic one. Sometimes you just realise how fake the movie one is after you checked out the realistic one. By the way the "realistic/edited" Elsa from Frozen has 100 % my face proportions, thats so damn strange XD X'D and looks like me, except the hair colour, bcs I coloured mine brown.
I love most of the original ones rather than the ones you "normalized" the only one I like the difference of is Linda from Rio. Other than that keep It orginal. They are animation characters for a reason, they aren't supposed to look realistic. The normalizing Of a lot of them make them look terrifying or manly. Not cool.
I will admit this is really amazing and gives a new perspective of Disney characters. But, the was the original was shown is the signatures style of Disney...While it would be nice to see a variety in figure, I don't agree with making them look more 'realistic', they are classics, we should not have to change that. If they wanted them to look more realistic they would have used real people and not made it animation.
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.
You're edits are way better. The one turn off watching disney animated shows is the ridiculous bug eyes and scrawny stick necks. Your edits are far more appealing, wish they'd switch to yours.
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'
This is kinda rude since, in a way, they're all their art styles. Imagine you drew something the way you imagine it, and people corrected it into something they deemed proper and correct/valid?, that's kinda messed up, you guys...
I totally agree. As a person that also draws I can totally relate to this. I find this disrespectful towards the artists.
Load More Replies... 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
Realistic characters actually freak out most of the people. There was a quite good article in the topic. While a realistic character will look good on a still image, it will be very "zombish" on a motion picture. These characters are not meant to be "pretty", but to be lovable. And the totally intended imperfections make them lovable.
I disagree. The realisticly designed unrealisticly beautiful Final Fantasy characters are far from zombies and far from creepy in their motion pictures. And yet, the films are much less successful than the games... Also, Last of Us, where characters do look realistic, even more than FF, actually, they don't look nothing like creepy and the game was not only successful, it's a modern classic already!
Load More Replies... Overall it's the story that matters whether it's fantasy or not. A lot of you are just stating your preferences about how faces should look in how you'd want to indulge yourselves in Animated films; which is ok but nonetheless irrelevant. I appreciate the time the editor took to show the alternative..
Realistic how? their eyes are still enormous! And oh my goodness the distance between their eyes would be an enormous birth defect
By playing around with eyes and cheeks? Animation characters are tend to be unrealistic. So?
Why are you trying to make then realistic? They are CARTOONS! Our children need imagination, not freaking feminism at age 5.
Really loved the idea to "normalize" the characters but people must understand that the artist has his own unique style to represent in his cartoons, anyway despite that normalized characters might look a bit normal but they become a bit "meh meh" big eyes and face being very round is especially implemented for females straight face big jaw and strong defined nose is for man thats why this normalization is alienating the characters.
Part of the appeal those moves have is the art. It's easy to make them look normal, but it's may harder to make all sorts of random looking characters fit into the same world. Besides, if we want realism we can just watch a normal movie.
Doesn't look bad but its not their style! :P Big ol eyes is what makes them lovable I think...
I like the originals better, by far ... I have never and will never expect "realism" from cartoons, let alone any from Disney ... it's fantasy ... keep it that way ... Disclaimer: the comment above is strictly an opinion.
okay so where are all the huge shoulder, tiny waist, giant chin freak looking leading men types in these discussions? i mean all the stupid "unrealistic body images" c**p for the likes of Barbie and s**t. Where's the same outrage over He-Man or any other overly muscled six-pack toting Super Hero body types for men and boys? Nowhere! Because only idiot bull dyke feminist hate spewers make a big deal out of this c**p. Okay let the hate and down votes start flowing..........
