In 2010, Ren & Stimpy creator John Kricfalusi coined the infamous term "CalArts Style" to point out how Disney animated films were recycling techniques done in the 60s and 70s. He apologized to students at CalArta but that didn't stop the Internet for misusing the term when referring to shows with a specific character design in the 2010s. This design involves a character with a bean shaped head and an ovalish mouth and is found in shows like Star vs. The Forces of Evil, Steven Universe and Gravity Falls among others. When detractors of said shows use this term, what they actually mean is that the design is "lazy" orthe character designers put no effort into designing the character. Let's dive into why this is an insulting sentiment and this beanhead trend is actually happening.
Firstly, let's talk about a character designer's job. In the animation industry, a character designer is in charge of, well, designing the characters. Specifically, designing them in a way that gives the animators something to work with and in some cases is easier to draw or render. Animated shows on television are inherently cheaper to produce than feature films because it's television. See, after a network picks up the show (in this case an animated series), that show has to finish production on an episode before the scheduled premiere date. This is especially a grueling task for animation because in the world of business time=money. If character design is taking too long to animate, it's costing the network more money and the profits aren't always going to cover it. This is why shows like Megas XLR and Invader Zim got the axe after 1 or 2 seasons. The sad reality is if the network is losing money on a show, there's no point in continuing to produce it, regardless if the show develops a devoted fanbase.
Many show creators learn this lesson the hard way: the show doesn't have to look extravagant to be good. Sometimes being simple is not just a must be it can make the show better as a result. Take for example Steven Universe, one of the prime examples of the beanhead trend. The design of the characters in the show (particularly the title character) was always meant to have a simple design based on the style of the show's creator, Rebecca Sugar. The design of Steven himself was based (and named after) Sugar's brother, who designed the backgrounds on the show. Steven's bean shaped head was designed to be expressive and bursting with personality. It also helps that his head gives the animators (specifically Summin Image Picture and Rough Draft Korea, both based in South Korea) an easier time animating the facial expressions and mouth movements.
The Amazing World of Gumball also has characters with bean shaped heads. But here's the kicker, this was more beneficial for the show because it allowed the characters to be more expressive and have more personality than they did in the pilot. Seriously, the difference between the pilot made for Cartoon Network and the actual first episode of the series from a visual standpoint is like night and day: https://youtu.be/bPX7hmNdpPk. If Gumball and Darwin maintained their original designs from the pilot, I don't think it would've last very long on CN. This is due to the most crucial aspect of character design: appeal.
Now appeal is tricky to nail because nobody knows what everybody wants. What's considered cute for some might look uncanny to others. Most people don't mind that the character has a head shaped like a jellybean, but other's feel differently. That said, one thing that a character designer should NEVER be labled is lazy. Many people online seem to put lazy in the same category as unappealing, when there's a significant difference between the two terms. An uncanny character design (i.e. 12 oz. Mouse and Mr. Pickles) signifies the character designer still did their job, while lazy implies they didn't do their job at all. Just because some characters have a bean shaped head, that doesn't mean the character designer was lazy. Yeah, Steven's head is similar to Star Butterfly's. Big deal. Similarities in different cartoons are more often than not coincidences than blatant rip-offs.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions so here's mine: 👏every👏character👏designer👏deserves 👏respect. You can criticize a character for not looking appealing or uncanny all you want, but calling it lazy or uninspired is not the least bit constructive. If you're not a fan of characters with beanheads, there are a plethora of animated that don't follow this trend. You'd be better off watching those shows instead of throwing students at the California Institute of the Arts under the bus by saying "the CalArts Style sucks." And one more thing, the "CalArts Style" does not exist. A film school doesn't teach you how to make films or cartoons a certain way, it teaches you about the history of filmmaking, the tools used and how to use them wisely. Tim Burton is one of many alumni of CalArts and not a single one of his films looks like they were made in the style of anyone other than Tim Burton.
No comments:
Post a Comment