• 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    If you watch that in theatres when it came out, you would have heard the whole audience being disappointed with the end.

    Disney furry psyop worked so well, that a cute twunk was a massive downgrade

    • Broadfern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      He was gruff and should have had a beard and looked like a bear, not a twunk.

      Disney fans love a himbo since Kronk was a smash hit. But the expectations and delivery in this one were weird.

      The live-action was slightly better on this since dude looked a little more evenly grown and less like a 17 year old on poorly manufactured steroids.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        18 days ago

        This, the overall body shape and design should match the one of the beast.

        not again cute tinks, but the change was so drastic.

        A good example is shrek and Shrek 2.

        Fiona’s transformation wasn’t so drastic,. and in Shrek 2, Shrek’s transformation made sense. he was handsome, but still maintained a shrekness. by body size, large nose…

        I’m trying to think of more transformations,

        • Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 days ago

          I would still plow ogre Fiona. Woman is built like the middle daughter of a potato farmer. I may even prefer it over her human form. I just hope she doesn’t come with that signature ogre stink.

      • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        18 days ago

        He was gruff and should have had a beard and looked like a bear, not a twunk.

        I think the beard thing would have been wrong for the time period (that the movie was made). I think beards were pretty iconoclastic and relatively rare for 1991 for anyone under 50 or 60. It would have made him seem like he was old. He definitely should have been aged better, though, total agreement. It honestly looks like someone took a teenager’s skin and stretched it over a ‘perfect’ mask.

        • morto@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 days ago

          My family photos from the 90’s disagree. There’s even one of my uncles with a mustache in them, and he was like 20 or 30.

          • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            18 days ago

            Oh, god, yes, mustaches, but not beards. Off the top of my head, 3/9 of my parent’s generation in my family had mustaches. In my grandparent’s generation, I can think of 3/4 having mustaches. One grew a beard as we entered the early 2000s. My dad grows a beard now in his 70s.

          • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 days ago

            When you say it, yeah, it sort of does appear that way. As if they kept some of the cues from the beast mode, like the super wide nose.