|
Post by herebewonder on Apr 27, 2016 13:43:41 GMT -5
I'm currently going through all the episodes of Kim Possible with my kids and we just watched "October 31st". As we were watching the scene at the party when the battle armor completely covers KP, my oldest daughter had pretty much the same reaction I did: "Hey, that armor looks pretty cool--" *Sees the part where it covers KP's hair, making her look bald.* "Nope, never mind." -c
|
|
|
Post by christhecynic on Apr 27, 2016 15:04:36 GMT -5
I have the same feeling. I don't know what it should have done exactly, but that just looks all kinds of wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Luke Danger on Apr 27, 2016 16:40:30 GMT -5
What, the part where Kim is nominally grounded for endangering lives when it wouldn't have mattered if she told the truth or not, villains were going to come after her and the armor she wears no matter what? (or the fact that Ron only had twenty crabwalks for lying to get onto a Varsity Sports Team and then pretty much cheating in an actual game, whereas this got Kim grounded for a month) Mind, I never had that reaction or thought of "Kim looks bald". I mean, whenever Kim puts a helmet on her hair does compress a lot. The main difference is the Centurion Project was far too tight and didn't have her hair drop out. I never really had that reaction. Mind at the same time I'm not sure how you could adjust it to still fully encase her head save for her face, yet not have it look stupid.
|
|
|
Post by levi2000a on May 2, 2016 22:59:35 GMT -5
I'm currently going through all the episodes of Kim Possible with my kids and we just watched "October 31st". As we were watching the scene at the party when the battle armor completely covers KP, my oldest daughter had pretty much the same reaction I did: "Hey, that armor looks pretty cool--" *Sees the part where it covers KP's hair, making her look bald.* "Nope, never mind." -c They did correct that part by the time Wade took the tech and turned it into her battle suit for STD and gave it a better paint job.
|
|
|
Post by Muzzlehatch on May 6, 2016 18:52:39 GMT -5
They could have altered the design of the helmet to make room for her hair but maybe nobody noticed it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by Sharper The Writer on May 6, 2016 19:17:28 GMT -5
They could have altered the design of the helmet to make room for her hair but maybe nobody noticed it at the time. How did it even hold her hair?
|
|
|
Post by buckmana on May 8, 2016 20:58:56 GMT -5
From memory, just before it encases her head, this bubble thing pops out from her collar, then formfits to her cranium. I assume this is when it compresses her hair into the skullcap helmet.
I had wondered why her face is still visible, but my theory is that there's a flexible transperant membrane over her face, allowing her to breathe, talk etc while still having armored protection. After all, you wouldn't build the world's most invulnerable armor and leave such a obvious weak spot exposed.
|
|
|
Post by christhecynic on May 9, 2016 8:45:05 GMT -5
From memory, just before it encases her head, this bubble thing pops out from her collar, then formfits to her cranium. I assume this is when it compresses her hair into the skullcap helmet. Good God, you're right. Why the "Good God"? Because the armor comes out, surrounds her head including her hair and tiara, seals all of that in, then crunches back down to form fitting her skull*, before finally opening a hole for her face. Forget her hair, what happened to the tiara? Munchkin weasel has a lot of fake jewelry (princess and non-princess related) and even the cheapest flimsiest bits of it would still cause incredible pain if they were suddenly compressed against one's scalp the way Kim's tiara would have had to be to have the armor like that. With the hair we can at least rationalize, "Well bald caps demonstrate that what seems to be skin tight can actually contain your hair," but the tiara can't be hand-waved the same way. It'd have to be on the level of the plastic used in the bottles bottled water comes in to not hurt Kim (a lot) when the helmet crunched to form fitting and with the exception of the paper crowns at Burger King they don't make fake royal headgear that squishable. - I wonder how much ears have to do with the uncanniness. In Kim Possible there are two types of ears. You don't have to look far to find them. Kim has one, Ron has the other. Ron-style ears are more common because in addition to being had by all ear-having male characters they're also had by a non-negligible number of ear-having female characters. Kim-style ears are significantly simpler. They're a single ear-shaped outline. Ron-style ears have earlobe detail that gives the ears a sense of depth and ... eariness. As near as I can tell the way the animators decided who got which type of ear had to do with hair. Kim style ears are always on characters where the ear will contrast against the character's hair. Usually they have a bit of hair in front of them that gives them a sense of sticking out of the hair, but always they're given the sense of three dimensions by protruding over the hair of the character thus breaking the straight(ish) line that forms the edge of the face. That's . . . not a lot. If not for the fact that we know hair naturally falls into straightish lines unless a lot of work is done to change it, it probably wouldn't be enough to give a, "Yup, it's really an ear," feeling. Take away the hair and a Kim-style ear looks like an ear shaped line on flat skin. (Unless the shot is from just the right angle such that the ear pokes out from the outline of the head a bit.) For the whole of the helmeted period Kim's hair was taken out of the equation. In most shots there's really nothing that indicates Kim's ears are her ears. They might as well be cutouts in the helmet over completely flat skin. Her head really has the sense of a smooth ball with a face painted onto it instead of, you know, a head. - * Speaking of, yeah Kim's always had a fairly ball shaped head, but I don't think it was usually as close to a perfect sphere as it is in the helmeted scenes.
|
|
|
Post by levi2000a on May 9, 2016 19:28:30 GMT -5
Nice catch about the tiara. She had a very similar occurrence in Rufus In Show with her hair suddenly being fitted to her head when her stealth suit activated.
|
|
|
Post by buckmana on May 11, 2016 9:06:55 GMT -5
Because the armor comes out, surrounds her head including her hair and tiara, seals all of that in, then crunches back down to form fitting her skull*, before finally opening a hole for her face. Forget her hair, what happened to the tiara? Munchkin weasel has a lot of fake jewelry (princess and non-princess related) and even the cheapest flimsiest bits of it would still cause incredible pain if they were suddenly compressed against one's scalp the way Kim's tiara would have had to be to have the armor like that. With the hair we can at least rationalize, "Well bald caps demonstrate that what seems to be skin tight can actually contain your hair," but the tiara can't be hand-waved the same way. It'd have to be on the level of the plastic used in the bottles bottled water comes in to not hurt Kim (a lot) when the helmet crunched to form fitting and with the exception of the paper crowns at Burger King they don't make fake royal headgear that squishable. When Kim eventually figures out how to deactivate the armor and it retracts, we see her in her normal clothes and the costume she wore to the party isn't there anymore. When the armor fully activates, it tears her dress to shreds. I assume that it destroyed any article of clothing that wasn't formfitting, including the tiara she had on her head. And now I have another question, why was Kim wearing cargo pants under a dress? That couldn't have been very comfortable!
|
|
|
Post by christhecynic on May 11, 2016 11:25:33 GMT -5
It disposed of the costume by pushing it outward (with the effect to tearing it shreds), it enclosed around the tiara leaving no way for it to be pushed outward. (Whenever something like this, where fine detail is needed, comes up, I check frame by frame, which is how I'm sure that it didn't do to the tiara what it did do to the rest of the costume.)
Pants under a skirt isn't really that weird of a thing. You're afraid you'll be chilly and don't have leggings? Pants. Your thighs rub together uncomfortably when you walk bareleged and you cant kind "boyshorts" or athletic shorts? Pants. (Though give Kim's figure, probably doesn't come up with her.) Worried that you might end up in a position where people could see things they shouldn't? Pants or shorts as per your preference.
A dress is but a skirt with a top attached to it. Same rules apply.
In fact, why is it that in some parts of the world the word "pants" refers to undergarments? Because women wore pants, actual long legged trouser-y things, under their dresses at one point in history. In one version of English it took on the meaning of the stuff you wear underneath, in another it retained the other, older, meaning (though not the original meaning because the word "pants" has a long and storied history.)
Cargo pants might be a little weird, but I'm not sure those are supposed to be cargo pants. She's just in her regular street clothes under the costume and I never had the impression that the blue capris were supposed to be taken as cargo pants. Also, wearing capri pants under a skirt or dress is generally what you want to do if you're going the pants route because otherwise you risk the pants sticking out the bottom which just looks weird.
|
|
|
Post by levi2000a on May 11, 2016 14:25:16 GMT -5
|
|