"Stock Animal" tropes

Posted this in the wrong place before but adding in here :)

TLDR: All stock cartoon depiction tropes (how a generic thing is drawn more or less realistically) should be converged into a Stock Cartoon Depictions supertrope and existing examples purged or migrated off Main. There should also be a moratorium on new stock cartoon depictions on TLP.

For items with short hand generic depictions that are ubiquitous, there's rarely a reason for an artist to explicitly depict them in a more differentiated manner unless the story demands it because those generic things are plot relevant due to The Law of Conservation of Detail, Acceptable Breaks from Reality, Artistic License, and Lazy Artist.

Per Not a Trope, these examples aren't tropes, are omnipresent, or aren't worth their own tropes ... especially since they don't convey meaning besides being depictions of the thing that they are.

Examples of stock cartoon depictions that don't actually convey any meaning and should be migrated under an umbrella Stock Cartoon Depiction supertrope and/or made into redirects:

• Animals
  • Cartoon Penguin — 23 wicks, 105 inbounds
  • Cartoon Whale — 31 wicks, 108 inbounds
  • Stock Beehive — 71 wicks, 3174 inbounds
• Food
  • Stock Food Depictions — 36 wicks, 191 inbounds
    • Cartoon Cheese — 123 wicks, 4856 inbounds
    • Cartoon Meat — 48 wicks, 4114 inbounds
    • Every Pizza Is Pepperoni — 56 wicks, 632 inbounds
    • ISO-Standard Urban Groceries — 94 wicks, 34810 inbounds
• Anatomy
  • Solid Cartoon Facial Stubble — 43 wicks, 170 inbounds
  • Stock Femur Bone — 150 wicks, 1437 inbounds
• Other
  • Rainbow Lite — 66 wicks, 558 inbounds

Edited by Jetbent on Sep 8th 2022 at 11:27:13 AM

The Stock Cartoon Animal Depictions draft is different from Small Taxonomy Pools with animal depictions that are just plain inaccurate. It's more like Artistic License – Biology.

That's an extremely weird take considering a recurring criticism was that a lot of the depictions were realistic.

right. i brought it up on the draft but in most cases, the animal species the cartoonist is trying to depict is often not specified. "Inaccurate" doesn't make much sense here since that assumes there's an explicit animal species trying to be modeled after and that's often not the case. Often it's literally "this is a generic non-descript [[insert animal]]". The lack of specificity is the point.

This the difference between, say, drawing a blue sphere for "planet" and drawing a blue sphere for "planet Earth". It would not be inaccurate for the former, since yeah, some planets are blue spheres. Having a planet be represented by one isn't incorrect since it is a possibility. But it would be inaccurate for the Earth, since the geological features would require there to be land masses depicted as well.

That's a very helpful compilation, thank you!

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 7th 2022 at 7:14:12 AM

Question: if the "stock X" tropes were to be TRSed, how would we do it?

My suggestion for Stock X pertaining to cartoon depictions would be to have the ones with a high inbound count use redirects and maybe have their own section on the supertrope page and maybe all of the work that has gone into referencing them added to Just for Fun or Trivia but otherwise retired from the Main space.

For the TRS game plan:

0. Moratorium / ban on all cartoon depiction tropes formalized for TLP

0.5. They would all be a single batch migration that references them all but is only one entry.

1. Start with the super trope, get it approved and launched on TLP

2. Copy markup for all existing stock X cartoon depictions into sandbox pages

3. Set up redirects for all of them to point to the super trope

4. Nuke any text that may have existed for them on their original main pages

5. Migrate all of their examples to Trivia or Just for Fun from the Sandbox

Edited by Jetbent on Sep 7th 2022 at 5:09:02 AM

I meant like, would we take them in individually, or as a batch thread?

Updated my comment to reflect your question and expound :)

Then look at the draft again. Every single example is an unrealistic depiction of an animal.

Challenge accepted. Let's go through every example. For every realistic one I'll put a link for proof.

• Garfield:
  • Bird: Birds with blue feathers and yellow feet actually do exist. Who's to say he wasn't one of these?
  • And this needs more context because while I get what you're saying it's very oddly described, and also this isn't really a depiction of the animal moreso than it is one of those "artistic shortcuts" to avoid needing to change the butterfly's model.
• Bambi: Ignoring the wick to a defunct trope, this is again another butterfly example and IDK why it would be "Up to eleven" in the first place. Even if technically unrealistic I've already explained why it happens, and why I wouldn't consider it a "depiction".
• Nemo: Okay, but this just explains Artistic License – Biology, not what makes Peach "stock".
• Hedge: This is just inconsistent lighting, not a stock depiction of anything. Furthermore, racoons come in both colors.
• The monkey joke: Why is this one even here and not on the monkey draft? But since it is here, hey, check out these brown monkeys.
• Brown Bear Book: So... A saxony duck and a koi?
• Monkey Song: More brown monkeys. As noted, they do in fact exist.
• Snail thing: You mean like these antennae? Don't tell me that they're called tentacles — both words can be used here.
• Freddi:
  • Uh... So just a slightly different goldfish design, then?
  • And I'm just gonna note that you're saying this one is justified but not the peach one, when an anatomically correct starfish would look even creepier. You're not wrong about it being incorrect, but I just thought it was kinda funny.
• Pokemon: Caterpie is a fictional monster. It's not trying to be a real depiction of any actual caterpillar. Why only bring up caterpie? And why does it matter if that particular species of caterpillar starts brown when it clearly ends up looking like a caterpie? This one is just confusing. It's not a stock depiction, it's based on a real species, which you acknowledged.
• OOTS: Alright; not much to really say here other than that once again you've decided one can be "justified" even though all of these are more or less justified by nature of being simplified images to make art easier.
• Sheldon: I know I already pointed out a real life species of duck with yellowy-feathers mostly just to prove a point, but otherwise... yeah, these ducks are probably one of the most common forms of "stock animal art" out there that isn't completely realistic.
• Article: I mean, responding to this would be kind of pointless since you didn't write it, so... yeah moving on
• 'Nother article: Same thing
• Peppa: I'm confused? Why would that make it more or less realistic? What is it like normally?
• Ren and Stimpy: More brown monkeys
• Simpsons: I mean, to be fair this is a character's dream, I once dreamt of a massive nonexistent spider living in my shed that looks nothing close to reality. I wouldn't expect realism in a dream scenario at all, but technically yes this depiction is unrealistic.
• Timon and Pumbaa: 'Nother snail

Not gonna do the second section since why would I, they're not even stock depictions in the first place.

So what's my point? My point is that while yes a bunch of these were unrealistic, others... weren't? Or were too vague to really clarify what you meant?

And you keep doing this, but please, for the love of God, if you get your TLP privileges back, stop making changes and then never announcing them, and especially stop pretending those problems never existed. You keep making statements as though we're all making shit up when you're literally changing things on a dime, not explaining what you've changed, and then making statements like that when challenged on seemingly ignoring criticism.

Like I don't think you're doing this on purpose to confuse anyone, but you keep doing it even after people express frustration with the draft and your percieved inability to listen to criticism. All I'm asking for is better transparency and open acknowledgement of the issues we're presenting, because otherwise it does come off as you willingly ignoring what people are saying or worse, trying to gaslight us into thinking these criticisms were never valid.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 8th 2022 at 1:52:47 PM

1. Looking at the image you linked to, the bird isn't completely blue. It has some black feathers.

2. You are right that it's not really a stock depiction, it's more a case of Stylized for the Viewer. Those examples are exaggerated since butterflies tend to be drawn as legless except for when they land on something. In those examples, even when the butterflies land, they still don't have legs. Those examples can be moved to Stylized for the Viewer.

3. It's already mentioned in the description that starfish are almost drawn with their face in the center. There are other examples of anatomically incorrect starfish that aren't "stock".

4. I thought a brown raccoon was unrealistic, which would've made that a zig-zagged example. Yeah, that example can be removed then.

5. Ok, the monkey examples can be removed, then.

6. Those ducks look brown to me.

7. Ok, it can be rewritten to mention that it's an orange fish with yellow fins and a yellow tail.

8. It includes the line "Show us your eyes and head" which would mean that the eyes are not on the tentacles.

9. Still an inversion.

10. I didn't write that example, I pulled it from Typical Cartoon Animal Colors. Now looking at it, it doesn't really fit. Yeah, that can be removed.

11. Maybe at the very least a subverted example since at first, it looks as if the snail's eyes are on its head until it uncoils its eyes. That can be moved to the other folder.

12. The example can be rewritten to mention it's justified since it's a dream.

1. Sure... But what I was trying to prove is that I could find a bird with a very similar color scheme, which then proves that these sort of birds exist and that it wasn't entirely unrealistic (even if there are black feathers). I'm still not really convinced that the combo of "blue feathers" and "yellow feet" is even stock for a cartoon bird, mostly because it seems if anything too outlandish, like, why would the default color be a body color that's honestly pretty rare? If it's just the yellow feet thing, then surely there are other examples in the comics you could use???
2. Agree, they're just stylized and simplified, not stock
3. One thing you need to learn is that people are allergic to descriptions. Hate 'em. Won't read them. Will assume they know everything without needing to. And no, this isn't an exaggeration, read some older TRS threads and you'll be shocked. Anyway my point is that you can't rely on the context present in the description to explain the thought process behind an example, especially since once you crosswick it that context will be behind the link. I wasn't there to argue that Peach wasn't necessarily "stock" (though the fact that she's the only example so far is a bit concerning) but that you needed better context.
   ...But while we're here I should probably say that, like, I do think it's bizarre to label these things as stock actually? Like an atomically correct cartoon starfish would be terrifying and it's frankly bizarre to nitpick and otherwise accurately presented animal given a funny cartoon face as "stock". It's not an artistic shorthand or single color being used for a broad range of species... it does what you admitted it does in the description and makes them relatable to the audience. I feel like your idea of "stock" goes a little too deep, and this sort of thing feels more like an "Everything Has A Face" trope where every sentient object and creature has to have a humanoid face for the sake of the audience. (Sorry, this one kind ended up as a rant, but I feel like it's all important.)
4. Ok
5. Yep
6. I literally typed "yellow duck" into google. They're not a bright rubber-ducky yellow, no, but they are golden. Colors can be subjective at times, but apparently the google image search agrees with me, so
7. ...lemme be honest I totally read it as being "orange and white" yesterday which is why I suggested it was a koi in the first place. Not sure what happened. I'll take the L on this one.
8. Ehhhh? I mean it depends on how you interpret the song. Why would you be able to see the antenna of a snail and not "their eyes and head"? I simply can't understand the order of events presented in this song and that's why it needs more context outside of the lyrics
9. ...Why? It's just a slightly altered color pallet, and there's not enough examples of that exact fish design to really prove that it's actually the stock depiction. Even then, why isn't it in the other folder? (I'm no fan of splitting up work examples like this, but you have to admit it would at least make more sense)
10. Again, the issue here was that the context provided was hard to parse and honestly made me extremely confused what you were even referring to.
11. I mean... I guess??? But I'm sure if you had to there are countless other examples of these things in the Simpsons and you don't need to fall back on dream logic to make it work.

After removing the examples we discussed could be removed (Racoon, Monkey Examples, Caterpie, Butterfly examples), even if every other example is still perfectly fine (disputable, but let's roll with it for now), that's gonna remove quite a few things and we still need to figure out the status of the other ones.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make wasn't that your examples were all realistic or that individual things needed to be removed, it was that despite your insistence that you "removed the unrealistic examples" there's evidence to prove that complaint still held up and at the very least it implies you didn't research them to see whether or not they were realistic. Most of these things I found just by looking at google images and seeing if they gave me anything to work with — no reason you couldn't have done that exact same thing on your own.

Also, since I somehow missed Squidward's example, I'll argue that pretty much all the characters in SpongeBob are not at all meant to be depicted realistically and that Squidward isn't even the most egregious example, nor is anyone going to expect the creators to change his color when he's on land since that'd just confuse the kids, and if this even counts it should be zig-zagged or something.

Why does the status need to be mentioned? Every example in Stock Food Depictions is a form of Playing With, but none of them mention which form of Playing With they are.

1. the issue is finding out what a good example for a trope like this even looks like, not just whether they are played with. that's the reason why people have been discussing a def only page version of this trope if one must exist
2. given that the convo has long since broadened to include all of the Stock cartoon tropes, using Stock Food Depictions as justification for this draft is not the solid defense you think it is

We need an Anthropomorphism supertrope.

By "status" I meant whether or not they're in good condition. That's what this entire part of the discussion has been about - figuring out whether your examples:

1. Count and
2. Are well-written

Edit: And yeah, I think some of these issues would be resolved with an "Anthropomorphism" trope, or, like I suggested, the "Everything has a Face" trope. I wouldn't consider cartoon faces on realistic animals to be "stock depictions", just an artist's attempt at making things less freaky and more humanoid for the kids.

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 9th 2022 at 3:56:16 PM

Everything has a face = Invoked Pareidolia :)

That's a good way of putting it, I suppose I always forget Pareidolia is why people can see faces on things. This trope is like combining that natural pattern-seeking with the need to create relatable characters.

I'd take this to the sounding board but like... I'm not interested in drafting it myself...

Edited by WarJay77 on Sep 9th 2022 at 12:37:43 PM

I'll make a note to myself to draft something in my sandbox, actually. I have Thoughts and Opinions about the way wrapping something in human form allows people to pretend they understand and are familiar with it.^note I'll keep the body horror out of the trope, of course

So, going back to the original point... does anyone else agree that some of these examples are just "normal animal with a face" and not "cartoon stock animals"?

Such as?

Such as Peach from Finding Nemo, the starfish with a face that started this whole tangent a few posts up? (And the other "justified to make them more relatable" cases too)

Googling... apparently real starfish have their eyes at the ends of their arms? I wouldn't call starfish with a face in the center "stock" so much as anthropomorphized.

Searching "justified" on the draft, I'm finding:

• The mail snail from Freddi Fish and the Case of the Hogfish Rustlers of Briny Gulch has his eyes below his stalks. Justified since it would look weird to have his hat on his eyes, behind his eyes, or between his eyes.

anthromorphization

• Blackwing the raven, Vaarsuvius's Familiar, has bright orange beak and legs that, while typical of cartoon corvids, make him resemble a male common blackbird more closely than anything else. Largely justified in this case — being all-black would make him less visually interesting and, especially in the comic's deliberately simplistic art style, make his expressions harder to read.

Looking up 'cartoon crow', I am indeed finding quite a few with an orange beak/legs. Seems about half-and-half.

Seems like there should be another trope to describe the 'justified' part.

• Squidward Tentacles is a blue-green octopus, but octopi only look that color because of the sea tint. "Reef Blower" shows him to be purple above water as a justification. However he remains green in his other out-of-water appearances, such as in "Pressure" and The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge out of Water.

not sure what to make of this one

i don't think there needs to be a trope for "object is depicted in a certain way because that's how it is in real life". again, see the incidental part of People Sit on Chairs and Not a Trope

Edited by amathieu13 on Sep 9th 2022 at 2:28:27 PM

I think what "justified" means here is that the simplified design is justified by the work.

I mean taking artistic liberties to make the character more expressive. Real life ravens don't have orange beaks.