purtie

8

When Arya sees the offer of a large reward for the safe return of the lost prince Gendry Baratheon, she sees it as the perfect time to pull off the biggest con. What she’s searching for the perfect copy to pass off as the prince, she finds it in Gendry Waters.

Only, unbeknownst to him and to her, he’s the real thing. [x]

“Shall We Dance?”

Seth doesn’t know personal space. Also he is suddenly interested in pandora all of a sudden?? (imeanidon’tblamehim)

Man, pandora is so pretty. I wanted to draw her with seth interating and turns out they have a lot in common design wise. Both hiding their left sides of their faces, sorta two-face and both back stabbers, seth being the more literal of the party.

Seth might get slugged or pushed or he may even get a dance or two out of pandora, it’s a gamble. Let us hope.

Seth, you only have one hand, how you going to pull ballroom dancing off?? SHEER WILL POWER THAT’S HOW (answered my own question–)


Pandora belongs to @blanckatt-milk

Seth is mine. V-V

2

lmao like the only time i EVER see hard disney fans even mention ghibli and miyazaki in comparison to disney films is in light of disney’s own mistakes and laziness like damn y’all need to calm down

lemme teach you a lil’ somethin’ somethin’ about stylistic choices in animation and sheer laziness

STYLISTIC choices is about having the full capability of creating characters separate from the previous protagonists while at the same time tying them to the studio that produced them.

And that’s not even scratching the surface.

Considering that a good portion of Ghibli’s library consists of LEAD FEMALE PROTAGONISTS who are usually very young, they need to find a set balance between recognizable and unique.

Ghibli was founded on traditional art and the studio still holds many of those values with it. This is of course including hand-drawn animation in which there is no single model, only the same character drawn over and over again. Is this about CGI vs traditional? No, both can and have provided beautiful films and scenes but it’s not about which one deserves more recognition. It’s about the methods used and how the choices for each one vary. I only bring up the animation methods because it’s part of the reason as to WHY these characters are so simplistic in design.

Still though, they need each lead character to stick to the Ghibli/Miyazaki style to a certain extent. They need to share certain qualities to make them fall in line with the rest of Ghibli’s library.

I mean, they have their differences but they’re obviously Ghibli characters so okay they all have relatively small eyebrows (though considering that they are Japanese that ties in with their ethnicity but OKAY moving on), they all have the eye highlight thing going on, and they all have very non-pronounced noses. I suppose yeah those are all the same. They do shift but those characteristics are roughly the same.

Still though, that isn’t a problem nor is it blatant same-facing. All LAIKA characters have skewed noses, all Dreamworks characters have thin noses, and all Aardman characters have bulgy eyes. Does that mean they’re same-facing? No. It means they’re sticking to stylistic choices to keep themselves separate from the competition.

Don Bluth MADE the choice to stick to a style closely resembling Disney. You know what happened? A whole generation grew up thinking that Anastasia and Thumbelina were both DISNEY films, not Bluth and Fox animation.

There’s a reason why studios tend to go for their own set style.

But hey! Want even more evidence that it’s a stylistic choice?

Because THE VERY SAME CHOICES CAN BE SAID FOR THE DUDES

Save for Haku because he’s a fuckin’ dragon.

While gender is never really brought up in Ghibli films, masculinity and femininity are both neutral here, it’s safe to say that their designs and treatment are both equal. Ghibli isn’t out to make exclusively beautiful/handsome characters, they make them as simple as possible to keep them relatable and much more easier to manage.

The difference here is that Disney has always set out to make their MALES different while sticking their females to the same “doe eyed, small nose, thin lips” ideal. Yes, there is a set Disney style and it has always focused on those features and that necessarily isn’t a bad thing. It’s the Disney style. HOWEVER it seems to only apply to their females. Even worse is their marketing of said females.

External image

GOTTA KEEP THEM GURLS PURTY

The Disney style has shifted from time to time and it shows evidence that it CAN include more diverse female designs. Both Kida and Calhoun are wonderful examples of this. It’s not as if Disney hasn’t evolved or changed their views on female characters to a certain extent. Unfortunately, said shifts haven’t always worked out in our favor or headed in the right direction. It wasn’t until Tangled that Disney came out with it’s true “get richer quicker” scheme with their female leads.

watch as i shift into MAXIMUM PUNZEL-DRIVE

As of late it’s Disney’s sheer laziness when it comes to female design and their own avarice that has caused SUUUUCH a dramatic shift in how fans are taking the Disney style now. When Ghibli audiences and fans never look at a new movie and go “oh it’s Chihiro but tiny” or “oh it’s Chihiro but on a broom.” That is the set style, not a lazy copy-paste.

But hey, let’s bring in OTHER females to see how this works out. I mean, the Ghibli style is prevalent to ALL of their characters so surely they all the parents look exactly like their children.

Let’s look at these lovely lady leads and compare them to their parents.

Congrats, kids, you’re all adopted!

WEIRDLY ENOUGH all of the characters and their parents (if they have any) share same characteristics while at the same time remaining completely unique to each other. It’s almost as if they also take after their father and/or previous generations of their familly. Haha, genetics!

But okay, let’s be a little more fair with Disney.

Let’s look at two families with two daughters.

Mitosis or go home

There is having stylistic choices and there is being lazy.

There is creating a character with similarities to their parent and there is making a recolor of your lead character.

There is creating simple designs for a traditionally animated film and there is reusing the same model because it worked so well the first time.

There is being a small Tokyo-based studio with 300 employees and there is being a large American animation studio with 800+ employees.

THAT is why no one ever complains about Ghibli’s approach to character design and THAT is why Disney doesn’t even come close to Miyazaki.

Let’s finish this off with some MORE wonderful Ghibli characters (most of which being my personal favorites so they belong on here too.)

Now go watch more Ghibli.

Like a Virgin: an A-Z of concept literature

Want to explore a concept, literary style or period? Not sure where to start? Here are books to touch you for the very first time.


A - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Laissez-faire capitalism is the answer to everything.


B - Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Alienating effects of a society in which humans are treated as mere resources.


C - The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. What is this socialism of which they speak? This pamphlet explains.


D - Dubliners by James Joyce. Modernist short story collection on the human condition.


E - The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. How to write reel purty.


F - The Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer. 70s identity politics classic given to odd rants and wobbly logic. Bring a mirror.


G - Gravity’s Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Almost nobody’s read it, and nobody likes the people who have.


H - The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. Gender divides and fundamentalism are bad for everyone.


I - I Capture The Castle by Dodie Smith. Life with an eccentric 1930s English family isn’t a bowl of cherries.


J - Jeeves and Wooster by PG Wodehouse. Why so serious? Fun, fast-paced and hilarious adventures of a toff and his butler.


K - Kiss of the Spider Woman by Manuel Puig. Two people in a cell in 1970s Argentina fight to stay sane and alive. Postmodern, but in a good way.


L - The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula LeGuin. Intrigue and adventure on a world in which almost no one has a fixed gender.


M - Monkey (or Journey to the West) by Wu Cheng'en. The comic adventures of a monk and his folkloric companions as they travel west to retrieve the sutras which will save China from immorality.


N - Northern Lights by Phillip Pullman. The anti-Narnia trilogy on why religion is bad.


O - Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Human nature meets loneliness and depression-era capitalism.


P - The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde. The life of a libertine, to be read on the surface and between the lines.


Q - The Qur'an (or Koran). Take the first step in understanding the cultural influence of this 7th century contribution to the Abrahamic faiths by reading the original.


R - A Room of One’s Own by Virginia Woolf. Short treatise on how the burden of unpaid domestic labour impacts the artist.


S - Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut. Why war is stupid, from someone who knows.


T - Titus Groan by Mervyn Peake. This baroque fantasy, with its lush prose and weird cast makes David Lynch seem vanilla.


U - Utopia by Thomas More. 16th century sci-fi set on an island and examining what a progressive society might look like.


V - A Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan. This won the Pulitzer. Why? No one knows. Read this to learn how out-of-touch the establishment truly is.


W - Watership Down by Richard Adams. If you’ve never wept over the fate of rabbits, start now.


X - Sonnet XXV by Bill Shakespeare. A modest, cheerful sonnet reminding us love is better than glory.


Y - The Yellow Wall-paper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Novella featuring a woman driven mad by a rest cure, a decorative scheme, and the patriarchy.


Z - Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche. Just kidding. Don’t read Nietzsche.