Worries consume my thoughts
All good that could be vanishes
No longer is the pathway clear
No more can I see what lies ahead
Uncertainty and chance are all that remain
But even those feel unstable
A thousand different cries
A million tears being shed in frustration
Not having a clue
All the voices say the same
These are my favorite opals. Don’t they look like hatching dragon eggs? My mom has a bunch, but we went into an opal store and they had cases and cases of them. It looked like an incubator lol
NO YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND
i told my mom that god has killed babies in the bible and she didn’t believe me so i searched it up and to my surprise
there’s a list???
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST
in conclusion god is an asshole
okay well I mean ten murders is still bad though so
god gambles with your souls pass it on
Because kids only care about love regardless of their parents’ genders
There’s been discussion about head-to-body ratio and body proportions over at feministdisney, and I just wanted to point this out because this is something I think about whenever I watch these two movies.
One of the most common features of animated characters, especially in children’s movies, is a high head-to-body ratio. The human body is usually between 7 and 7.5 heads tall; animated characters often range between 4.5 and 6 heads tall. In this case, Nani is five heads tall and Aurora is six heads tall.
Both have very small waists compared to their heads, but Nani is somehow more “normal”-looking than Aurora in terms of her body proportions.
The reason why becomes obvious if you adjust the size of the heads (excuse my photoshop). When you make Nani’s head smaller, so that she is seven heads tall and proportioned like a real human, her waist and hips are a believable size, significantly larger than her head.
Nani has narrow shoulders, small breasts, a bit of belly fat, wide hips and muscular legs. She’s almost a little pear-shaped. The animation style also causes her to be very rounded-looking in general.
If you resize Aurora’s head, however, it is still larger than her waist. She is extremely wasp-waisted, with a large bust and very narrow ankles, wrists and neck.
I have a few points here. The first is that most of the Disney princesses are horrendously proportioned; the second is that it’s possible to create a character with that apparently oh-so-desired head-to-waist ratio without making them ultra-thin. I love the character designs in Lilo and Stitch; their large heads and hands and rounded bodies make them very expressive. By contrast, Aurora is not very appealing to me.
Hi. Might I may add a few things?
Some Disney films, like Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty used something called Live-action referencing. This means they used a live model for the artists to reference from. So, Aurora, the princess you don’t like so much, is modeled from a real person. If you throw in your personal preference, you much prefer an unrealistic view on the female form, than what females really are.
But, seriously, if anyone is bitching about fucking cartoon characters, let’s see them design, plan, draw and animate an almost two hour feature. Disney’s had a long practice in doing what they do, and I really think a critique on two different artists’ designs from two different eras, drawn in two different ways, is complete ridiculous.
Are you seriously trying to say Aurora is a more realistic depiction of the human form because she’s ‘based on a real person’?
First off, can you provide proof that the artists designing and animating Nani didn’t use a reference to the human form? It seems to me that they may have just done their jobs, you know, better than the people who worked on Aurora.
Second, base a character off a real person all you want, you’re still not gonna find people walking around with waists smaller than their heads. I don’t even see how your part about Aurora being based of a real person was relevant, unless you truly believe she is an unexaggerated example of the human form. In which case I invite you to actually observe the people around you.
Third, movies, particularly Disney animated movies, are not created in a vacuum. Many people contribute to the creative process and review what is being created, and all of these people bring certain things to the table. You act like you are defending two specific artists but in reality you are defending an entire group of industry professionals, and you’re trying to tell me that in the case of Aurora it was okay for this entire fucking group to pass this character design without thinking ‘damn, this is a super unrealistic human form, could this have negative ramifications on our young and impressionable audience?’
Fourth, has Disney stopped creating impossibly thin and disproportionate Disney princesses? Uh, not even a little bit. So how is it relevant that these two examples are from different eras? Lilo and Stitch was a lucky hit in a storm of years of animated movie bullshit, and it’s a mistake to view it as progress on Disney’s part.
XDDDD!!! I pissed one off! Someone owes me $5.
Chill out. It’s just an opinion, and a fact, but more of an opinion.
When people judge on looks, it’s completely shallow. I got a good laugh from your explanation. Thank you. :)
Look, I appreciate all the undermining bullshit you used to try to invalidate my argument but it’s the least substantial way to make yourself look credible. Adding passive aggressive smiley faces and telling someone to ‘chill out’ are just tactics to make yourself look superior, because clearly people who are angry about things are irrational, right?
I can take angry rebuttals, but passive aggressive ones are just bullshit.
I don’t understand the problem. I give my opinion on the OP’s post and you come out of nowhere, bitching about something I said. Seriously, chill out.