MovieChat Forums > King of the Hill (1997) Discussion > Was Cotton Hill lying about his shins be...

Was Cotton Hill lying about his shins being shot off?

posted 2 years ago by RustyShacklefurd (2039)
5 replies | jump to latest

The episode Cotton's Plot establishes that Cotton was willing to lie about what happened to him during World War II. Hank claims that Cotton was 6'4" before the war but it's clear that's just what Cotton told him. If Cotton were really ever 6'4" then the rest of his body would clearly be disproportionately bigger and longer compared to his legs. But the animators chose to draw him such that his legs look proportionate to the rest of his body. It seems pretty clear that he never had his shins shot off. I'm guessing he made up the lie about his shins because he was embarrassed at being so short and wanted people to think that he was originally tall and so wasn't naturally so short.

[–] DMT (4388) 2 years ago

I feel like he exaggerated his past high as a normal part of his personality of being larger than life but was an injured war veteran nonetheless with his shines lost in the war

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

If we know that Cotton exaggerated his past then how do we know having his shins shot off in the war wasn't also one of the exaggerations? And if he really did lose his shins in the war then how do you explain the choice of the animators to make the rest of his body proportionate to his legs? If he really had his shins shot off then why aren't his arms and torso disproportionately longer compared to his legs?

[–] DMT (4388) 2 years ago

they are tho, he isnt a midget just a half legged person. I have seen one once while in a hot tub in Boulder Colorado while doing vanlife. She was a cool older lady who talked about all the athletic stuffed she used to do before her legs got messed up. I never asked what happened since it seemed rude but she seemed to have no knees and these short half sized legs. I imagine she must have been in a horrible car accident or something

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 2 years ago

No, the rest of his body is clearly not proportionate in size to his legs. If his shins were really gone then his legs would clearly look too short in comparison to his arms and torso. But they clearly look proportionate to each other. Keep in mind what I said in the OP about Cotton claiming that he was 6'4'' until his shins were shot off. That was clearly a lie. If it were true then his arms would be so long that they dragged on the floor. These are deliberate choices made by the animators. Everything Cotton has ever said having to do with his height was a lie.

[–] DMT (4388) 2 years ago

maybe