It’s not the fatness that bothers me (tummy is great as we all know), it’s the shape language... I always saw him as more square-shaped. And the design they have doesn’t even emphasize the glasses!!! They should still be the focal point!!! They’re the main showcase of his emotions!!!!!!
Ah see, now THOSE are totally valid criticisms! You see, the problem with some artists, especially artists that don’t come from an animation background (and this is completely regardless of skill level, it’s definitely not an “only amateurs do this” thing like, at all) is that they think that making a character more conventionally attractive means they’re better designed! And, the opposite of that is more true: too much beauty, in cases where the design doesn’t specifically call for it can, ironically, take away most of the appeal of a character!
Like, if you’re going for, say... a Disney Princess or some sort of Tolkien elf, you can definitely push for attractiveness but when you’re going for an animated comedy mostly aimed at children, goofier is better! In fact, I’d go as far as saying that, if you don’t have a GOOD, canon reason to do so, you shouldn’t be concerned with making a character in such a setting attractive at all. Character design is just another way to tell a story to the viewer - the way a character looks is supposed to mean something, maybe to the plot or to set a certain “mood”... no design choice comes randomly, there’s a reason behind them all.
If you look at the art style for the Hotel Transylvania series, you’ll notice that even the main characters aren’t particularly attractive. They’re cute, and have lots of appeal, but none of them strays away too much from the cartoony style. That’s particularly good to set the mood for something seemingly spooky but family friendly, and it also indicates that, by forgoing hyperrealism, the people behind it could focus on optimal shapes for the animation itself!
An example of a character’s attractiveness being there to serve a plot purpose is Prince Charming and Human!Fiona from Shrek. Both of them are pretty attractive, but their attractiveness serve a purpose in the narrative! Fiona is a princess and her beauty is what got Lord Farquaad’s eye on her. Not to mention that, the more attractive her human form is, the more jarring the “turning into an ogre at night” thing looks to the viewer! Prince Charming is a subversion - he’s very attractive but, unlike the kind hearted but unattractive Shrek, he’s spoiled and wants to marry Fiona due to his own selfish reasons. The Shrek franchise itself is pretty photorealistic next to other CGI animated movies, actually! You could attribute that to Dreamworks wanting to stray as far as possible from the “Disney art style” at the time, possibly. Or to a more “realistic take” on fairy tales.
Also this doesn’t have much to do with what I just said and I’ll admit, I’ve only watched the 1st Hotel Transylvania movie but I totally agree the glasses could have had some more emphasis! Human!Invisible Man has a fun design, but it doesn’t register immediately as the same character alright, heh. Actually... I’ve noticed the mummy guy also doesn’t look anything like his monster form! I wonder if that’s intentional, somehow? Like, for plot reasons...
