“People think a soul mate is your perfect fit, and that’s what everyone wants. But a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life.
A true soul mate is probably the most important person you’ll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful. Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you, and then leave.
A soul mates purpose is to shake you up, tear apart your ego a little bit, show you your obstacles and addictions, break your heart open so new light can get in, make you so desperate and out of control that you have to transform your life, then introduce you to your spiritual master…”
I make jewellery from polymer clay.
Please check out my etsy store here:
and like my Facebook page:
lmao like the only time i EVER see hard disney fans even mention ghibli and miyazaki in comparison to disney films is in light of disney’s own mistakes and laziness like damn y’all need to calm down
lemme teach you a lil’ somethin’ somethin’ about stylistic choices in animation and sheer laziness
STYLISTIC choices is about having the full capability of creating characters separate from the previous protagonists while at the same time tying them to the studio that produced them.
And that’s not even scratching the surface.
Considering that a good portion of Ghibli’s library consists of LEAD FEMALE PROTAGONISTS who are usually very young, they need to find a set balance between recognizable and unique.
Ghibli was founded on traditional art and the studio still holds many of those values with it. This is of course including hand-drawn animation in which there is no single model, only the same character drawn over and over again. Is this about CGI vs traditional? No, both can and have provided beautiful films and scenes but it’s not about which one deserves more recognition. It’s about the methods used and how the choices for each one vary. I only bring up the animation methods because it’s part of the reason as to WHY these characters are so simplistic in design.
Still though, they need each lead character to stick to the Ghibli/Miyazaki style to a certain extent. They need to share certain qualities to make them fall in line with the rest of Ghibli’s library.
I mean, they have their differences but they’re obviously Ghibli characters so okay they all have relatively small eyebrows (though considering that they are Japanese that ties in with their ethnicity but OKAY moving on), they all have the eye highlight thing going on, and they all have very non-pronounced noses. I suppose yeah those are all the same. They do shift but those characteristics are roughly the same.
Still though, that isn’t a problem nor is it blatant same-facing. All LAIKA characters have skewed noses, all Dreamworks characters have thin noses, and all Aardman characters have bulgy eyes. Does that mean they’re same-facing? No. It means they’re sticking to stylistic choices to keep themselves separate from the competition.
Don Bluth MADE the choice to stick to a style closely resembling Disney. You know what happened? A whole generation grew up thinking that Anastasia and Thumbelina were both DISNEY films, not Bluth and Fox animation.
There’s a reason why studios tend to go for their own set style.
But hey! Want even more evidence that it’s a stylistic choice?
Because THE VERY SAME CHOICES CAN BE SAID FOR THE DUDES
Save for Haku because he’s a fuckin’ dragon.
While gender is never really brought up in Ghibli films, masculinity and femininity are both neutral here, it’s safe to say that their designs and treatment are both equal. Ghibli isn’t out to make exclusively beautiful/handsome characters, they make them as simple as possible to keep them relatable and much more easier to manage.
The difference here is that Disney has always set out to make their MALES different while sticking their females to the same “doe eyed, small nose, thin lips” ideal. Yes, there is a set Disney style and it has always focused on those features and that necessarily isn’t a bad thing. It’s the Disney style. HOWEVER it seems to only apply to their females. Even worse is their marketing of said females.
GOTTA KEEP THEM GURLS PURTY
The Disney style has shifted from time to time and it shows evidence that it CAN include more diverse female designs. Both Kida and Calhoun are wonderful examples of this. It’s not as if Disney hasn’t evolved or changed their views on female characters to a certain extent. Unfortunately, said shifts haven’t always worked out in our favor or headed in the right direction. It wasn’t until Tangled that Disney came out with it’s true “get richer quicker” scheme with their female leads.
watch as i shift into MAXIMUM PUNZEL-DRIVE
As of late it’s Disney’s sheer laziness when it comes to female design and their own avarice that has caused SUUUUCH a dramatic shift in how fans are taking the Disney style now. When Ghibli audiences and fans never look at a new movie and go “oh it’s Chihiro but tiny” or “oh it’s Chihiro but on a broom.” That is the set style, not a lazy copy-paste.
But hey, let’s bring in OTHER females to see how this works out. I mean, the Ghibli style is prevalent to ALL of their characters so surely all the parents look exactly like their children.
Let’s look at these lovely lady leads and compare them to their parents.
Congrats, kids, you’re all adopted!
WEIRDLY ENOUGH all of the characters and their parents (if they have any) share same characteristics while at the same time remaining completely unique to each other. It’s almost as if they also take after their father and/or previous generations of their familly. Haha, genetics!
But okay, let’s be a little more fair with Disney.
Let’s look at two families with two daughters.
Mitosis or go home
There is having stylistic choices and there is being lazy.
There is creating a character with similarities to their parent and there is making a recolor of your lead character.
There is creating simple designs for a traditionally animated film and there is reusing the same model because it worked so well the first time.
There is being a small Tokyo-based studio with 300 employees and there is being a large American animation studio with 800+ employees.
THAT is why no one ever complains about Ghibli’s approach to character design and THAT is why Disney doesn’t even come close to Miyazaki.
Let’s finish this off with some MORE wonderful Ghibli characters (most of which being my personal favorites so they belong on here too.)
Now go watch more Ghibli.
(N.B. This is probably something that other people have said before me, and better. But I just wanted to get it out.)
As much of a fan of Harry Potter as I am, one thing has always reeeeeally bothered me about the worldbuilding.
From a game design perspective, Quidditch is fundamentally broken. In fact, it seems to be a lot like Monopoly, in that in Wizarding culture it’s so traditional as to be sacrosanct, but the actual rules design sucks.
(Now, it’s been pointed out to me that Quidditch’s brokenness is JK Rowling’s intentional reference to the ridiculousness of cricket, which seems fair — and even if it wasn’t, one of the themes of the books is that Wizarding culture is traditional and stubborn to the point of self-destruction, so keep in mind that I’m not blaming JK Rowling, but rather the culture that she created, for the badness of the rules of Quidditch.)
Why is it bad? Because basically, the Seekers are the only ones that matter. Except in a few offhandedly mentioned corner cases, the Seeker that catches the Snitch wins the game, because otherwise your team has to be 300 points behind in which case you have no reason to want to catch the damn thing at all. The Keepers and Chasers barely matter at all, and the Beaters are pretty much only there to keep the heat off their team’s Seeker.
The thing that’s really frustrating, though, is that it’s such an easy fix. The secret to making the game fair, while keeping its essential flavor and increasing everyone’s usefulness? Make the Snitch worth zero points. It still ends the game, Seekers still exist, et cetera. But the Snitch isn’t worth anything, points-wise.
Now, with that one tiny rules change, how it would play out is this: The Chasers, Keepers, and Beaters are still trying to score as many points as they can. But for Seekers, the game is very different depending on whether your team is ahead or behind in the points. If you’re ahead, you’re trying to grab the Snitch and end the game before the other team catches up. If you’re behind, you’re running defense, distracting the other Seeker and keeping him/her from grabbing the Snitch until the rest of your team has a chance to catch up.
Suddenly, everyone’s important to the overall skill of the team, but the Seekers still control the pace of the game, it still has the same quality of “bam it’s suddenly over”, and now the game is more interesting for everyone including Seekers.
Putting down your razor can lift your G.P.A. at Arizona State University.
Professor Breanne Fahs offers female students extra-credit if they “stop shaving their legs and underarms for ten weeks during the semester while keeping a journal to document their experiences.” For Fahs, who teaches women and gender studies, the purpose is to get students thinking critically about societal norms and gender roles.
A similar opportunity is available to men in Fahs’ classes who recieve extra credit for shaving all of their hair from the neck down.
One student, Stephanie Robinson, described it as a “life-changing experience“:
Many of my friends didn’t want to work out next to me or hear about the assignment, and my mother was distraught at the idea that I would be getting married in a white dress with armpit hair. I also noticed the looks on faces of strangers and people around campus who seemed utterly disgusted by my body hair. It definitely made me realize that if you’re not strictly adhering to socially prescribed gender roles, your body becomes a site for contestation and public opinion.
Men seemed to have an easier time with it since some degree of “manscaping” has become accepted, or even expected.
The norm of women shaving body hair dates back to an effort by Gillette to expand their market for razors. Starting around 1915, Gillette started a campaign “denouncing the (previously inoffensive) female underarm hair as ‘unsightly’, ‘masculine’ and ‘unclean’.” In the 1920s, they expanded their efforts to leg hair, glamorizing “a smooth, silky leg.”
Still, “[b]efore the first world war, virtually no American woman shaved her legs. By 1964, 98% of women under the age of 44 did so.”
In 2010, Mo’Nique created a minor stir by appearing at the Golden Globes with unshaven legs. This year some celebrities, including Cameron Diaz, have been speaking out for more tolerance for women’s choices.
Fahs received an award from the American Psychological Association in recognition of her program and has been contacted by “faculty members at other universities are considering using the exercise in their classes.”