Anthropomorphic Duck

Printable View

08-17-2011, 08:34 PM
Mercen-X

Anthropomorphic Duck

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

I actually would have rather had Aqua cover up her upper back, but that's just my personal opinion.

As for why Donald doesn't wear pants, well, that's because he's an anthropomorphic duck, not a human; human characters have to cover up, but anthropomorphic animals don't.

Birds, I can understand. But Goofy wears pants because male canines have hanging genitalia. The same goes for Equines, Bovines, Lupines, Felines, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Devore*

Its not really double standards, that's like saying, "Why do boys go topless when swimming but the girls don't?" Although I don't think the men would complain if women started swimming topless.

Girls aren't nearly as tempted to get a quick feel of a guy's bear chest as guys are to get a quick grope on a girl. Then again, maybe our society is just sex-starved... oh my god I can't say that with a straight face.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperMillionaire

Well, perhaps, even though nudity for animals is not considered shocking, perhaps he has a shirt on because again, he's anthropomorphic.

So why does he wear a towel on the lower half of his body when he gets out of the shower.

I've long considered cartoon characters to be complete imbeciles. He wears the towel because he's too stupid to realize he doesn't need it.
08-17-2011, 09:21 PM
Del Murder

Is this intended to be a new topic or are you replying to the other thread?
08-18-2011, 04:16 AM
Rostum

Welcome to 1934.

You do not simply question Disney. You never question Disney. They are/were animation geniuses.
08-19-2011, 08:54 PM
Kossage

There's a simple reason for why Donald wears a towel when he gets out of a shower and why he wears a swimsuit when he goes to the beach: rule of funny. Also, there are two reasons for why Donald doesn't wear pants; 1) it looks silly (just look at Howard the Duck), 2) according to the animators ducks communicate with their tail feathers and thus drawing them pantless provides some comedic scenes (just watch the "Mr. Duck Steps Out" animated short as one notable example if you want proof). :)
08-20-2011, 12:42 AM
Mercen-X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rostum

Welcome to 1934.

You do not simply question Disney. You never question Disney. They are/were animation geniuses.

I would rather be stabbed in the face than admit Disney is a genius. A visionary: YES... A genius: Eh... NO.

As for Donald's pants... a lot of anthropomorphic animals have been portrayed as either bottomless or naked. Therefore, a younger viewing audience is treated to the illusion that either Tom of "Tom and Jerry" is a female or a Eunuch.

DEL MURDER: IT's a bit of both. I felt the old topic had gone off-topic and of course the thread is too old to revive. So I respond/rethread here.

Rules of Funny... I prefer slapstick, innuendo, and straight-man-idiot sketches. (i.e. The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Cleveland Show, South Park) I suppose in South Park's case, I'm also a mild fan of shock-humor.
08-20-2011, 01:06 AM
Mirage

Except Rostum was probably talking about the company, not the man. Also, who else are better at 2D animation than disney? If no one, how are they not animation geniuses?
08-20-2011, 02:23 AM
Rostum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirage

Except Rostum was probably talking about the company, not the man. Also, who else are better at 2D animation than disney? If no one, how are they not animation geniuses?

Sorry, yes I mean the company. :x
08-21-2011, 11:48 PM
Mercen-X

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirage

who else are better at 2D animation than disney? If no one, how are they not animation geniuses?

Well, I really don't know how many companies actually focused on animation in the first place, but if we're talking about 2D in general and not strictly 2D, then I've seen quite a few pieces that were better than any Re-Re-Re-Re-Recycled Disney crap... haven't you ever seen that Youtube vid? Every single Disney cartoon is the same. Animation jerks is more like it.

Weren't we talking about a duck? WTF
08-22-2011, 01:42 AM
Rostum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Well, I really don't know how many companies actually focused on animation in the first place, but if we're talking about 2D in general and not strictly 2D, then I've seen quite a few pieces that were better than any Re-Re-Re-Re-Recycled Disney crap... haven't you ever seen that Youtube vid? Every single Disney cartoon is the same. Animation jerks is more like it.

If you went and studied the history of Disney, you'd realise they are genuises. They are pretty much the founders of animation (baring some ground work before the turn of the century), and the ones who came up with the idea of actually making coherant storytelling through animation.
08-22-2011, 05:12 PM
Del Murder

Disney is the shiznit. Just ask any 4 year old.
08-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Mercen-X

Wow... the reason that I started this thread was because the last thread went off-topic, but now this thread has taken on a new topic before the initial topic even really got discussed. Whatever.

As I said before "Disney = visionary not genius"

And 4-year-olds also love any other kind of dumb kids show that really just doesn't need to try. Primary example, the big gay purple dinosaur. Not that there's anything wrong with being purple.
08-22-2011, 11:34 PM
Rostum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Wow... the reason that I started this thread was because the last thread went off-topic, but now this thread has taken on a new topic before the initial topic even really got discussed. Whatever.

What more is there really to talk about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

As I said before "Disney = visionary not genius"

As an animator in the industry I strongly disagree.
08-22-2011, 11:50 PM
Del Murder

Yeah seriously. This is a thread about Donald wearing pants. What did you expect would happen to it? :p
08-23-2011, 02:25 PM
blackmage_nuke

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirage

Also, who else are better at 2D animation than disney? If no one, how are they not animation geniuses?

Gainax makes some pretty good looking tit and im only naming them because theyre the only other 2d animation studio I know besides studio ghibli. I feel the disney company has been a bit lazy and uninspiring with thier 2d animation works lately save for a few exceptions (like winnie the pooh)
08-24-2011, 02:48 AM
Mirage

Studio Ghibli is probably the only japanese studio anywhere close to Disney in animation quality, but they're still not quite up at Disney's level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercen-X

Well, I really don't know how many companies actually focused on animation in the first place, but if we're talking about 2D in general and not strictly 2D, then I've seen quite a few pieces that were better than any Re-Re-Re-Re-Recycled Disney crap... haven't you ever seen that Youtube vid? Every single Disney cartoon is the same. Animation jerks is more like it.

Not really sure what to make of this. Yes, I've seen the youtube video you have in mind. How does it change anything? It is a compilation of a few scenes in a handful different movies, each of which were over one and a half hours long. Are you seriously arguing that that video with footage amounting to like 15 minutes tops completely invalidates dozens of hours of animation they've done in total? That's crazy talk.
08-24-2011, 08:03 AM
Rostum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirage

Studio Ghibli is probably the only japanese studio anywhere close to Disney in animation quality, but they're still not quite up at Disney's level.

I love Studio Ghibli, but even the creator of the studio has said Disney was his biggest inspiration. I definitely agree, while extremely good, Studio Ghibli isn't quite at the level of Disney.
08-26-2011, 01:46 AM
Del Murder

What was Studio Ghibli doing in the 1940s? That's the question. Nothing would have been possible without Disney. Even more recently, the 1990s saw a second golden age of animation due to Disney pioneering the way for animated films with a big-budget feel (and starring A-list talent). You cannot possibly watch films such as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, or The Lion King as a fan of animation and not say that Disney is genius.
09-03-2011, 02:00 PM
Rostum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del Murder

What was Studio Ghibli doing in the 1940s? That's the question. Nothing would have been possible without Disney. Even more recently, the 1990s saw a second golden age of animation due to Disney pioneering the way for animated films with a big-budget feel (and starring A-list talent). You cannot possibly watch films such as Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, or The Lion King as a fan of animation and not say that Disney is genius.

Absolutely +1.
09-04-2011, 01:58 AM
Jiro

Make that +2.
09-04-2011, 04:26 AM
qwertysaur

What is this kind of discussion doing in the Kingdom hearts forum of all places is the better question right now? :p
09-04-2011, 12:18 PM
Jiro

The topic is still about donald not wearing pants, we're just all knowingly derailing it.
09-04-2011, 06:25 PM
Del Murder

In Donald's defense, I am currently not wearing pants and it feels great.
09-04-2011, 07:20 PM
qwertysaur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

The topic is still about donald not wearing pants, we're just all knowingly derailing it.

Donald not wearing pants is a topic for the lounge though. It has nothing to do with Kingdom hearts.
09-12-2011, 02:52 AM
DMKA

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwertysaur

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

The topic is still about donald not wearing pants, we're just all knowingly derailing it.

Donald not wearing pants is a topic for the lounge though. It has nothing to do with Kingdom hearts.

Since when? Donald is a Kingdom Hearts character.

Should we move all those "WHY ARE TIFA'S BOOBS SO BIG?" threads to the lounge too?
09-12-2011, 06:34 AM
Jiro

Oh god what have I done :exdee: