There are those who get really fired up about whether or not 'CalArts' is a style or even exists ...many of these persons I've heard discuss it on YT aren't artists. ^_^
As a cartooner, I can say there is a great deal of ubiquity among contemporary cartoon designs, but they don't 'all look the same' (that's hyperbolic/too literal). For example, I wouldn't say characters from 'The Loud House' bear any resemblance to characters from 'Gravity Falls'---there isn't any there. But these so-called 'bean-mouth' characters do look mostly the same, with some exceptions (for example, Butch Hartman's work is very distinctive).
Per my experience (of drawing hundreds of characters of different vintages across dozens of studios), that there's always been a kind of artistic ubiquity in character design, albeit hand-drawn characters not meant to be animated via software, had qualities of distinction that many contemporary characters lack.
For example, I could look at a random cartoon-bunny drawing and, with appreciable accuracy, tell you which studio inspired or made it, based on its design (granted, it's MUCH easier to identify works made from larger studios---I do not claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of cartoon-animal art). With today's characters, esp. those made for viewing on YouTube or playhouse/preschool channels, I'm clueless (if there are tattletale distinctions, they've soared above my autism). :p
There are those who get really fired up about whether or not 'CalArts' is a style or even exists ...
Every decade has its style, even if that's jsut a major player whose style dominates. The heyday of Scooby Doo was filled with the nameless style of their human characters across dozens of cheesy productions. ANd the techniques... lighter colored scenery that was going to be the only part of the background that moved, cycling backgrounds, the very STYLE of those backgrounds...
CalArts, perhaps more of a method or inspiration than a style, is not much different. Even among those of the beaned mouth there's a good way and bad way to do things. Steven Universe and Amazing World of Gumball are both beaners, in theory. But a battle twixt Pearl and Penny would show no trace of legume, be it lima, chili or refried.
It is unfortunate that a style often gets its reputation from the laziest example, the most infamous as it were. Because the style is the basics and if all you do IS the basics then the style will be most obvious. To excel you must add and build onto it until the bare bones are buried beneath the lush foliage of invention.
As such I suspect that a millennial you would have more variety than this in your work, in order for it to be your style, not a template.
Every decade has its style, even if that's jsut a major player whose style dominates. The heyday of
The human mystery-solving/adventure-seeking casts of 70's Hanna-Barbera and Ruby Spears look remarkably similar to me (I'd have sworn Fangface was HB, but was not)! :o
As regards the Scooby-Doo comment: yes! lol The human mystery-solving/adventure-seeking casts of 70
I personally think that modern cartoon shows are disgrace to their precursors, the age of animation stopped in 2000s, I can't even watch modern shows as they are drawn like crap.
I personally think that modern cartoon shows are disgrace to their precursors, the age of animation
They're oversimplified for whatever animation programs are presently in fashion. Such is why you see so many 'bean mouths' across different studios. The 'animators' effectively click on mouths for the character, then have those mouths play back in a sequence (so they can 'talk'). Basically the mouths you see on these characters aren't drawn, they're stock images.
There are many cheats. For example, you'll note many contemporary characters are designed in such a way that their heads are in profile, but their faces are in portrait. This is so the 'animators' don't need to turn the characters heads to get them to look in a different direction.
They're oversimplified for whatever animation programs are presently in fashion. Such is why you see
I've kept my promise and haven't seen the movie. I will eventually, but in some way that WB doesn't make any money from it.
I'm kinda confused by the whole 'Lola redesign' thing ...from my eye (as a cartooner), it doesn't look like anything changed in any significant way, apart from her costume.
lol I've kept my promise and haven't seen the movie. I will eventually, but in some way that WB doe
If you've seen the meme with the two side-by-side, you'll see the 96 version (which is fan art and shouldn't count), has the upper body leaning forward, creating a foreshortening effect. The 21 version is shown standing straight. :p
Additionally, I can tell you the 96 version's two-piece outfit artificially emphasizes her breasts (the animator has to draw a layer over them, whereas the new version's shirt IS the body (there's no layering).
The breasts of both seem to be the same number of eye widths (and the fraction thereof), so far as my eyes can see (characters for animation are proportioned by head heights and eye widths, so numerous persons can draw the characters the same way; it's consistent).
They didn't, though. If you've seen the meme with the two side-by-side, you'll see the 96 version (
Yeah I have to relate to Tasli in this. I'm not a fan of most of the cartoons from this day and age. There ARE a few exceptions, but other than that I'm a 90's and early 00's guy when it comes to cartoons. Very nicely done by the way lol
Yeah I have to relate to Tasli in this. I'm not a fan of most of the cartoons from this day and age.
