One thing I'm still wondering about re: Starlight Glimmer in Equestria Girls... · 1:15pm Aug 5th, 2018
Does it bother anybody else that Starlight's the only (standard character design) character whose eye shape changes between pony and human? (The alicorns and Tall Unicorns like Fleur don't count because they have nonstandard eye shapes in pony form.)
Almost every mare* in MLP has tareme eyes by default, which transition through tsurime for certain facial expressions (especially on Rarity, Twilight, and Applejack). Their EG counterparts likewise retain the default tareme eyes that transition through tsurime depending on context.
Starlight Glimmer, on the other hand...
As a pony, her eyes are default tareme with tsurime transitions just like everypony else. But once she turns human, her eye shape changes to tsurime by default.
I mean, it suits her EG character design and I like the look, but it just strikes me as odd that she's the only one this happened to.
* Rarity's eye shape is more tsurime by default in both pony and EG designs, with passthrough tareme on some facial expressions, and a few other mares have tsurime or near-tsurime eyes and their EG counterparts share the eye shape of their pony selves.
Actually, Sunset does the same thing in reverse: Slight tsurime as a pony, standard tareme as a human. Maybe it's just a (formerly) evil unicorn thing?
derpicdn.net/img/2018/7/22/1787335/medium.png
derpicdn.net/img/2018/8/4/1797956/medium.png
4914705 Could be.
Whenever I try to look at her eyes, I'm lost in how awesome her EQG design.
Doesn't really bother me. TBH I hadn't even noticed.
Could someone translate the significance of these eyes shapes for us non-weebs? As if I have any room to talk like that....
4914741
First off, don't call people weebs, it's stupid. *smacks you upside the head*
Tareme and tsurime are a character design element you often find in manga/anime and, more frequently in recent years, in western animation. It's not universal and in some cases (especially in western animation) the character designers might not even be consciously aware of the distinctions, but have absorbed enough media to "catch on", on a subconscious level.
Tareme are more rounded, with a higher arch at the top and a "droop" at the outer corners. Tareme are common in characters who are kind, innocent, demure, or sweet. Most MLP characters with tareme just have them that way as part of the aesthetic; "true" tareme are more uncommon, but still noticeable (Fluttershy is TEXTBOOK tareme, as is Coco Pommel).
Tsurime are more "almond shaped", with a higher, sharper outer corner to the eye and, typically, thicker eyelashes toward the outer eye. Tsurime are a shorthand for a character being aloof or superior, or prideful/willful and, more often than not, arrogant. Tsurime are almost exclusively a female character eye shape, and are prevalent among tsundere. However, the tsurime eye design doesn't always necessarily carry any of the above personality context, as often they're simply an "allure point" (aka, "bedroom eyes") due to being somewhat exotic in appearance. This is why so many "bedroom eyes" memes exist for FiM; almost every mare in the series has a half-lidded tsurime facial expression at some point or another for any number of reasons, some more than most, with Twilight being a frequent offender and Applejack doing it right in the opening credits.
Huh, I've never noticed. Granted, I don't really notice facial features unless they have something really off, like a character having a certain eye color or maybe a missing eye
Well, it didn't bother me before...
This is harder to explain when you factor into account which EG are human versions of ponies, and which ones are human forms of ponies.
4914819
Hmmm... well, looks like another thing to add to my artistic arsenal. Thanks, Moth!
4914705
Suset as a pony has very distintive eye shape compared to the others.
I'm still bothered by the fact that she has a watch. The mirror constructing clothes out of the aether? That makes little sense logistically, but I can let it pass. But now you're trying to tell me that the mirror can spawn machines? A watch has a bunch of little moving parts that fit together, and the mirror just spawned those in an instant. Seriously, that bothers me more than it logically should.
4914926 Might be a nod to her time travel knowledge in "The Cutie Re-Mark".
4914926
The thing that bothers me most about the watch is WHY? Do teenagers even wear watches anymore?
4914979
I wear one. I'm in my early twenties, but still.
4914926
Hmm, well this is the mare formerly known as 'Timebreaker'.
I don't blame the Mirror for feeling apprehensive and spawning a watch so she can keep in time.
4914926
Maybe it doesn’t spawn anything, but teleports in whatever it needs from within stores and closets. Perhaps there is a human somewhere who can't seem find their favourite watch, only for it to appear in a drawer the next day.
No, but it does puzzle me that VP Luna’s skin colour is so different from Princess Luna’s coat. It just strikes me as a very odd choice.
4915214
I think they probably tested it the other way and discovered it didn't look right. Same reason Cheerilee's colors are reversed.
4915221
*shrug* I dunno. To me, it’s a bit jarring seeing Luna with light blue skin. It would be interesting finding out the reasons and thought processes behind many of these changes.
4915309
Again, it's because the pony color scheme just didn't look right on the human versions of Cheerilee and Luna, so they changed the colors up--in Cheerilee's case, it was a swap of mane and coat, and in Luna's case it was a lightening of the skin. This is also why Big Mac has a natural skin tone in EG, because if his skin was red he'd look like a demon or a bad sunburn victim.
4915339
*nods* I understand your words. My point is simply that “looking right” is a matter of perspective, and it would be interesting to know why the individuals who made the final decision had the perspectives they did (in part because their perspectives do not match my own).
4915360
...because they're professional artists and the creative team in charge of production and animation? Because making those decisions is something they went to school for and is literally what they are paid to do?
4915361
Much as their decision regarding the shift in eye design, yes?
Seriously, have I offended somehow?
4915221
That also explains why human Big Mac is not red.
It probably looked like an awful case of full body sunburn.
4915363
I loathe circular arguments. Look over the comment history here:
That's a circular argument. And circular arguments are infuriating.
Also:
I said EXACTLY THAT just a few comments back.
4914724
Same here.
Eh, it really doesn't matter to me.
4915405
*nods* Aha. Okay, Thank you for clarifying.
I think we were both paying attention; communication seems to have just broken down a bit. I believe you and I were not looking at the same questions, because we were looking at the matter through separate paradigms.
When you say, ‘it’s because they are professionals, look at Big Mac, etc.’... that’s fine, but I am not examining the matter from an artistic perspective. I have never seriously studied art, and though I have merrily dabbled here and there what I know of the matter you could probably stick in your ear.
I was looking at it from a psychological perspective, and kind of wondering aloud.
If the decision to lighten Luna’s skin was a cognitive one, I think it would be interesting to know what exact thought processes went into the decision. What the specific priorities were, how precisely the ideas were associated conceptually, and so forth. (If it was a group decision, it would also be interesting to know how the discussion went, how the paradigms of each individual fed into the ultimate decision, and why.)
If, on the other hand, it was a non-cognitive / affective decision, it would be fascinating to me to be able to explore what base ideas formed the conceptual scattershot, where they came from in the person’s lifepath, how the symbols they formed were connected, and how the conditioning of each person involved influenced those connections.
So, while to your your perspective, the conversation went:
You: "I wonder why X."
Me: "Because Y."
You: "Okay, but why X though?"
Me: "Again, because Y."
You: "OK, I understand. But I still wonder why X."
Me: "Because Y, goddammit! Listen already!
To me, it went:
Me: Why X?
You: Because Y.
Me: Yes, but why Y? And how? And for how much? And what are its mating habits? And can it carry a coconut while migrating if it grips it by the husk?
You: Because Y, dammit!
Me: Yes, I got that, but why Y?
You: Aaaargh!
Me: *blinks* Something vexes thee?
So I think we were having two different discussions simultaneously.
Granted, it matters little, since it’s all hypothetical anyway until / unless we can one day interrogate the artists directly. But such questions can be fun mental toys regardless.
(I now return you to various and far greater relevancies, already in progress.
)