Just thinking, is the art style only symbolic of the universe or is everything actually like that in-universe?
I remember something with a cartoon character commenting on how live-action people look kind of disturbing and surreal. They noticed the difference, and it didn’t sit well with them. Their own uncanny valley.
Homer^3.
In Chip and Dale 2022, they explicitly refer to the “upgrade” to 3D rendering from the old painted style (like plastic surgery to them), so I assume they are fully aware of their art style.
In Peanuts, all adults would sound like “wah wah, wha wah wha wah wha wah”, to which the children would respond as if they made perfect sense.
Then again, I prefer thinking about your second possibility so I’m going with that one:-).
Im not high enough to answer that!
Strange New Worlds/Lower Decks actually addressed that.
I’m so sad they are cancelling the show after this next season airs in a few weeks. Best animated adaptation of an existing universe.
Same! It’s my favorite current Trek show.
no, what, whyy? :(
Art style. But they don’t notice it the same way you dont notice art style of people around you, and fish don’t notice the water.
Depends on the author.
I’m not an authority on this but I believe that objectively a character WILL look like “that” but when viewed subjectively they look like “this”. So, in short, to answer your question: yes, but not really. I hope this helps.
Centaurworld is a pretty good example of characters being aware of their own animation style as one character slowly transforms between the two.
Hazbin Hotel and Helluva Boss have jokes about the art style. Sounds to me that the characters see each other the way we see them.
Some times it’s part of the plot, like in comics such as Gwenpool and 8-Bit Theater. But usually, from what I notice, how a character perceives the world around is not explained.
It depends on the author! Authors create symbolic universes and they get to choose the rules of those universes. You can read Robert McKee’s work for more on this.
There 2D is like our 4D. The same way we can’t see 4D, they see 2D as normal and 3D is unachievable to them as for us 4D. Same with the style. They see themselves at the same style as what is normal to them.
In “Treehouse of Horror VI” Homer becomes 3D and comments how he’s “so bulky”.
And the first thing he did in the 3D world was go to an erotic bakery. I always thought it was a dumb throwaway joke but after thinking about it, that would be a fun first experience in the 3D world
The other characters are quite perplexed about the idea of 3D, too, not just the stupid Homer. A scientist gives a brief lecture, similar to how scientists IRL introduce 4D.
Anyway, that answers the good old question “Is the gruesome cartoon Itchy & Scratchy photorealistic from the Simpson’s POV?”
Photorealistic: yes. However, it could be debatable whether it’s gruesome. We see situations that characters survive with short term damage but no long term consequences (example: Homer skating into the canyon). So while it would be gruesome to us, it’s probably closer to slapstick to them.
I never thought about its gruesomness this way.
It would be abhorrent for us to see photorealistic cat organs but I guess kids in The Simpsons’ universe are raised differently.
Do you see other people realistically, or like in Euclidean Space?
