(your "running series", not your "running serious")

"Go ahead, give me some explanation about the different gene pools of the rival clans from which Merida’s parents came."

No, this isn't a question of gene pools. This is a question of Disney having a history of using caricature in its character design. Fun fact: Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd also had eyes larger than his wrists while early versions of Tweety Bird's owner did not http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7Tc0SAkiCZg/TCJ8mQIORzI/AAAAAAAABbM/Fg74JHPJn7I/s1600/tweetandsour019.jpg. You can pull out all the statistics you want about real life rabbits not having particularly small wrists or what have you, but real world facts are irrelevant to caricature artists.

Also, Merida's dad doesn't just display dismorphism with his wife, but with EVERY single other character in that movie (and there are of patriarchs from other clans are much smaller than Merida's mom). It's meant to emphasize the contrast between his significant physical/military strength and his inability to control the situation that unfolds in the movie.

And on a more minor point, while I can appreciate trying to simplify Frozen's story for the benefit of those who haven't seen it, it still feels very off for you to refer to that man as the "romantic lead" of the movie. Even from the trailers you can tell the other guy is a better fit for the title of "romantic lead".

I prefer that artists change proportions as they see fit then to have everyone doing realistic proportions.

http://pixartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Brave-Lord-Macintosh-Wallpaper.jpg

There's definitely something to discuss using these images, specially when you say...

"At this point I think the evidence suggests that Disney favors compositions in which women’s hands are tiny compared to men’s, especially when they are in romantic relationships."

But when you compare real world proportions to the ones in these characters, that's barking at the wrong tree. Almost sounds like you're condemning the artists for stylizing the human figure.

As I had a tape measure on my desk, this post inspired me to measure my wrists. I had no idea I had unusually large wrists!.. I'm a 28 year old woman and my left wrist is about 16.5 cm around and the right more like 17.5cm. I'm 173cm tall (5'8'') and of average build. I can't believe I'm in the top 5th or so percentile for women's wrist size. I wear small-medium gloves (I'm a vet and for surgery I wear 6 1/2 size)

The tiny wrists aren't really the issue, loads of characters (male and female) have massive eyes that would easily eclipse their extremities. The issue that I've noticed, at least with disney films, seems to be a fear of wandering away from a standard, generic sort of appeal that relies heavily on cloying and desperate cuteness and simplifies all women into melted Glen Keane-esque disaster areas. Weird monsters with woman bodies and massive baby faces. It's exceptionally obnoxious in Frozen, where you see three of the four important human characters as children and you notice that the two girls keep their engorged infant heads for the entire run time of the film. Child like facial structure has been the standard for adorable characters since the forties, but honestly it's become a crutch, and harms women the most by rendering them as strange adult baby creatures.

Then of course there's the issue of all the important women looking fucking identical as the result of trying to make them "cute" and being too scared to experiment with different proportions and shapes for fear of losing an audience.

After The Lion King it's been downhill with these guys...

I love sociology with all of my being, but to this discovery I have to respond-Who cares??!!!! I also just got back from an awesome Disney cruise so, I could be biased. :)

I think it cuts both ways. Men are usually infinitely more muscular and fit with extreme jawlines so far removed from reality. That's what makes cartoons what they are. If you take away these exaggerated features you might as well watch live action.

I think what's really crucial here is a story that supports gender equality.

It's a cartoon. The fun of cartoons is that they don't look anatomically correct. That's why it's not live-action. :(

come on people... they are cartoon characters. You don't want to compare the bugs bunny with an actual rabbit. They are cartoon character in 3D. their texture my look a like... But it's just that their. its part of their design

If you put her eyes together, side-by-side, they are wider than her WAIST. Why do Disney princesses all have to be lollipop-heads? Why do Disney girls all have to be princesses, for that matter?

they're just cartoons. big deal.

Sex, not gender.

I think this is way off base...from a film makers standpoint there are things you just clearly don't understand...what happened to imagination? Artistic appeal? There are complete reasons these choices are made when making a film like this......and not for the superficial "Barbie"/sexist/conspiracy viewpoints you may think...try designing a character that is appealing and easy to process and understand for an audience when on camera....youll find that these real world mathematical relationships you talk about need not apply.....for a
an animated movie, its all about what reads well on camera...the life force of a character IS in the eyes..so to make them larger than normal is something important to do...why would we want the wrist to be a major area of interest?...not to mention that if you are focusing in on the character design...then the movie's story telling didn't do its job and THAT is where your argument should exist..with the story....but I have to even wonder if you've actually seen the film....this argument seems so incredibly superficial that if the only problem you are pulling from the movie is the character design you are overlooking way more important issues from a film making standpoint.....SEE THE FILM...were you entertained? Did you laugh at all? Cry? Feel suspenseful? If so....then the movie did its job...if it didn't....then try to understand why from a FILMMAKING viewpoint....but this argument in itself just doesn't stand....

If someone were to make a movie based off of your real world measurements....we'd be incredibly board....why not just make a live action....animation deserves the right to stray from reality....

Faces are all oversized in animation, especially characters that are meant to be more social than beefy, as women often are in animation and reality.

I bet you'll find a lot of skinny male characters, like Remy's chef friend in Ratatouille, have the same problem.

Is this a sociology page, or a correlation-plus-confirmation-bias page?

Some people really need to get a life. The gender dimorphism isn't a studio thing, it's a simple fact that this is how there current character designers draw women. Give it a few years they'll move on and we'll have a new look.

These animations aren't about reflecting 'reality' they 'stylise', 'caricature' and 'cartoon'ify people. If you want photo real humans just look at what Zemeckis tried to achieve, it ain't great. I don't care if the leading ladies in Frozen have eyes bigger than there wrists, I only care about the story and the quality of animation.

I do get fed up of peoples' problems with how (specifically) Disney draw women. With people saying that they play it 'safe' sticking to 'cute' looks, it's not the studio (though the studio, by that I mean director(s) would get final say) it's the designers and well they draw how they draw. I said it above give them a few years and this lot of designers will move on and they'll have a new set of designers and a new set of character design standards to moan about.

I file this kind of thing under 'Stupid Little Girl' feminism, meaning it is based on the idea that little girls are too stupid to know that Barbie isn't a realistic body role model. (It's lucky that boys are smart enough to know Superman and He-man are ok!)

This is also poor scholarship, and a great example of why other disciplines are losing respect for the humanities. In Disney's Frozen the Duke of Weselton also has wrists smaller than his eyes. Funny that's not mentioned here.

Here is a really great and thorough discussion of the facial features of Disney villains and heroes. "The feature that stands out on a Disney hero or heroine's face is the eyes. The eyes are the most important feature. While the eyes are the smallest feature on a Disney villain, they are the largest feature in a hero/heroine. This is because their eyes are wide open to the world. They want to see everything and take it all in. Their open eyes symbolize their open hearts and open minds."
http://indefenseofaprincess.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-profile-of-evil-why-all-disney.html

This eyes-to-wrist thing makes no sense to me. I mean, I do grasp what he is trying to say. But how can he make this point? Look at anime characters. They are all drawn with thin wrist and huge eyes, yet have some of the strongest characters both male and female-wise. And back to the topic of Frozen, Anna and Elsa are two of the strongest-willed Disney females in years. Anna started out as obsessed with finding love and a relationship yet had grown into an independent persona by the end of the movie. The film even poked fun at her early love obsession.

Seems like there are a whole lot of dudes telling you this doesn't matter.
(This matters.)

Focusing on the difference between wrist circumference ignores the fact that the "size" of the wrist will really read as a function of cross-sectional area. A quick back-of-the envelope calculation suggests that this varies between average men and women in the above data set by something like 40 percent.

...they are cartoon characters. Caricatures, not humans.

This article is pathetic. Someone is looking for a little attention.

I did some quick research on just how inaccurate these proportions may be. What caught my, uh, eye, was the use of the word "diameter," which doesn't properly apply to wrists. Being oval-shaped, the wrist doesn't have a single diametric measurement; it's generally measured by major, minor and vertical axes. It's hard to tell which axis is being compared in the screenshot above, but based on an average measurement of 5.8 inches for adult female wrist circumference, the minor axis of a real woman's wrist is probably about 1.4 inches. That's on average; I don't have the means available to tell how much it might fluctuate in either direction. By comparison, the average adult human eyeball has a diameter of about 0.94 inches. So, yes, it's probably pretty unlikely that a real human woman could have eyes visibly larger than her wrists; however, if she happens to have smaller-than-average wrists, it also seems possible that the difference might not be very noticeable. For what that's worth.

Im surprised you didnt mention the snowman Olaf. I mean seriously, these proportions are SO unrealistic of a typical snowman. How are little snowmen supposed to look his perfect teeth and high cheekbones and not feel pressured to look that way!?
I think your quest to make animated characters more realistic is a noble and important one. I also think we shouldnt have magic, fantasy, or happy endings in animated films either, because its not representative of real life.

Cartoons aren't meant to accurately portray people, EVER. They are meant to exaggerate features, so that they are more prominent and eye catching. So feminine features are made more feminine, and masculine features are made more masculine. Some features of the human body are more quickly registered by the human brain than others. Features that catch the eye more quickly in real life (Such as their head, hair. and eyes), and exaggerated and made bigger/brighter/etc, so that we can recognize them more expressively. If they were made realistically, out minds would interpret them as bland (That's why you like how you look in the mirror, but not how you look in pictures). Animated films, video games, and television programs that give the characters very realistic proportions are often seen as "ugly" as a result. They less realistic the proportions, the more endearing and charming we find the character. The closer to realistic they are, the creepier/blander they can become. This results in an even known as the "Uncanny valley" effect.

Here's another striking example:

http://wallpoper.com/images/00/26/43/18/pixar-up_00264318.jpg

My wife's eyeballs may actually be bigger than her wrists. Seriously, I worry her hands are going to fall off. This post has inspired me to get out the measuring tape.

I enjoyed your post, thanks! I also noticed that on your chart, you represented women's wrist circumference with a line about half the thickness of that representing men - an interesting stylistic choice given the gender-dimorphic representations you are commenting on. :-)

I don't think a lot of people realize how too much of one thing can be bad. It's not that I don't like the design, it's that it crops up EVERYWHERE! Despite every possibility out there, with multiple options to create a certain personality or compelling subject, they always come back to THIS one. And then we start to notice what's missing. At the same time we critic our media, we also look to it for acceptance. Not seeing any variation means the same things as, "Only THIS is acceptable! What's NOT here isn't acceptable." And as this image crops up with a particular gender, in characters who are suppose to be heroines and role models no less, it tells that gender what we expect from them. What society views they should be. (Monkey see, monkey do) This design is trying to make itself the pinnacle of what it means to be a girl. I'm an artist. The basics of being an artist is to know how the brain thinks . . . and it thinks in symbols. "A"<--- This symbol means the letter a. "@"<--- This symbol represents the word "number." A stick figure with a triangle base represents the girl's bathroom. (Check out this artist for a better explanation: http://heysawbones.deviantart.com/art/UNDERSTANDING-YOUR-STYLE-1-169660607 ) This constantly rehashed design has established itself as a symbol for the desired female body. We should have more symbols. Ones that tell people that we desire variety.

The thing that gets me is the complete lack of any nasal bone structure in either Anna or Elsa. It's like the most extreme nose jobs ever. Their nasal structures end at the bottom of their eyes, and above that there's no real ridge or bridge to the nose at all where you or I have our nasal bones. Their noses must consist of just the cartilage.

I would say that the issue with disney character design has less to do with the exaggeration of the human form, and more to do with how ubiquitous those exaggerations are in female characters. Like, exaggerate all you want, fucking have a field day; there's all kinds of creative design choices you can make with exaggerated anatomy. But as Ariel sang, I want *more*. Even if you want to keep your female characters cute, there's more than one way to do cute!

An article with Frozen's head of animation trying to explain why the two main female characters have such similar faces can be found on The Mary Sue at this address http://www.themarysue.com/frozen-animating-female-characters/

You are critiquing the fact that caricatures exaggerate stereotypical features.

Um.

Wrt "Brave", this photo of Arctic explorer Peter Freuchen and his wife Dagmar may be of interest:

I have a feeling the "problems" of our future will be even more pointless than this one. Instead of putting effort into this shitty article, write an article about a real issue that plagues our world today. Oops, I forgot, you do not have the cognitive capacity. First world problems like these are more than ideal situations for most of the human population.

... did you seriously just write an article based off the idea that cartoon characters should be more realistic? seriously? with charts are everything?

um I'm more offended by the fact that this is even an issue, aren't there more pressing issues of women's image and rights in the world than to belittle children s movies. I'm a huge Disney fan, and though I feel Disney does have twisted gender roles and especially stereotypical women's roles, I still love their films. In a world where I'm told to be a strong woman, sometimes its fun to revert back to being a bit girly.

Spongebob's eyes are bigger than his hands, FYI.

I understand your point, it seems you're taking this completely the wrong way.

Excellent topic. It is not only about the wrist size... LOOK AT the female characters - they're INFANTILE. As if men have developed properly, and women look malnutritioned or sth, they lack maturity, HGH, normal dose of Testosterone, whatever hormones, you name it LOL. But it's not funny at all.

If you look at my drawings from an early age (when I was introduced to Disney), all of my women look the same style, too. I think I even started resembling my favorite characters myself.

Yes, I believe this is important to have a diversity of female types in cartoons. They become role models, we've got to bear that in mind.

It has become a TABOO for Disney to portray a strong female - both physically and mentally.

Must we only focus on the females? this is as unfair to males as it is female. men have the expectation to be big, brawny and masculine and that expectation is just as bad as a woman being expected to be small and feminine. Disney movies not only give young girls an unrealistic image, they give boys the idea that they have to be big and handsome to be happy.

Thanks for sharing..

http://www.fotoclipping.com/services/creative-design/artwork-design/

For me the problem isn't that the proportians are exagarated, but it's just that all of the girls look the same they're all exageratly skinny and sure it's a cartoon, but it'd be nicer if they'd make some of their main characters a bit bigger

One thing that could be said about these issues: You've gotta consider that some could just be, maybe every now and again, that its just a part of the art style. But all of them all the time? Hell no.

It's great that the multi-cultural thing is kicking in, but still: according to Disney, you won't get your prince unless you have massive eyes, a waist smaller than your head, thin wrists and and a tiny nose. I have normal eyes, average weight, broad wrists and a Jewish nose - why can't they make a Disney princess who looks a little more normal.

Big eyes on girls are attractive. also, why not get pissed off at anime characters for the same reason? It is true that eyes aren't gigantic, but it IS more common for women to have larger eyes and smaller wrists.

Ok you all realize these are childrens movies and that disney, monster high, bratz dolls, barbie, and all those cute and pretty things our little girls like are just that they are movies and toys to make our children happy and if you have a problem with any of these things instead of whining on here about this useless crap don't expose yourself or your kids to this stuff. There's a great big world out there to explore and yall are discussing fake crap I stumbled upon this chat while looking up frozen characters because its a wonderful movie and I found this discussion so ridiculous that after I got done laughing I had to comment. Find a discussion on something that matters like suffering children or animals or cancer you know something important so when your kids say mom what are you doing you can say I'm discussing how to help starving children instead of oh im discussing how offensive it is that elsas eyes are bigger then her wrist. Teach them to care about important things teach your girls to make a difference not ro sit online and complain about fictional characters

the real question is. who cares?

The hand thing is extremely common in comic books as well.

This article Has proven to me that no matter how strong the female lead character is there is always something that feminist can blame on the Patriarchy.

This is what concerns you? Lol.. Who cares. It's a cartoon.

After reading the comments... Some of you take this way too seriously.

Headline: "Cartoon Images Exaggerated For Effect" Whoa! Stop the click-bait presses!

How does this offend anybody or anything? It's a fucking animation.One not based on any person(s) at all.People who get offended by this and try to "put a stop" to it by bitching yet these same people don't get offended by children and families starving less than a hundred miles away, or real women's equality in countries where they can't even take a piss without the husbands permission (not to mention no sexual freedoms or personal expressions of any kind) and do absolutely nothing to stop these atrocities SHOULD ALL KILL THEMSELVES!!! Because they are absolutely worthless, All of a sudden population control doesn't look so bad when these "people" (the true scum of humanity) try to change the world for the worst.

??? This makes absolutely no sense, Horrible topic and even worse execution.-4/50.Please seriou consider suicide.

Why only the females? Bambi have large eyes and he looks just fine, even as an adult.

Nothing funnier than libtarded idiots freaking out over a stupid cartoon!

At this point I think the evidence suggests that Disney favors compositions in which women s hands are tiny compared to men s, especially when they are in romantic relationships.

evidence suggests that Disney favors compositions in which women s hands are tiny info_6,