Saito Hoshikawa wrote:

I can possibly understand it being a case of not wanting to face the reality that some people in media are not as perfect as a goddamn marble statue, but what I'm wondering is if we subconsciously play favorites with characters in stories because of their physical appearance. If so, is it because of what the media currently portrays as being good-looking or is it because we've come to believe that every hero or heroine should be ridiculously handsome/gorgeous and that everyone else should be plain as white paper or fugly as hell?

Wow, I feel like in order to answer this question I'd first need to think of several examples of heroes or heroines who are definitely not supposed to be handsome or gorgeous, and I just can't think of very many!  Nanako of Oniisama e is one.  She certainly isn't ugly -- actually, I think she's rather pretty -- but her face is a little masculine, its length is a little too long for its width... in short, by anime standards, she looks like a real person.  In a genre where the main characters are usually stylized and idealized and perhaps fetishized, she stands out as unusual.  I think that show's creative team decided to draw her that way in order to suggest that she's not glamorous, she's ordinary -- maybe she has self-esteem problems -- and that this show is likely to be more realistic or gritty than the average shoujo anime.  Nanako's looks certainly don't make me want to tune out, but maybe there is a reason no one has ever heard of Oniisama e?

Other examples of anime protagonists who aren't Aphrodite or Adonis?  (Children don't count, I don't think.)

Last edited by satyreyes (10-29-2012 12:06:34 AM)

Saito Hoshikawa wrote:

Of course, out of western/european literature and media, we can easily name everyone's favorite hunchback Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but along with that comes the other common thing that if you're ugly, no one likes you and that 9/10 times, ugly people die. At that point, we can also name Rocky Dennis from Mask, but while he's not disliked by anyone, he still passes away.

I will say that some recent animated films have countered this.  Up (was there a conventionally attractive character in that movie?), Megamind, Shrek, for example.

Saitou:

I believe that the phenomenon you mention is really caused by the way human bodies react to senses.

The sense of sight, much like the sense of taste, will automatically incite either favorable or unfavorable reactions in a human beholder. 

Just like how many (although, perhaps not all) people crave certain foods (eg steak, fried, cake) while disliking others (eg broccoli, egg plants), so do they crave certain sights (eg the broad-shouldered, wasp-waisted, leggy bodies that fit the golden ratio; thin noses, big eyes) while disliking others (etc, fat, bony, short-legged-ness).

Now, TV/movie watching is entertainment people do on their limited free time, so most will want that time to be filled with visuals they crave rather than dislike; plus, unlike eating broccoli and egg plants, there is no scientific proof that watching sights that repulse one will lead to benefits to their health, thus why most will prefer to look at characters with the kind of physical appearances they like.  Now of course some characters are supposed to have physical flaws, especially when such flaws are relevant and/or adds to to the plot; but, with exception of cases where such char physical flaws can strongly resonate with the viewers to induce empathy (or the thrills of horror/humor), viewer will much prefer looking away.  Most seek pleasure from entertainment, thus they won't stand to sense unpleasant repulsion during that preciously limited down time.  Besides, not liking a fictional character on screen does not bring the same hurtful effects as disliking a person in real life, thus most simply follow their human cravings when it comes to picking what characters they like/dislike.

Case in point: Penguindrum's Sanetoshi will NOT have such overwhelming online popularity had he been drawn as fat/scrawny/balding/wrinkled/etc.

Is it fair to react differently to people based on the way they look?  Of course not.  But fact is that we are not privileged enough to be born into a fair world with fair conditions.  The human body will automatically induce either pleasant or unpleasant feelings on the beholder upon sight, so whatever reactions we have are already tampered by human conditions that cage us humans.  People "play favorites" when it comes to physical appearances because it is in their human nature - this does not just apply to their reactions towards other humans/humanoid animated chars, but also what plants they decide to grow, what pets they decide to keep, what renovations they want for their homes, what models of cars they buy etc, etc. 

In conclusion - it's not the viewers who are unfair for having biases, it's the world.

Decrescent Daytripper wrote:
World's just made of people, though.

And people live inside human bodies with human reactions to sight.  So, while a sense of morals might drive "good people" to make a conscious effort to not be biased towards real life people based on looks during actual interactions, most will prefer eye candy when it comes to getting entertained by images on screen, as images cannot/will not react to their admiration/revulsion.

Saito wrote:
yet you say it's the world being unfair for us being biased.

I mean the world as the natural world - it is unfair in that it makes human beings react to senses (like sight) in a certain way, that it restricts and control their possible reactions to other characters, fictional or otherwise. 

For decades, even centuries, there's been such differenting views on what is "attractive" and what "isn't", and this is because society, not the world, is the one that deems what is attractive.

I'm not so sure about that.  Most advanced ancient civilizations East and West (not primitive tribes, but actual empires), even ones that had little communications/influences with each other, all spot very similar definitions of beauty.  I have yet to see any advanced civilizations prefering short men over tall ones.   There are accounts of an ancient Chinese emperor who loved thin waists so much, that most of his concubines starved to death.  And we all know of the female corsets (and, even male) corsets worn by the west since the 1550s to get the broad shouldered, small waist ratio going.  And from anicent china to india to the roman empire to greek and such, they all define smooth, unblemished skin on people as eye-pleasing, while labeling scarred, wrinkled skin as ugly. 

Plus, most babies and young toddlers I've seen react favorably to young and/or good-looking strangers while outright crying when nearing old and/or physically flawed ones.

Besides, natural or ingrained by upbringing, the taste for looks is like the taste for food - it induces very physical sensations in human beings.  It is unreasonable to suggest that people have some obligation to accept certain "looks" on even fictional characters in entertainment medias that they found unattractive, cause they don't.  Most of us are already constantly looking at people with appearances that repulse us in real life (perhaps because they might have characters that we admire, or that they're in positions that we need to tolerate them), there's no reason any of us have to do it while watching the fictional characters in some show that's supposed to entertain us, especially since there's a vast number of well-plotted anime all with eye-pleasing char designs.

That puts us against the norm of the society we live in, in which we are shamed for liking the appearance of something that looks not-perfect.

From most well-known stories I've come across in various medias, I see that we are instead shamed (and condescended to) for following our natural human instinct in preferring beauty over ugliness, thus why the classics like Hunchback and the Frog Prince.

we begin to believe that looking less than perfect is not acceptable, but when we become adjusted to something that seems foreign to us, it becomes more natural to accept it.

I think what's more scary is society's very real pressure on people to outright praise the kind of looks that really repulse them on base levels, just so they can avoid being labeled as shallow.

The human body (even those of babies) react to sight immediately and automatically.  If we need to spend time to "adjust" to something so we can "accept" it, chances are that deep in our hearts, we do not like that something much to begin with (kinda like a forced, arranged marriage that one must accept due to whatever reason); when in moments of self-pleasing entertainment like show-watching, this will become absurdly self-torturing.

Last edited by gorgeousshutin (10-29-2012 03:06:48 PM)

Lurv wrote:
With that said, a fat good character is likely to be drawn much cuter than a fat evil character. It's no secret that cute people/creatures look more sympathetic to us.

Too.  True.   

It's a shame if people overlook an interesting character just because they weren't pretty enough, though.

Indeed . . . but the creator of that char knows that it will face stiff competiton from other shows' prettily drawn chars who are just as interesting/well-developed as it is.  The viewer's love of a character is conditional - that's why none of us will buy just any char animated.

((I'm never typing a reply using the iPod ever again. I nearly chucked it against the wall in frustration.))

Lurv wrote:

OnlyInThisLight wrote:

Megamind

He's quite pretty, though.

It's true I tend to be more attracted to a character with a character design I find attractive, but what I find most important is that a character design has personality*, and I do like it when a show has a variety of body types besides "attractive man", "attractive woman" and "child".

With that said, a fat good character is likely to be drawn much cuter than a fat evil character. It's no secret that cute people/creatures look more sympathetic to us. Even in Beauty and the Beast, I find Beast looks more appealing than Gaston, and I don't mean that in a fetish-y way. I mean, yeah, in the beginning Beast looks intimidating, but after his character development he looks pretty cuddly, while Gaston's "handsome" features are exaggerated in a way I find grotesque. Granted, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and there are people who find him attractive (and who like him), but you can easily see he's not actually meant to be the hero just by looking at his character design. And I can't blame artists for using visual cues to tell us a lot about a character.

It's a shame if people overlook an interesting character just because they weren't pretty enough, though.

Aye, this I can agree with. The thing about it, though, is that in shows like anime and maybe even some cartoons, just about everyone looks similar up to the degree of no personality visible (via Standard Character Design), save for the protagonists in some way. (Example: Megaman Battle Network series, because this is a relatively good example. Most NPCs in the game series look plain and dull in comparison to the main characters. Likewise, their NetNavis are also more colorful and stand out more than NormalNavis.)

(And it's kinda funny about that fat good chara. vs. fat evil chara. things, because on the Accel World example, Haru's good (kinda) and people hated him just for being fat. They could've hated him because of the stealth pun "flying pig" thing, but nooooooo, it had to be because he was fat.)

@ gorgeousshutin: On your babies and toddlers thing; that's probably because when they first open their eyes, they usually see their parents (or their doctor, or someone "conventionally attractive"), and it's that view of their parents or "conventionally attractive" someone that becomes something they are used to, hence reacting positively to it. Likewise, if some creepy guy with missing teeth and a crooked-as-fuck nose or an older person comes into their vision, that's not something they're used to seeing a lot of the time, so natch, they will cry.

As for the adjusting bit, remember this: in learning to adjust to something that we are not used to, we have to be able to allow ourselves to do the adjusting, or else we can't go forward with what we want or need to do. Think of it like a haircut you had to get it; for a while, it feels weird not having the hairstyle you used to have, but over time you allow yourself to adjust to it and you manage to make it work, and you accept the fact that the haircut had to happen, and you move on with your life. (A forced marriage is not exactly the same thing. There's a difference between "can" and "must"; with "can" it has the ability to happen and it may happen if you allow it to, but with "must", it will happen and you have no say or force in how or when it will happen, because you will have to do that which you must do.)

I've always found it interesting going from British/Australian movies and shows to American shows and then back again. Even before a character opens their mouth or the scenery is identified, it's pretty obvious the difference. British and Australian characters are usually played by extremely attractive people it's true, but the utterly unrealistic and idealised American equivalents always look absolutely and unnaturally perfect. I think it's this reason that when I watch American shows it always seems like I'm watching the actor as opposed to the character. Brad Pitt always looks like Brad Pitt no matter what, Nicole Kidman always looks like Nicole Kidman no matter what, Tom Cruise is always Tom Cruise no matter who he's playing, but that might mean that the brainwashed bugger can't act. It's always pretty obvious who it is and it rarely matters how good said actor is because they just look too much like themselves. I watch an Australian or British show, certainly the actors are recognisable, but it's easier to forget them and get into the character. Mind you, I did and still have a hell of a time watching David Tennant in anything; it's always obvious that it's David Tennant...

Food for thought. 

Saito Hoshikawa wrote:

Aye, this I can agree with. The thing about it, though, is that in shows like anime and maybe even some cartoons, just about everyone looks similar up to the degree of no personality visible (via Standard Character Design), save for the protagonists in some way.
(And it's kinda funny about that fat good chara. vs. fat evil chara. things, because on the Accel World example, Haru's good (kinda) and people hated him just for being fat. They could've hated him because of the stealth pun "flying pig" thing, but nooooooo, it had to be because he was fat.)

True that. Might be why I don't get into anime as much as I used to, it gets old after a while.

But I guess some people like that, and don't care to see non-standard main characters much.

gorgeousshutin wrote:

Lurv wrote:
True that. Might be why I don't get into anime as much as I used to, it gets old after a while.

Oh, there are animes, esp. those from the 90s, were the main characters are all rather distinctive (see Please Save My Earth).

I know there's some. Just most anime (at least most well known anime that I've seen) has pretty samey characters.

How long did it take you to realize that this "couple" is really the same model?  Can you even guess if this is a he or a she?

More in this thread:
http://forums.ohtori.nu/edit.php?id=242914

That's awesome.

DD wrote:
Link doesn't seem to work.

Oops!  Here is the correct link for the androgynous supermodel thread
http://forums.ohtori.nu/viewtopic.php?id=3084

it's not a lack of imagination or talent or they wouldn't be there. It's deliberately crafting an image.

Well, the stylists in Cruise films sign on to generic blockbuster junk film to earn $, so we can be sure that while they have some "technique" (as I've previously stated), the "artistry" is simply not there (as I've also previously stated) as these stylists are not behaving like artists putting artistic freedom over wealth, thus rendering them mere "technicians" and not "true artists" (who would brave obscurity to stick to artistic integrity);  whatever imagination these mainstream stylists might have, they've left it to rot as they sell their souls to churn out generic looking Cruise and whatever other aging screen idols the studios hire them to "make recognizable".

What makes Tom Cruise money isn't whether a movie is good or an interview is good, it's how Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise.

Too true, which goes to show why he's seemingly making less and less as he continued on losing his once youthful handsomeness due to the passage of time (that, and his increasingly off-putting wordiness that compounds with old age).

Last edited by gorgeousshutin (11-01-2012 10:30:32 AM)