I just see the 2d drawing as a window into twilight’s cartoon world, so at any angle, it’d look fine. because the 2d picture is moving too, so why wouldn’t its background appear to rotate at different angles?
@Cirrus Light
I’m aware that it causes some paradoxes, it would be a completely nonsensical scenario were more than 1 person observing the phenomena, because either the 2d version or the 3d version would have to be inconsistent. Hell, it’d probably not even work quite right because we have 2 eyes that see from slightly different angles.
@zippysqrl
Though I’ll mention that my “headcanon” to this, if you will, is that the she becomes unaligned from any other angle. It’s the only way to remain consistent in 3d space. Example; if I put a bowl around her, and filled it with water, how much water would it take to fill the bowl? ie, how much 3d volume is she taking up?
Your example about the horn being either out or not is an example of how the “stay aligned from whatever perspective you’re looking at her from” requirement causes some paradoxes.
So I just imagine it like one of those stretched drawings that only works from one angle.
So, IMO, I think of it like one of these drawings:
Except her head is real in 3d space, but her 2d portion is like the drawing. So the portion of the sketchbook that’s flat on the table is the drawing, and the portion of the notebook that’s up on the wall would be her 3d head. Just like the drawing here becomes misaligned from other angles, Twilight’s 3d head and 2d drawing would become misaligned from other angles.
Also, it’d be a lot less freaky if her pupil weren’t more dilated in the 3d half than the 2d half. 2d part of her has a normal, happy iris/pupil. 3d part of her has a slightly different eye shape that’s also shrunken and appears stressed/scared because of it - and because the way it shimmers is subtly different (in a terrified/stressed sort of way) from the happy way her 2d eye shimmers.
so here’s a thing you may or may not think about when seeing this: What she’d look like from any other angle, because from this angle the 2D version of her which is laying flat on the floor is warped to fit the perspective we are viewing her 3D self. For her to phase out of the picture so that all her 2D features remain where they are as they enter 3D, there is a relative axis with which either her 2D self or her 3D self must travel. In this animation you can see her 3D self moving perpendicular to the paper surface(up) while her 2D self moves backwards/forwards (from our POV), so that the features line up in time they leave the paper, but alternatively her 2D self could remain stationary while her 3D self phased through the paper directly towards us, so as to have the same effect(though not the case here, there’s not enough paper behind her). If we were looking at her from any other angle, or rather just able to move our POV during the process, the 2D version of her would have to change accordingly, and be semi-3d in a sense already. Alternatively the 3D version would have to rotate instead, which would be odd, but if we were looking at the paper from a different point of view when the phasing process began, judging by the angle of her 2D self, her eye, snout and horn would have phased through the paper first, rather than her her ear and hair and whatnot, it’s just that it’s like that because of the angle we’re viewing her 2D self determines how her 3D self is rotated relative to us.
Understandably none of this would really matter since she’s already an animated picture on a static piece of paper, that is then phasing into the real world, but that’s just a thing I thought about.