The Loop (TV)
Do you like this video?
|Quotes • Headscratchers • Playing With • Useful Notes • Analysis • Image Links • Haiku • Laconic|
- How come there are so many pantsless male Funny Animals (Donald Duck, Wakko Warner, Winnie the Pooh, and Porky Pig being examples)?
- Much of character recognition in animation is based on silhouette. In twentieth century western culture, it was customary for men and boys to wear trousers. The legs of a bipedal critter already have a silhouette not unlike trousers; compare Long Pants. Adding an untucked shirt to the silhouette results in pantsless appearance once the backlight is turned off.
- How come there are a lot of shirtless female Funny Animals (Ortensia, Dot Warner, Cindy Bear, and sometimes Minnie Mouse being examples)?
- In twentieth century western culture, a skirt was a tertiary sexual characteristic, used as an easily silhouettable shorthand way to say that a character will fill some approximation of a feminine gender role. They can go shirtless because they lack a certain secondary sexual characteristic. Adding a shirt would push the character too close to the Petting Zoo People tier.
- How come there aren't as many bare-bottomed female Funny Animals (Daisy Duck being one of the few examples) as there are bare-bottomed male Funny Animals?
- Why are there not as many Petting Zoo People who are half dressed, whether shirtless (like were-form Wilford B. Wolf) or pantless (like Sally Acorn), as there are half dressed civilized and funny animals?
- Why aren't there as many shoe-wearing pantless or bare-bottomed half-dressed animals (e.x., Daisy Duck and Fowlmouth) as there are shoe-wearing shirtless half-dressed animals (e.x., Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse)?
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.