Random Burns and Smithers

My deliberation 2

I think it's pretty much obvious who's taller here - Smithers, but that's not true, even if we count hair to Smithers' height

In many screenshots, Smithers appears taller and that's true. But I should also consider that animators don't really focus on such details like the height difference between those two, so sometimes, even if we imagine Burns not being hunched forward, Burns would still be shorter. I don't have any pictures here with this particular case, but I remember moments where this has happened.

I'd say Burns is taller naturally. But because he has kyphosis he may look shorter than Smithers.

Smithers does not have a canonical exact height. However, character guides describe him as an adult of average height. And Mr Burns is 175 cm tall (5'10" in freedom units).

Here's a proper comparison where both are standing straight. Burns is standing straight despite his kyphosis! So there answers the question: Mr Burns is slightly taller than Smithers if he's standing straight

Burns being taller actually looks better because he's the superior. And Smithers just looks cuter when he's small.

How big could the height difference be?

Since Mr Burns is 175 cm. Using this screenshot to count how much centimeters could the difference be. From my eye it doesn't seem like much centimeters, not counting his hair, Id say it's 5 cm difference. This makes Smithers 170 cm tall. This is an ideal height for someone like Smithers and I'm satisfied that it actually looks like he could be 5'6" (or something idk)

While I am on the topic of heights of those two, I'll also list their weights.

Mr Burns is canonically 85 lbs, which is 38,5 kg (and that's very light), no hard thinking into this one.

While Smithers also doesn't have a said weight, I'd go a slightly beyond average male weight. At 77 kg (170 lbs) and 170 cm tall, Body Mass Index (BMI) is exactly 26.6. Which is overweight, but thats what we all want don't we? He isn't exactly slim, but overweight doesn't necessarily mean fat - it's also muscles, and he certainly can pick up Burns with ease, so this is pretty ideal for him + his fat ass I must count

Was there with him, here are few pictures of my trip.

My deliberation

Smithers is better at drawing what he sees. And even tho Burns wasn't nude when posing, Smithers Is able to add something on his own without ruining the artwork! It's very accurate and he clearly does have artistic skills

Burns doesn't, clearly. But he's pretty good at drawing stickmen (or should I say - stickwomen), we could see Lyla, Hemingway, Picasso, Madator Juan Belmonte and Stalin. Those drawings looked really effortless and plain. It's more of a kid's drawings but I won't mock him for it, he's good at other things.

But this is actually impressive, Burns did excellent work when drawing J. I. Stalin, he might not be as bad as I thought. So if he actually tries, he's a really good artist. Compare this to other drawings! It's like he suddenly gained artistic skills

So, back to Smithers. I don't know who painted all the Mr Burns paintings on this wall, but if it was Smithers, I think Smithers is better than Burns. One impressive drawing is less than multiple impressive paintings. But there's no way it's Smithers.

I have a reason why it couldn't be Smithers. If you look at Burns's body, you'll see that Smithers knows he's very thin and barely has any muscles. Look at his legs as well! They look normal, and he barely has any wrinkles! This is very unrealistic. Smithers has seen Burns naked many times; the painter probably didn't, so he couldn't have guessed. Also, Smithers isn't fat in the painting! This makes it less realistic, but Smithers could have told the painter to make him skinnier to make him look more appealing in the final painting.

So it's probably not Smithers' work, but it could, but its less likely.

So I can't tell now who's better - I only have one drawing of Smithers, which was impressive, he's able to draw on a paper what he sees In the real world and also add something on his own without ruining the realism!

Thanks for that little (or big) detail! I can't unsee it now