Is it me or G4 toys are cuter than G4 cartoons?

[Dreamer]

Of course this is only my opinion, you can disagree

I think this happens because in the cartoon, when ponies are in front of the camera, their eyes are GINORMOUS and one next to each other (let me borrow a pic from another topic as an example)

Spoiler

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

But unlike the cartoon ponies, the toys have got a really wide space between their eyes, which are smaller too (pic by the Toy Box Philosopher)

Spoiler

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I don't know exactly why, but the toys' facial features look sweeter to me. What do you think?

[zombienixon]

I've noticed that the cartoon ponies no matter which gen look kind of awkward when viewed head on. This is especially true for G3s.

[ladybastilla]

Not sure if I can render a real opinion here. The pictures are at best biased... kind of like asking if a butterfly is pretty without its wings? Based on normal pictures, the answer likely depends on what drew someone into collecting the g4 line, or whether anything has drawn them from it. There are many who prefer the blind bags and Funko Pop! figures to standard brushables because of their show accuracy.

Personally, I like the show and that is what got me started collecting. But the more I've collected, the less of a focus g4 has become. I have most of the characters I want from the show at this point and most of my focus now is on older generations where the media they did promoted the ponies, rather than somehow getting turned the other way.

To each their own, though.

[Carrehz]

I've noticed that the cartoon ponies no matter which gen look kind of awkward when viewed head on. This is especially true for G3s.

Yeah, this.

Personally I do greatly prefer the toys to the show.. but I'm not much of a fan of the show in general, so there you go. :p

[LadyMoondancer]

It's the opposite for me!  The toys just don't look that great to me.  Ears too big, horns too small on the unicorns (shorter than their ears), tail set awkwardly low, and a head that really could belong to a deer or a mouse as easily as a pony . . . The whole effect is kind of generic.

The animation is what makes them feel like ponies, because in that they move like ponies.

[otocolobus_manul]

It's the opposite for me!  The toys just don't look that great to me.  Ears too big, horns too small on the unicorns (shorter than their ears), tail set awkwardly low, and a head that really could belong to a deer or a mouse as easily as a pony . . . The whole effect is kind of generic.

The animation is what makes them feel like ponies, because in that they move like ponies.

I agree! I think the toy muzzles are too small, whereas they're a bit more defined on the show, and thus look more pony-like. And I like the big eyes - the toy ones feel disproportionately small.

I do find the toys adorable, but I like the cartoons more.

[BlushingBlue]

It's the other way around for me. Even though the show has all the same ultra-stylized facial distortions as the toys (gigantic ears, weensy noses, etc) I feel like the cartoony style somehow works in 2D, and all the charm falls away in 3D leaving the disproportions front and center.

It's interesting that you find the wider-set eyes on the toys more attractive. I seem to recall hearing Lauren Faust say she actually vetoed Hasbro's first pass at translating her 2D designs into 3D because she thought the faces looked too wide and wall-eyed from the front. Which, to be fair to Hasbro, is a more realistic take on an equine face-shape, but it can sometime result in things like this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 (Poor Luna!)
so it's a difficult balance to strike.


---Personal opinions, should-a could-a, and unintentional puns ahead---


The horse is already out of the barn at this point, but I personally feel like Hasbro made a huge misstep by tying their latest MLP gen so tightly to the show. I think MLP would have benefited as a whole by Hasbro letting all of their variously talented employees play to their strengths and by having a firmer division between the show-design and the toy-design. In my opinion, they should've given Faust free rein to shape the characters and mythology for the cartoon without her worrying about how to work around the expectations of doll manufacturing, and let their toy designers actually design attractive toys without being hobbled by the impossible task of "show accuracy" (I hate this phrase so much, I can't even) to an incredibly stylized design.  FiM fans could've still had the show they love, with all the attendant spin-off properties/merchandise -- comics, clothing, TCG, etc... even specialty figures and plush -- without feeling let down in their entitlement toward the mass-market toyline and its *grits teeth* show accuracy. Fans of the toys could've had a generally more appealing design (and maybe more variety) for their "brushables" and other toys without feeling like they have to defend their affection toward the point of the franchise; it would be more clearly delineated as Not For You to strictly-show-only fans. The Equestria Girls line could've been a nice middle ground that everyone hated equally. (Kidding! Sunset Shimmer is the legit best.)

[zombienixon]

It's the other way around for me. Even though the show has all the same ultra-stylized facial distortions as the toys (gigantic ears, weensy noses, etc) I feel like the cartoony style somehow works in 2D, and all the charm falls away in 3D leaving the disproportions front and center.

It's interesting that you find the wider-set eyes on the toys more attractive. I seem to recall hearing Lauren Faust say she actually vetoed Hasbro's first pass at translating her 2D designs into 3D because she thought the faces looked too wide and wall-eyed from the front. Which, to be fair to Hasbro, is a more realistic take on an equine face-shape, but it can sometime result in things like this:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
 (Poor Luna!)
so it's a difficult balance to strike.


---Personal opinions, should-a could-a, and unintentional puns ahead---


The horse is already out of the barn at this point, but I personally feel like Hasbro made a huge misstep by tying their latest MLP gen so tightly to the show. I think MLP would have benefited as a whole by Hasbro letting all of their variously talented employees play to their strengths and by having a firmer division between the show-design and the toy-design. In my opinion, they should've given Faust free rein to shape the characters and mythology for the cartoon without her worrying about how to work around the expectations of doll manufacturing, and let their toy designers actually design attractive toys without being hobbled by the impossible task of "show accuracy" (I hate this phrase so much, I can't even) to an incredibly stylized design.  FiM fans could've still had the show they love, with all the attendant spin-off properties/merchandise -- comics, clothing, TCG, etc... even specialty figures and plush -- without feeling let down in their entitlement toward the mass-market toyline and its *grits teeth* show accuracy. Fans of the toys could've had a generally more appealing design (and maybe more variety) for their "brushables" and other toys without feeling like they have to defend their affection toward the point of the franchise; it would be more clearly delineated as Not For You to strictly-show-only fans. The Equestria Girls line could've been a nice middle ground that everyone hated equally. (Kidding! Sunset Shimmer is the legit best.)

If anything G4 toys need to take more inspiration from FiM. G3 integrated the cartoons and the toys better than any other gen, from what I've seen. If you saw a pony or a building in one of those cartoons, odds are you could buy one.  FiM has so many interesting character designs, but the problem is most of them are never made into toys.

And the accuracy complaint isn't really aimed at the basic body shape. Most of the time it's referring to the hair. Besides, as much as you hear complaints about the toys from them, it really doesn't have and effect on the direction of the toyline since most of them don't buy many toys, partly because there's not much interest and partly because most of them are teenagers and have no money. Mostly they like blind bags, Funkos, and plushes. The only overlap with them and children in terms of merchandise are the blind bags. And even then, they're outnumbered greatly by children.

[sd_dreamcrystal]

I believe it just depends on the toy/animation... I can say to me some of the angles in the show make the ponies look... not so cute, especially with some of the expressions used. As for the toys, errors can cause issued and just general design flaws make them no so cute..

In G4 playful size Luna's case the design flaw of her eyes doesn't look right, but the way the cartoon ponies are drawn, the humanized anatomy added for the expression doesn't help either and that is a design flaw in the art style of the show depending on how a views perceives it. Especially with the eyes because they take up 2/3 of the head.

[hathorcat]

Now dont get me wrong...I do think that the toys look like deer. But I also think they look like adorable deer I much prefer the toys and their design to the cartoon itself. Both are over exagerated in different ways...its just that I prefer how its done on the toy line.

[NoPonySpecial]

I don't think the toys are particularly cute in G4. I find them cute because I know the characters, but if I weren't into the show or MLP, I would completely ignore these toys.
That said, I personally find the cartoon ponies really cute (despite their nub-noses) but I wish they had smaller eyes. It's fitting you posted a pic of Rarity, dreamer, she is just the worst for it. I know humans biologically like bigger eyes, but eyes that take up the entire face are creepy to me. Not that I notice it while I'm watching it - the only pony who's eyes just start to unnerve me is Rarity.

[BlushingBlue]

If anything G4 toys need to take more inspiration from FiM. G3 integrated the cartoons and the toys better than any other gen, from what I've seen. If you saw a pony or a building in one of those cartoons, odds are you could buy one.  FiM has so many interesting character designs, but the problem is most of them are never made into toys.

See, I think this is exactly backward, and I could probably write pages about my feelings on it, but it's not the time or place for such things.

And the accuracy complaint isn't really aimed at the basic body shape. Most of the time it's referring to the hair. Besides, as much as you hear complaints about the toys from them, it really doesn't have and effect on the direction of the toyline since most of them don't buy many toys, partly because there's not much interest and partly because most of them are teenagers and have no money. Mostly they like blind bags, Funkos, and plushes. The only overlap with them and children in terms of merchandise are the blind bags. And even then, they're outnumbered greatly by children.

My frustration with "show accuracy" has nothing to do with complaints from "them" (who?) and everything to do with Hasbro's decision-making.

The point I was trying to make in my first post was that Hasbro's attempt at "show accuracy" is what gave us "deer mice lol what" with "WRONG HAIR!!1ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)" making fans on both sides of MLP wonder what was up with G4. It's nearly impossible to faithfully recreate FiM's signature style as attractive toys with Hasbro's standard materials and processes. Case in point, how do you make a head sculpt with eyes so big that they're simultaneously on the sides and front of the face without it looking bizarre? How do you even begin to reproduce Luna's mane in nylon fiber without using liberal creative license? Something, somewhere, has to give. Cartoons can't be bribed into obeying the laws of physics with 10¢ worth of labor and 5¢ worth of plastic, and IMO it was ultimately a fool's errand to try. If Hasbro had had the courage to walk back their commitment to transcribe FiM's distinct aesthetic into "brushable" form, I think everyone would have benefited, even the show folks. In my opinion, trying for "show accuracy" doomed G4 ponies to mediocrity, and trying to fix it by doubling down with even more "show accuracy" would be like pouring water on a grease fire.

To be perfectly clear, I think it's wonderful and necessary that FiM has memorable characters and a signature style. And I absolutely think that cross-pollination between the two branches of MLP is a desirable goal, but ideally it needs to be in a balanced, give-and-take way. When you rely on the show to fuel the toyline, ponies are just character merchandise, and creativity gets choked out. When you rely on the toyline to fuel the show, the show is just a glorified commercial and isn't allowed its own voice. Hasbro historically did the latter, then tried to pivot to do the former, and ultimately ended up sacrificing the integrity of both toy and show. I have no doubt FiM and G4 would make even greater things if they could easily work with/off each other, instead of one being beholden to the other or both being slaves to $$$, but sadly that ship has sailed.

I guess I got long-winded and self-indulgent after all. Sorry about that. Also "toy" and "show" are both nonsense words to me now, so I think that's a good sign to quit.

[Sparkle Pony]

Personally I don't think the cartoon designs translate that well to actual physical 3D reality.  It just wasn't made with that in mind.  Sure I think I have a lot of cute G4 toys, but they really could be so much better.

[LadyMoondancer]

I saw a video of Lauren Faust and Bonnie Zacherle (sp?) at one of the pony conventions where Faust mentioned that Hasbro involved her with the toy design process in some way--probably to make sure the toys looked similar to the cartoon ponies and vice versa, since the cartoons are essentially to sell toys--and she mentioned that she originally had pointier (and I think she said smaller?) ears in mind, but Hasbro insisted on rounded ears because angular toys "are for boys".

I swear, you can't make this stuff up.

(Also, Bonnie said that Hasbro insisted on a very static pose for the Collector ponies rather than a dynamic pose.  The more things change the more they stay the same.)

I wish they'd gone a less literal route, personally.  I don't think kids really care that much about toys looking 100% exactly like their cartoon counterparts. I mean, otherwise what's the point of the Water Cuties or the ribbon-in-mane ponies, which are not represented in the show?

As long as it's recognizably the same character, that's pretty much what matters.  I like the G4 designs in 2D, am not very fond of them in 3D.   Except the wings, those are awesome.

[Lore-Lei]

Personally I don't think the cartoon designs translate that well to actual physical 3D reality.  It just wasn't made with that in mind.

Sparkle gets it. Have you guys seen a custom plush that looked show-accurate from the front? Half their eyes are literally on their muzzle when you look at them from the side. Vice versa.

The flash animated ponies have completely different porpotions in different angles.

(Imma link a couple pictures if get to my PC tomorrow to show you guys.)

As for which one is cuter... I actually love both of them, they're all adorable in their ways most of the time.