Why Is It Anthropomorphic Animals In Cartoons Don't Wear Clothes?

[Seil]

I was looking through the old Rabbit's A Grouch thread, and I noticed that this question popped up a bunch:

Originally Posted by MegamanFTW

What is it with cartoons not wearing clothes anyway? Theres Yogi, Chip and Dale, Pokemon, Dragonball, and like a billion other shows. They should put on pants.

Originally Posted by Mirai Gen

I like how Rabbit puts on more clothing to sleep than when he's awake.

Like, alright, time to go to sleep, I'm going to get into a shirt and cap despite that I do everything else in my daily routine buttass naked.

So yeah - I kinda get the idea that "Hey, they're animals - they don't need clothes." But then why put the clothes on in the first place? I mean, geez - Pooh has a shirt, Yogi has a hat and a tie... um... Chip and Dale had shirts... Whatever happened to pants? I feel that cartoons scarred me into the pantophoic person I am today.

And don't even get started on Donald Duck.

Okay, Donald is game.

And, just to get it out of the way:

FURRIES.

[Arhra]

Because otherwise it would be harder to make them look like specific animals?

Also, a lot of them are really weird shapes. Pants would just look weird.

[Bells]

just to put it on record... Goofy had pants and shoes, and Mickey too, didnt he?

Maybe that's why Disney is so famous...

[Tev]

Gadget wore a jumpsuit.....but she had girly bits to cover up.

[Lumenskir]

And WHAT'S the deal with that black box? If it's the only thing that survives a plane crash, why not make the entire plane out of the black box? And Count Chocula, what's his story? Am I honestly supposed to be afraid of this guy? Don't even get me started on the ad-wizards behind Frankenberry, don't even get me started.

[Regulus Tera]

Dot Warner cared to put on panties and a skirt, yet never wore a top. An intriguing question indeed....

[EVILNess]

Originally Posted by Seil

I was looking through the old Rabbit's A Grouch thread, and I noticed that this question popped up a bunch:




So yeah - I kinda get the idea that "Hey, they're animals - they don't need clothes." But then why put the clothes on in the first place? I mean, geez - Pooh has a shirt, Yogi has a hat and a tie... um... Chip and Dale had shirts... Whatever happened to pants? I feel that cartoons scarred me into the pantophoic person I am today.

And don't even get started on Donald Duck.

Okay, Donald is game.

And, just to get it out of the way:

FURRIES.

It's traditional.

And how dare you call Winnie the Motherfucking Pooh a goddamn furry. You should be ashamed.

[bluestarultor]

Part of the reason is that clothes are something patently limited to humans. Putting a few articles on a cartoon animal helps humanize them a bit more. Also to consider, though, is that clothes are harder to draw. Therefore, limiting the clothing on a cartoon character makes them easier to draw, which helps when you have to do it a million times for 3 seconds of film. Hence other things like skipping the pinkies, putting on white gloves, etc. Anything you can do to simplify the design is a plus in traditional animation.

[Marelo]

What bluestarultor said.

Also, sometimes, as in the case of Dot Warner, the clothes are the only way to easily determine gender. If Donald Duck had no clothing whatsoever, would you be so sure he's a he?

[Tev]

Another thing with the humanization is, as blue said, small bits of clothing work wonders. Take for instance the transformation between the animals from Jungle Book into Tail Spin.