Alright, we're almost at 2020, and this design trend is still far and away the most dominant force in the industry. You can't kill something until it is named, so what should this be called?
inb4 "Calarts Style". That name has gotten nowhere, allowing people to deflect it to different subject matters like John K. and who does and doesn't go to that school. Drop that term.
Beanface
>most of these characters are insufferable cunts
Huh
How about cancer
That's fair, does it just refer to faces? It has to be bullet proof.
Where the fuck is Finn or Rigby?
> inb4 "Calarts Style". That name has gotten nowhere, allowing people to deflect it to different subject matters like John K. and who does and doesn't go to that school.
No. Lineage/academic background are irrelevant in the discussion. It's still CalArts style even if the artists didn't go there for the same reasons Japanese/Euro styles aren't dictated by the physical location they're drawn in.
I don't think that'll go over well.
They are around. Most agree that the genesis of whatever THIS is came about in Chowder/Flapjack, got huge with AT/Regular Show and got solidified with Steven Universe.
I agree, but don't die on this linguistic hill. The term has allowed so many non arguments to fester in every discussion. Drop the term.
If we're being serious, the problem is "calarts style" used to refer to something different and will again, it's not a concrete name
For reference it used to refer to things like Iron Giant
This is another issue. The term is nebulous.
That style can also be seen as Disney-like. We need something new for this modern style.
But Steven Universe completely lacks the original CalArts traits
>No stickman : ) faces
>No wobbly noodle spaghetti limbs, characters clearly have joints
Then we have to go back as early as Tuff Puffy, Danny Phantom and MLATR. We have to back to where it all started.
Why is Double D a Mexican jack-o-lantern?
Some Ideas:
>Simple Flat
>Noodle n Bean
>Thin Line
>Post-Adventure Time
>10's Style
>Bobble Head
How much longer until calarts is for any cartoon i don't like? I've seen people who didn't even go to calarts get called calarts.
Don't distract.
PRIME example for why the term needs to be changed. See how this discussion is automatically shut down brcause of the word choice.
We need a new name.
Bauhaus user tried, but it never took hold. Best of luck to you.
In 2012 it referred to cartoons like
>Adventure Time
>Regular Show
>Bravest Warriors
>Flapjack
>Chowder
>Be and Puppycat
>Wonder over Yander
It moved on as the cartoon trends did so did and changed what the 'CalArts style' was. No use bitching about something past-tense.
But my post literally supports your point.
Everything in OP implies is >Muh CalArts wasn't even considered that 7-9 years ago on Yea Forums. People were railing and bemoaning something completely different.
This was the CalArts style in 2010-2012.
CalArts = thing I don't like
And what happens in 10 years when someone rehashes the term for whatever is popular then? How will you be able to define what this is
Worms and maggots
It's called LOOK AT ALL THESE STRAWS I'M TRYING TO GRASP
Why not? Its all over the place and is killing the industy, Cancer fits it perfectly
Stop using it because it was a retarded term that meant "Thing I don't like!" to begin with?
I'm sure in several years people will be referring to shows like OK KO and ones that it inspired as CalArts and completely ignore anyone who complains about it with Star vs or Gravity Falls. It's pointless.
Bean worm
I might be wrong here but I think your problem is you're trying to invent a name for a problem that doesn't exist, the original image was already bullshit, intentionally redrawing shows so they look more similar when the actual art isn't, just adding 4 more examples that are even bigger bullshit doesn't help
Isn't that basically just admitting that "CalArts style" is a catchall term for "popular animation trend I don't like" that doesn't have any actual defining characteristics though? I personally like calling the current trend Beanmouth, because even though cartoons have technically had it before today, it still has a more concrete definition than the ever-changing one of CalArts. If fucking El Dorado and Iron Giant were the original CalArts, the term clearly has no real meaning.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Shhhh, dude, shut up, the John K. autists could hear you and then go autistically to screech at you because you offended their demigod.
>Isn't that basically just admitting that "CalArts style" is a catchall term for "popular animation trend I don't like" that doesn't have any actual defining characteristics though?
Yes.
Why do you think people are so annoyed and sick of the CalArts-complain meme?
>I personally like calling the current trend Beanmouth, because even though cartoons have technically had it before today, it still has a more concrete definition than the ever-changing one of CalArts. If fucking El Dorado and Iron Giant were the original CalArts, the term clearly has no real meaning.
"Beanmouth" wouldn't have any meaning either because you're basing it off a single forced meme image (OP) that everyone acknowledges isn't even indicative of the actual shows. If we accepted it - How would I be wrong to call Evangelion CalArts and nitpick at the fact they're using Beanmouth?
What are we going to do about this horrifying Beanmouth style in Eva and Anime going on right now as shown in pic related? Are there any interpretations on that, figure that out and answer me.
Same thing.
Just complain about the specific stylistic traits that [whatever] show uses that you hate, preferably using actual screenshots and not the same meme image, and then maybe a more specific term for [whatever] can catch on.
Or even if you want to use a meme image like in the OP, maybe phrase it more like "why is there so little variety in art styles" than just using CALARTS as a blanket term for "thing I don't like"
Also inb4 this post gets taken as me saying anons HAVE to do this.
Just saying that if you don't want the term "CalArts" to either be misused or lose all meaning, then maybe focus on trying to identify what are seen as the main symptoms of why you don't like a specific show's style so that maybe some new term can catch on here.
Those shows have similarities to the current idea of 'calarts'
There are a great many things I dislike that aren't... whatever this is. Don't minimize the very real complaint of homogeneity in artstyles today.
But OKKO follows the lineage of /this/ and shows that are inspired by OKKO will as well.
But get over the fags who use it incorrectly and it's a trend, one that deserves a name. You can't deny that they have a similar style. Rubberhose is a trend and that's not a negative term so it's you who's putting negativity into it
It isn't the style itself that is the primary issue. It's the homogeneity and lack of diversity of artstyles.
Yeah, in my first post I also mentioned maybe just framing complaints as "why do all these shows look too similar" (or I guess "why do so few shows look different"), so that anons don't get hung up on the term "CalArts"/legitimate complaints don't get derailed by that one specific word and also that maybe certain complaints might be clearer.
>homogeneity in artstyles today
>in artstyles today
This has always been the case. Most 80s cartoons looked similar. Dexter, PPG and Johnny Bravo looked like HB cartoons and you could put them together no problem. A lot of the early flash cartoons in the 2000s looked the same.
"Noodle Beanmouth"
>this design trend is still far and away the most dominant force in the industry
I don't mind this design trend or the fact they look alike. But I do mind that this is the level of detail the industry has largely settled upon.
>what should this be called?
Bean-core.
2020's style will probably look like Hazbin Hotel, especially with the decentralization of animation and the rise of internet, crowd funded animation.
Everything is too smooth and rounded.
How about for the name of "Millenium age of animation" this is now "Social Media age of animation" because of how much more open storyboard artists are on twitter/tumblr and even more references to pop culture?
>even more references to pop culture
How old are you?
As in like, anime stuff is referred more often compared to an American franchise which were showered in the 90's
I never put a negative label on anything. Anyone that's spend more than a minute critically thinking it and has any knowledge in animation could tell you outside superficial looks the differences outweigh any meaningful similarities.
What exactly are you expecting Animation to be like? Spend 5 minutes on Netflix if you want to see how much diversity is out there in Animation right now.
Rubberhose is a trend? Better call fucking Walt Disney then and complain about some random B&W short from the 1940's, jesus.
Late 90s and 2000s were full of anime references and "I want to be anime" cartoons.
I cannot believe Trigger has let CalArts/BeanMouth/Bean-Core take over their animation style and settle on the artstyle. What's happening with the industry? How do we understand this term?
>Inb4 Lel XD
No, I'm being fucking serious. Seriously.
Why aren't you guys complaining about Darling and the Franxxx? Tell me right now, you have zero reason not to.
But's more of like Miyazaki and slice of life webcomics that are more frequent then action anime.
Damn I wish there were more cartoons in Ben10 OS/AF/UA artstyle. The reboot Ben10 artstyle sucks.
>actually liking the AF/UA artstyle
The eyes ruin that style.
How about "shitart style"? This style is clearly shit.
How the fuck do a bunch of anons on Yea Forums think they can have any influence over the development of the English language?
>Why aren't you guys complaining about Darling and the Franxxx?
First, like I said, I don't have any problem with these design cliches. I like most of the shows in OP's pic. The issue is all in the execution.
Second, I don't watch Darling in the Franxxx. If you want to complain about that, you should go to Yea Forums.
To the retards whining about the term: Just because everyone else understands what the fuck people mean when they say "CalArts style" doesn't mean you have to get mad that you don't.
>everyone else understands what the fuck people mean
Teen Titans Go and other cartoons get called CalArts even then they don't have that style. CalArts just means "thing i don't like"
Stop using calarts for "things i don't like" then, damn queer.
>Second, I don't watch Darling in the Franxxx. If you want to complain about that, you should go to Yea Forums.
But it's in the CalArts style, that makes it relevant.
Why aren't you critiquing the show's execution?
Literally no one outside the internet cares about that term, and no one who cares about it has any influence on animation.
Also
>Not a single fucking instance of stickman face/bead eyes
>No noodle limbs
2012 called, they want their term back. None of this shit is Calarts.
TTG have similar elements to that style, no question. It's a combination of /this/ and canadian flash animation.
Stop minimizing the homogeneity in modern cartoons.
Stop strawmanning and contribute or leave.
>TTG have similar elements to that style
It doesn't
>It's a combination of /this/ and canadian flash animation.
It's a combination of the Dexter/old PPG style and flash.
You can call it out without using it as a buzzword for things you don't like, faggot. Treating it as a catch all buzzword for everything you don't like will make everyone else care even less if something is calarts or not because the word is worthless. Wouldn't be surprised if there is an active shilling campaign to ruin the word calarts.
Basedface
Whose straw manning?
Jojo has a serious CalArts problem too and none of you fucks want to address that.
You are strawmanning the position. I like several cartoons that are in /this/ style. I DON'T like that nearly every cartoon is /this/ style or a derivative.
Yes, it does. Bobblehead and lanky limbs.
This does NOT look like McCracken/In House Cartoon Network Style (Dexter, PPG, Samurai Jack, 3 Dog Band)
Nobody thinks you are being funny or insightful at all.
There is a campaign to ruin the word calarts by making it worthless.
What are you on about? Darling in the Franxx looks nothing like CalArts shit.
So don't use the word, listen to OP and create a new, more specific, relevant name to this current trend of homogeneity in 2D western television animation.
>posting an even worse artstyle
Nice going.
Well? Do you have any suggestions?
He's shitting up the thread because of the OP image, those aren't official remders of the characters. So instead of pointing this out like an adult or realizing that they are close enough, as most people have, he shitposts like an angry child.
Don't respond, ignore.
Something that isn't inherently negative.
"Post-Flapjack" is one, but it might cause arguments about the exact timing. "BeanFlat" is getting there.
"Ward-Like"
"Sugar-Style"
"Thin Line"
"Modern Minimalist"
The character designer of TTG is Chris Battle. The concept artist and character designer of Dexter and PPG. You are just admitting that CalArts just means "thing i don't like"
i think i figured out why modern cartoons look like shit compared to older cartoons.
its not because theres no angles or points, its because theres an absence of organic shapes.
in nature, exact parallels and perfect shapes are uncommon-- thats why circles and squares and triangles looks so sterile by themselves. A lot of modern cartoons seem to do this thing where they take inorganic shapes and "soften" them so they look less artificial while still keeping the lifelessness.
This might have something to do with the process the shows are animated now, since computers tend to make lines rigid, as well as for ease of reproduction. this is also why off model shots look SO BAD, despite off model shots being pretty normal in cartoons.
older toons had a more fluid, organic feel, so slight changes or off-model instances were less noticeable.
Omniverse had the best artstyle
And pic related is Rebecca Sugar's short film. Artists can use different styles. Have you seen Pre-Butch Hartman style Butch Hartman? Unrecognizable.
I'm not using that term, you are. Stop making that argument, it minimizes the very real issue of homogeneity of sensibilities in the industry today.
Just because TTG isn't 1:1 the meme doesn't mean it doesn't take proportions, canned movements and line thickness/flatness from /this/ style. It's a derivative.
That's a big reason for sure. Everything is so geometric and clean.
weirdly enough i actually like a lot of sugar's non SU shit. its weird and unique in a good way
still an insufferable cunt tho
>What should this be called
successful shows that trigger incels
Maybe it isn't the style itself you should name, but the practice of incestious style recycling that goes on?
"Reductive artstyle"? "Style Trend Hopping"?
That goes for the OP naturally then.
No, see you can literally see it right here. See how Calartsy it is? Look at it, it's got the Beanmouth and everything. You either have to address this or don't complain about western cartoons having a similar art trend.
Why is it that one side remains peaceful and logical while the other shitposts?
>Then we have to go back as early as Tuff Puffy, Danny Phantom and MLATR. We have to back to where it all started.
That's nowhere near far back enough. You can see elements of today's "Calarts style" in the Simpsons.
That's not the point of the conversation. We are not looking for stylistic influences and the origin, we are looking to name the modern incarnation of /this/ and to name the problem (that being prolific homogeneity of artstyles ala Hanna-Barbera)
I think that seems to be user's point.
None of the OP's example constantly reposted image really hold up to scrutiny or look like they're representative of their actual shows outside an, so people are critiquing a single infamous image on the internet rather than the shows themselves.
Like with how the artist tried to squeegee Icebear into the same pose and example, how does that make it any different than their anime girl as far as proving anything? It's pretty shaky evidence at best. If this whole thread is a faux-fanfiction fest where we're just arguing about memes than we've already divorced ourselves from anything that matters or we think we're trying to say here.
> logical
You're the one that doesn't care about anime NoodleSmile. Why are you trying to shove this under the rug?
Oh I get it. /This/ is the new (((them))) and it's a closeted, /pol/ stealth shitpost at this point.
See
The image itself is a meme, but it is a meme that is only a minor exaggeration of reality. Stop focusing on the image and focus on the actual homogeneity of modern cartoons.
Chris Battle is still drawing in a similar style and using the same principles. The Poison Ivy of GO, for example, has a Sedusa-like body. The only reason TTG doesn't look more like an old cartoons is because the flash animators suck
>it doesn't take proportions
It has cartoony proportions. Starfire and Dexter's mom have similar head and neck shapes.
>and line thickness/flatness
TTG has the old thick lineart.
"Stylistic Trend Following"
"Stylistic Incest"
>Stop focusing on the image and focus on the actual homogeneity of modern cartoons.
Your only evidence of that homogeneity is a Meme-itself, it's as naive and bare-base as it gets. This is the equivalent of a little kid trying to talk about the homogeneity and genericness of modern engineering and architecture by pointing out how all the rides at disneyland look kinda alike and homes having the same roofs.
>He's using the same principles
We disagree. At least you have an argument with examples. Either way, the point isn't to nail TTG down as /this/, /this/ derivative or not /this/, the point is to discuss homogeneity in modern cartoons.
Shitty flash animation is it's own problem, and we definitely agree there.
I'm not here to argue or convince you. I'm here to discuss with people who already understand what i'm talking about. If you don't see the stylistic trends that have risen in the last decade, that is on you. This isn't about 'proof', this is about redefining a phrase that fails to get any real conversation going.
i call it creative inbreeding. every art community suffers from it in some way: look at the similarity in the styles of artist from tumblr, furries, DA, korean kpop fans, etc. Every time a collective of artists sequesters themselves away from differing concepts and ideas they start to just feed off of eachother until their work is an ugly, homogenous mess.
Great phrase. That might work.
It also touches on the "California" sense of humor. Many aspects of production suffer from "creative inbreeding".
>Flash arguments
Can we atleast address it's not the tool (flash) and just the shortcuts people use with it (tweens/pupptes). There are countless short films, individual cartoonists, games and televised series that utilized flash well. Flash is not synonymous with tweening, you can and people have animated frame by frame. The cal-arts buzzword is one thing, but to say "this is shit, was it made in flash" ad nauseam is retarded. People with toonboom and other Canadian shows don't use flash and shows that objectively look good, like Motor City, does use it.
this
its not the tools its how you use em. flash just makes it easy for people to lazily tween shit until all they have to do is draw 3 keyframes and let the PC do the rest.
Absolutely, you are 100% correct. Similar to 'calarts' 'flash' is an unfortunate phrase that doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.
Why don't we just call it 2010s style
Because that will INSTANTLY spawn discussion about if it was Chowder Flapjack that started it, Adventure Time Regular Show that started it or Steven Universe that started it.
Also "ACKSHUALLY NOT ALL 2010' SHOWS..."
and what if, god forbid, this continues into the 20's?
If you uses the word "Cal Arts Style" (Yes, it's sepparated, faggot) then you don't know a shit about animation and you surelly kill yourselve.
So let's not use that term and redefine the very real issue of Creative Inbreeding that is going on in western animation today, as OP suggested.
Discuss what? You don't know what the hell you're talking about. I'm trying to drive people from deriving stupid and ill considered conclusions based off broad low-key observations, sweeping generalizations and generally a completely lack of critical thinking.
There's a reason this meme is a meme.
The moment you start to putting extra effort to examine this foolishness or play cafe-animator it goes nowhere and just ends with the rhetorical equivalent of people inhaling their own farts.
Notice how the meme literally excludes every example of a cartoon in the last decade that doesn't fit the stupid narrative?
What do you think you're going to accomplish by naming a non-thing? Do you think giving it one will make the conversation anymore substantial? If you don't have proof, you won't be convincing to anyone that matters. It's no different if I just posted this image and went "WOW look at this amazing phenomenon I noted. Let's discuss this tropey genre shift. Why did cartoon stop doing the Action-Figure animation style? Why did the Geometric ArtStyle replace the 90's Rebel Artstyle?" It's literally the same level of discussion you're trying to spur up here.
And it's too much, it focuses in the wrong fucking place. and it's beyond asinine and goddamn stupid.
booblehead smileface
So what? People often refer to various animation trends as 20s style, 30s style, 50s style, 80s style, etc. People can be retarded and sperg out about MUH EXCEPTIONS all they want, a general trend is a general trend. There isn't a definition that will ever satisfy all the autists in the world
I have nothing more to say to you but the post you've replied to.
Why not call it what it is like in the image here (no not CAl arts). It's 'sterilization-core' or era. Literally playing safe with round shapes and inoffensive character designs. Remember nu ppgs and other shows with wimpy male protagonists, women with defining sexual characteristic brought to flat/non existing features (Ms. Bellum, Ms.King).
After years of this I just want to assist in having better conversation, even if it means putting in extra effort for autists. I'm so sick of semantic arguments because they completly avoid the issue.
Don't forget the others using this retrend. When you repost the image, make sure you use the full list, all these generic cartoons that try to copy the CalArts artstyle are blowing me away.
I think you'd all agree with me that we should strive for completion, no?
Than you've lost touch with reality.
Don't you care about truth? You're only just debating a theory explanation for literal fanfiction.
I think it's an accurate description but it contains negative connotation. We want a neutral definition. It is simply a thing that EXISTS. Whether it is good or bad or indifferent is up to you. No charged language.
As I said in the last thread, if you think ther'es a lack of creative inbreeding, then show me all cartoon that aired in modern days, do they all have bean face and similar designs? So I'll give you a point. If you just pick a bunch of random popular shows (oddly enough, they are all from Disney and CN and cartoons from the same network usually share production teams so they frecuently have similar character designs) you are not proving anything.
I disagree with you, but arguing with you is not the point of this thread, the point is to better redefine terms on 'our side' so that better arguments may take place in the future. Trust me, i'd love to greentext your paragraph, but that isn't this thread.
See
>other shows with wimpy male protagonists, women with defining sexual characteristic brought to flat/non existing features
oh so that's what this is really all about, the biggest disappointment for you all.
We're so thrown up over (((CalArts))) now I see.
See
And
It's just the style that's currently popular. It will eventually be replaced it's not here forever. Also why does Yea Forums hate it so much. It's literally just a style choice. Sure it's uninspired and looks not even close to as good as 70s-80s animation. But like it's just what cartoons are now. For a board about cartoons everyone sure does hate it.
interesting to point out it seems to be primarily big studios. so many indie projects are using dynamic styles and techniques with decent writing.
i hate to bring up hazbin hotel in a positive light but as bad as the designs and writing are, at least its using some kind of hand drawn animation thats gaining traction. theres some other little short Yea Forums's been fawning over recently made by a student called Satania that also has a simple but cute style without being too "calarts". The issues isnt the artists so much as what the studios want to show on their channels.
One person's opinion does not define an entire position, especially on an only tangentially related issue.
It's been popular for almost a decade. That's half my life! I only have several more of those in me!
It's also as monolithic as say, filmation and Hanna-Barbera, which is constantly derided for sameface and the dark ages. I thought we moved past that in the 90's. We should be better than this.
>why does Yea Forums hate it so much
Because nostafags were assblased with the thundercats reboot some months ago and they still burning until now. I don't have any problem with those desings, I actually like them as I like the gendy style, the 40's cartoons styles and the mccracken style.
Yes, you can like many things at the same time, user.
Yeah, riiiight. What's next? Steven Universe artstyle is an evolution of animation art?
Again what is that going to do for you? There's probably some pretentious fallacy about naming things but hell if I know. No matter what you decide to 'rename' a Unicorn; Head-Accessory Horse, Magical Equine being, maybe call it Rare Prancing-Specimen, it absolutely doesn't change anything if what you're actually debating is really nothing.
You're still in Plato's cave debating what to label the shifting shadows on the wall, and Plato is laughing at you outside it because those are tree branches and you don't know it.
wait til this generation burns themselves out. every 4-5 years we'll see a new influx of young artists in the industry, and if one or two of those waves can get their shit together, we'll be fine.
>all
not really, it's incidental, but those points don't help either. It just shows how far people will dehumanize a character to bland them out whether it's to make them inoffensive or to take liberties into making it easier to animate. The Last Avatar wasn't a fanservice sexualized anime like show, yet every character based on silhouettes and designs are more pleasing to look at and look grounded as apposed to say a crystal gem or a character from Gravity falls. Women are built up curvy, men can be doughy and build, people have asymmetrical features and styles. I grew up on Recess, Filmore, Johnny bravo era shit that drew people like people while having defining styles. That's what this is about.
I have no attachment to thundercats. Using 'nostalgia' to define your opposition is a textbook strawman.
1)Someone name 12 major cartoons that are definitively Cal-Arts style, 12 commandments style
2)Tell me 13 traits of these cartoon's artstyle that's consistent throughout
3)Finally insist that there aren't cartoons out right now that don't contradict or follow this trend
Then you should try to define what /this/ is after.
I disagree, it has merit and it does exist. To me you are closing your eyes and ears and going lalala.
Putting a proper name and definition to it will erode 99% of the 'arguments' i've seen against the criticism and actually get to the nitty gritty of the discussion.
It will be very helpful for me and people who feel as I do to retire the use of 'calarts'.
I really hope so, i'm so tired...
Why the arbitrary numbers and why would you ever say 3. And why is 3. Necessary for there to be a problem?
>the point is to better redefine terms on 'our side'
But, the thing is, Op, "cal arts" is not even a word at this point, it's like redpilled or kino, it has been ued so many times, that its meaning is just "a cartoon that I don't like", hell, I've even seen anons who call motherfucking Carmen Sandiego, Cal Arts.
>But I want a better word
>Try to come to an agreement
>Witch a bunch of anons that change mind every 20 seconds
>In Yea Forums
Even if we come to an agreement, It would become a new "le-overused-term-to-talk-about-things-I-don't-like" eventually, so, don't go over there, Op.
t. assblasted AF/UAfag
Let's piss off more than three people and call it Modern Bauhaus.
You're the only one ascribing it that definition. You don't even feel this IS a thing. This conversation really isn't even for you.
I like shows like Star vs because they have a wide variety of female characters. Not all are flat-chested, but not all are big anime tiddy monsters either. Having a character like Bellum having flat features is fine in itself, within a vacuum of creative choices/diversity.
The problem with NuPPG is it just sucks. Period. And breasts or not that was never really going to change.
Further more, Star vs, Gumball and Gravity Falls alone should tell you that the character designs are not 'Inoffensive', whatever the hell that means. You've got girls like Pyronica and Tambry, as well as Janna and Penny whose full-design/form is as crazy as it gets.
Bauhaus user was too blessed for this world. Bauhaus is too tough for people to latch onto, it isn't intuitive. It also has historical connotations that will be debated ad infinatum, ignoring the actual problem AGAIN.
>Necessary for there to be a problem?
Because the whole idea of this being "The dominant trend" is the whole rationale for trying to define it, and if you cannot even do that why are you even discussing it? You're just nitpicking stylistic farts among a few cherrypicked cartoons, a la this image here:
>You're the only one ascribing it that definition.
Yeaaaaaaah... You should lurk moar, user, specially the threads of premiere cartoons.
>This conversation really isn't even for you.
The, good luck having this exact same discussion tomorrow when someone wouldn't like your new brand definition for modern days cartoons.
Dominant trend =/ No Occasional exceptions/derivatives
Most premiere cartoons do fall under this design trend, hence the issue. Bye.
>That's half my life
But of course. The people who complain non stop are the ones too young to remember the 90s and most of the 2000s.
>To me you are closing your eyes and ears and going lalala.
No, I'm telling you turn around and look for better answers than a bunch of spooky shadows on the wall.
I'm telling you not to think about animation.
But the way you're going about it is really really dumb. You're debating a meme on Yea Forums and trying to discover its merits for an entire industry way beyond you or this site.
Do you want further proof? Listen to the video where this infamous doofus talks about it.
youtube.com
That's Butch Hartman talking. If you're taking this klutzes word for it, you've already ran a mile backwards beyond the starting line.
If you want to formally define and retire it, be objective. Form a hypothesis, be scientific about it. Critical definitions aren't a democracy. Here's my suggestion here:
Actually name and understand your terms before they hold up to any scrutiny.
Craig of the Creek
Clarence
Steven Universe
Gravity Falls
Adventure Time
Star Vs
Regular Show
We Bare Bears
FlapJack
Ok Ko
Over the Garden Wall (a short lived mini series but w/e)
Loud House
Nu Ben Ten
Nu PPGs
That new show with hicks that I haven't gotten around to seeing a lot of (I won't discuss this I have no knowledge of it what so ever)
Always shot in 3/4 perspective
Shot jump shot dialogue
noodle limbs/off model scenes to emphasize zaniness
side cheek expression " :T " to show discomfort
ANIME REFERENCES (yes, outside of SU there are plenty) And not always done in a tasteful manner
Memes aside, the bean heads and the ovular mouths
Sidenote, all of these shows have weak animation regarding action scenes. Like no weight what so ever.
That's fine and dandy, but I was referring to variety with character designs and not just obvious shoehorned visuals of sexual dimorphism. It was my fault for not explaining it properly, but I mean in the sense a character in Clarence could blend in on SU or a character on SU fitting in on WE Bare Bears with no visual clashing what so ever.
That is not an argument. My age has nothing to do with the validity of my positions. I've seen many of the 90's and 00's canon. I wouldn't assume YOU are underage because you defend the modern practice of creative inbreeding, because that's an unfair position. I take you at face value.
>No Occasional exceptions/derivatives
That would imply there are more CalArts cartoons released in the last decade than 'exceptions.' Do you earnestly believe that's the case?
Because you seem adamant about refusing to quantify it.
I redact my claim on flapjack, I don't know why that's on there. My bad.
You fed him. Here it comes.
Good, I wanna see where this goes.
Yes, if you are talking specifically 2D, on air american cartoons made 2010 and later. The most prolific and relevant subcategory.
Motherfucker
This wasn't supposed to be an argument thread... damn.
Poor Op...
>argument thread
Am I not allowed to debate and discuss on here without it being reduced to a shitpost infested thread? Even if it was bait, I wanna
see
where
it
goes.
Regardless, it's on topic.
>Always shot in 3/4 perspective
The same can be said for the Simpsons, Family Guy, Flintstones, PPG and every major Cartoon Network show since the 2000's.
>off model scenes to emphasize zaniness
This has been a thing since Spongebob and Rocko's Modern life.
>Sidenote, all of these shows have weak animation regarding action scenes. Like no weight what so ever.
There's a clip of Finn fighting nymphs and a giant Gem-eyed monster that solidly no sells this. Star vs, and SU has plenty of good weighty action scenes aswell - the rest aren't action cartoons.
In Butch's video he talks about the "Adventure Time" style. Why are talking about CalArts, why not discuss that?
Everyone, why are all cartoons following the AdventureTime style?
>It was my fault for not explaining it properly, but I mean in the sense a character in Clarence could blend in on SU or a character on SU fitting in on WE Bare Bears with no visual clashing what so ever.
The same could be said for a ton of CN and Nick shows since the early 2000's. There were literal crossovers between Billy and Mandy, KND and Ed Edd Eddy because the blockyStyle (Ooo what special name should we give it here?) fit generically well together.
Just because other things share aspects of a definition, doesn't make it the same as what we are defining. A firetruck and a clown nose are both red, but a clown nose is not a firetruck.
Start a thread saying "Draw in CalArts" style and you'll get exactly the same responses with a similar art style.
Retards calling TTG or Gumball "CalArts" doesn't mean the term has zero meaning, just means those people are stupid.
>This has been a thing since Spongebob and Rocko's Modern life.
Even further, that happened in R&S and even looney tunes.
Bauhaus user was based as fuck.
Cartoon creators take abstraction to its blandest where it is recognizable but has no sense of depth this what plagues the industry Bauhaus
You can do whatever you want, it's Yea Forums. I just wanted people who actually believe like I do (and there are many) to redefine their terms for better discussions later. Was silly of me anyway.
>you defend the modern practice of creative inbreeding
I'm not doing that, retard. I just don't care. I had seen similar trends before. Childish reboots of old shows? The 90s were filled with that. Cartoons trying to be like the big, popular cartoon of the moment? Happened several times. It's something that always happen.The next decade will produce something different. You are just too young and that is why it's such a big deal for you and other people in this board.
AT, Star and SU aren't even action cartoons, but they do have action scenes.
This is what happens when you engage by the way. They latch onto 2% of your argument with slight inconsistency and don't address the central point, Homogeneity in the animation industry.
I hate that the Peter Griffin in that image has more depth and a more dynamic pose than in his actual show
You seem to care enough to reply.
Bitch, I've just entered to the thread, just saying to that user, that every cartoon has used off model scenes pretty since always. What's going on in this thread?
got any screencaps of bauhaus user?
It's not really a bean, it's actually just a basic fibonacci spiral designed to be mathematically attractive. The thing they all have in common is this golden ratio designed right into their very faces which makes them all look really samey.
While it is technically considered good character design, the result is a very generic aesthetic.
>The same can be said for the Simpsons, Family Guy, Flintstones
Flinstones is fucking cheating, you know hana barbera cartoons were cheap. Simpsons I won't downplay for it being a comedy show, however it wasn't always with a 3/4 perspective. It's just usually is with set shots in a good amount of scenes per episode. Family Guy is literally cash cow tier now, early on I didn't notice it being as much visually.
>PPG and every major Cartoon Network show since the 2000's.
debatable as you go on, you mention KND and PPGs and again, with set scenes like before a conflict arises or during mundane discussions it shows more often. But there are a great amount of instances when characters talk to eachother where this isn't the case.
>>off model scenes to emphasize zaniness
This has been a thing since Spongebob and Rocko's Modern life.
I meant the noodle limbs along with it, like spastic flailing of the arms shown in AT, off model when showing expression is more than fine, I encourage that. But off model for the sake of being offmodel doesn't always correlate to good, Rocko and spongebob at the peak of squash and stretch cartoons utilized this. But with shows that I've listed feel restricted when doing this.
>that solidly no sells this.
It no sells on being action, even with Dad's Dungeon it came off as awkward to me anytime Finn did anything action like. Star is the best definition of "ok" in cartoons and SU with it's 'best' fights has a bad grasp on weight. Garnet vs Jasper, trash pearl vs. Amethyst trash. More frames =/= weight.
>Why are talking about CalArts, why not discuss that?
I am.
>There were literal crossovers between Billy and Mandy, KND and Ed Edd Eddy because the blockyStyle
Now that's low quality bait, you know for a fact even the least liked kid from the Culdesac being in either of those shows or vice versa would not work. a KND character's proportions would not work in Billy and Mandy.
I genuinely hope you aren't being serious.
Who the hell is bauhaus user?
I don't care about the cartoons looking similar but I do care about people always shiting the board with calarts shitposting.
I'm on the same boat, I posted
I want to do nasty things with Jenny.
I tried to start a civil thread about redefining the concept formally known as calarts, due to the stigma with John K., the nebulous definition and to stop every SINGLE one of these arguments being a debate about definition rather than about the prevalance of certain design trends in modern cartoons.
People who disagree with the concept or the definition or just want to argue swarmed the thread and someone took the bait and now we're in "Calarts general #5648". Grab your popcorn.
Honestly all of them are. Dipper gets shat on a lot by the show which makes him sympathetic, but he's still a bad character even when Mabel isn't ruining things for him.
What's the context of this gif? It looks like a Freleng cartoon but I'm not sure.
Freaking Porky the fuck out.
If you've read the thread you would understand that we're on the same side. Clarify terms and improve discussion.
Porky wants to rent a hotel room, but all the rooms are occupated, so he had to share it with daffy and he do really weird crap during the whole night.
It's a pretty good short, but I can't remember the name.
me too lad me too. Currently rewatching some classic 2000's series right now and im falling in love with jenny all over again.
>The concept formally known as Calarts
Golden
tumblr trash
you cant stop people calling calarts tho it sounds catchy and fitting
No that's stupid. Pic related is heavily composed of regular shapes.
The problem with it isn't because of the weird shapes, the problem is twofold,
1: It's exceptionally generic. Character designs look similar from show to show, let alone from character to character in the same show. It's got the Same Face problem that plagues Anime.
2: It's ALWAYS animated poorly. Partly because the style doesn't work for things like dynamic camera angles, and partly because the style is only used to begin with for when you want a rushed-but-consistent art style for your show (also like the Anime style, but not nearly as developed).
I second Beanface. It's not particularly descriptive, but everyone knows what you're referring to, and it doesn't lump in actually-different styles like Adventure Time and O.K.KO just because they're rounded and rubbery.
Beanface worm mouth.
in a interview Rebecca said she changed the designs to be simpler to accommodate storyboard artists better, but then Alex Hirsh had an interview and said he did not want any changes to the characters whatsoever, and they both looked really identical anyways.
Weapons grade autist who tried to redefine 'calarts style' by linking it to the minimalistic stylings of Nazi Germany, how it evolved into "functional art" and how that "functional" aspect carries over into modern design. Legendary meme lord. Bauhaus was the meme of the month.
youre still incorrect, though. that drawing of mickey is full of diagonals, fluid shapes, and an overall "alive" feeling. small details like tapered shapes and uneven lines do wonders for making even "regular shape" based character seem engaging and well drawn. Look at shit like samurai jack or the powerpuff girls for more examples of this. Its a subtlety but it makes a massive difference.
It also spawned a short lived Yea Forums original series
Yup. A lot of this is a cost cutting/skill level problem. Hanna-Barbera toons did the same thing, most characters had neck ties or collars for example to easily define where the head is so they could separate the cels.
Why do you think their "off show" art tends to be more varied and interesting?
Blame the fucking studios, not the cartoonists.
yes the issue is definitely exasperated by the inorganic paper cutout shapes that cut down production costs and labor. Plus you have to remember that Storyboard artists need to be able to create a product that survives the translation to fully animated when an american sends the work to be animated by koreans who don't understand English or subtle western mannerisms.
If they did the production in america the shows would become organic looking again. Just look at the work Titmouse produces, even the low quality productions have a organic feeling to them.
It's a cartoon you fucking dumb fucking degenerate mongoloid retard. God, why do dumb fucks fucking do this shit on this fucking board, a board dedicated to fucking comics and cartoons. It's almost like cartoons are meant to simplifications and exaggerations of real life. If everything had to be realistic you might as well just record fucking live action you dumb fucking inbred, bet your family tree is a fucking circle. Fucking stupid motherfucker don't fucking post on this fucking board ever fucking again, fuck off to Yea Forums or reddit. I cannot fathom how low of an IQ you need to have to not understand this, you and every dumbfuck who pretend to want realistic proportions, but will touch your fucking micro weins to degenerate cartoon porn with proportions that don't fucking make sense either. Fucking clown, stop shitting up this fucking board. Suck my donkey dick fucking nigger.
fpbp
"Beanface" is the most succinct description of what this is. "Calarts face" isn't quite accurate enough, and originally referred to something else.
I also vote for beanface
Sanity check. Is there an example of /this/ that doesn't contain beanface?
>It's almost like cartoons are meant to simplifications and exaggerations of real life.
Wanna know how I know you're dumb?
Simple art styles are required by studios because the actual animation is outsourced on a shoestring budget. The more simple the art style, the less the foreigners can fuck up on. When they do fuck up, there isn't a lot of budget to pay for extra fixes, so you have to be sparing. This lowers the quality of the final product.
We're reliving the 80s animation dark ages, essentially.
cartoons are meant to be an ABSTRACTION of real life. Boiling it down to exaggeration or simplification holds the medium back.
Aside from about 98% non argument buzzwords? What a spergout lmao.
Good take. Do you think this is justified? Have we recovered enough from 2008?
i cant even force myself to draw beanmouth on purpose but do you kinda see the difference? symmtry (even in shape width, like with arms and legs) can make a design look artificial
>sperg
>reddit
>massive outrage post with nothing but insults and no arguments
no that's not why, but you're close. Also point to my buzzwords if you like.
What do you mean by "this?" You mean the Cal Arts style?
Just take a look at the original post where John K. coined the term "Calarts Style". Not a single bean to be found
johnkstuff.blogspot.com
I'm not him, I was agreeing with you. Could have worded better.
Punished Mickey.
See the OP, genius.
>Now that's low quality bait, you know for a fact even the least liked kid from the Culdesac being in either of those shows or vice versa would not work. a KND character's proportions would not work in Billy and Mandy.
>I genuinely hope you aren't being serious.
I think they're talking about this. This actually happened.
EEnD is a lil odd from the rest of CN, but weirdly wouldn't be out of place with a ton of those KlaspyKupo Nick cartoons.
Also trying to discuss "CalArts" in 2019 is kind of old hat, isn't this ridiculous debate sort of 9 years old by now? This thread acts like its breaking new ground when it's just regurgitating the same picky-choosy shallow non-analysis it did a decade ago.
>I'm not him
well you're going to be faggot when you eat my ass and apologize to me my bad.
>I second Beanface. It's not particularly descriptive, but everyone knows what you're referring to, and it doesn't lump in actually-different styles like Adventure Time and O.K.KO
What?
Dude, are you aware by proposing this you've just gone full circle? Like full fucking circle with this whole trash Calarts thing.
I'm aware, and no. Noseless Mandy did not fit in and the slight jump to the Cul De Sac with the Eds should show they wouldn't fit in with KND. AS far the Klaspy cartoons, also no. The kids on EE&E have supper small feet, eyes the sometimes detach from their heads, colored tongues etc. There is more going for EE&E to distinct it from anything else rather than a (whatever term we're going to call it) cartoon.
Oh, you meant the picture shown in the op. Sorry.
Yeah, I can't think of any examples of THAT "this" that doesn't contain the bean. That little smile is pretty much the hallmark of that style
max fleischer noodle arms period is the only time in history that nearly everything in animation was organic shapes.
It wasn't until toy sales started to be a thing that a more toyetic design approach came and made everything lifeless and stale.
READ the OP, genius.
And you can see it looks ridiculous.
>isn't it old hat
Homogeneity in western animation is still a problem, so no.
The industry doesn't need to change. There's no apparent incentive to make better cartoons when investors and CEOs can make more money just hoarding the extra revenue like dragons. Why put care into your product when things like RWBY and TTGO demonstrate that kids will watch anything? It's better to do free things, like making the supporting OC black and making unpaid interns shill how #woke this cartoon is, you've gotta watch it.
Consumers have very little power today in controlling what's desired. Spider-Verse is the only real artistic victory in awhile, but appealing to people who like art is tricky. You have to be genuine. CEOs and investors don't like genuine, they like tried and true formulas proven to be successful. So, they don't give genuine art a shot and, when they do, they set it up to fail on purpose. Regardless of how you feel about SU, there is genuine heart in it by Sugar. So, to punish that, they cut its budget and never let it air, hoping it'd die.
>it looks ridiculous.
It looks good.
No, it objectively didn't.
We fundamentally disagree and there's nothing else to argue about.
They will respond to widespread consumer dissent. Consumer dissent comes from conversation with defined terms.
I'm not interested in lining the pockets of networks with the most optimized cheap ass products. I'm interested in good cartoons.
Not him, I think B&M and KND looks good. I loved the crossover but they still don't blend in which is the point of discussion. I'm saying them not fitting in is a good thing, they have styles that you can identify and know where they are from. Unlike my argument with SU and clarence or whatever, Mandy along with having no nose, has thick outline, bigger defined eyes, feet and hands smaller than KND characters with limbs bigger than KND characters. If you told me the characters in my image were from two different shows, I'd call you a liar.
it's been like 9 years of arguing over semantics of what constitutes cal arts and what isn't and absolutely nothing has changed and we're still getting samey cal-arts shit while design by committee toonboom shows like Amphibia and 12 Forever and Ifinity train dig a deeper and deeper hole in the industry.
Do you all feel proud of yourselves?
It depends on the characters. Grim and Numbuh 1 looked like if they were from the same show.
I tried user, but nobody wanted to listen. Redefine terms, avoid non arguments.
>thick v thin outlines
>grims massive angular jaw
what? They really don't
No, but they aren't short lived canadian cartoons, straight to dvd cartoons, short lived good-ok cartoons or netflix/mature grade cartoons either. Not trying to move goalposts, but the breadwinners do utilize that style. Nice delete btw.
>They will respond to widespread consumer dissent.
You obviously have no idea how capitalism works today. There is no invisible hand protecting our interests, there is no boycotting entertainment, it's about three or four mega conglomerates who make far more money on things other than TV entertainment for six-year olds.
Not him but
the lineweight isn't the same, they're not in the same style.
Now what? Is this showing me every and any cartoons that's released? Because I'm seeing a lot of failed/shortlived/non successful cartoons next to *REDACTED* cartoons.
>Not MUH CARTOONS! I dun liek it so they aren't indicative of western animation, clearly the dozens of cartoons that don't fit my narrative dun count!
I knew it. I knew it was putting way too much faith in you to not to cherry pick. You pretty just state only cartoons you care about matter in the context of animation, and that's after no-selling CGI, streaming services and netflix.
You're like the cartoon equivalent of someone who complains about the Big 2 in comics but when someone points out there are others goes "But who CARES bout them?"
You are literally part of the problem. The Networks create those styled cartoons for you because you clearly just give a middle finger to anything else. If you want to look for a source of this trend, look no further than yourself user.
I think there is a lot of shit that shouldn't br on her like CG, but I do want to quantify this anyway, back in a flash.
>immediately discredits CG
Oh, you're that kind of fag.
It's just not relevant in the conversation. CG isn't an art style.
>there is a lot of shit that shouldn't br on her like CG
Fucking WHAT
I didn't cherry pick, DC universe cartoons died and then we got TTGO
Symbiotic titan was great but wasn't going to sell toys and thus died
Sidekicks, Noobz, Grojband fucking Naked animals? should've posted Johnny Test too while you're at it.
Adult/Mature series are fine, but are on netflix or are limited to like 10 well known, still running series on TV.
>You are the problem, you did this
>green text post of putting words in my mouth
Like, why are you doing this, you shouldn't lack this amount of self awareness. THE BIG cartoons AIRING ON TV are ___ cartoons. Debate me in arbitrary greenlit shows that made it and died in obscurity all you want but the fact of the matter is the long lived cartoons on child aimed channels are mostly ___.
What?
Do you know how stupid sounding that is? You just ignorantly claimed literally all CGI is anonymous/interchangeable which showed astounding ignorance.
CG is animation, whether you like it or not.
Also not sure why you weirdly only counted 'TV airred' shows, since the televised model is slowly being superseded by streaming and internet airring.
Fuck you. This was kino youtu.be
CGI is a completely different medium. Are you going to start bringing in live action costume design too?
I'm pretty sure in 2012 this term didn't exist.
>those cartoons don't count because I say so
The absolute state of this board
>THE BIG cartoons AIRING ON TV are ___ cartoons
I don't think you see your own ideology if it shot you in the face. What the hell's a BIG CARTOON to you? Plus you listed garbage examples here
So does that mean you think shows like Nu Ben 10, NuPPG and Craig of the Creek are BIGGLY EPIC shows that discount Voltron and Hilda or what?
The majority of animation is not StevenUniverseAdventureStarvsGravityFalls you ignorant little Animate-toddler.
Christ, I put way too much gamble in your intelligence as is. This is turning out exactly how I said hours ago
>This is the equivalent of a little kid trying to talk about the homogeneity and genericness of modern engineering and architecture by pointing out how all the rides at disneyland look kinda alike and homes having the same roofs.
A massive waste of time with you.
No, it did.I was there. Throughout 2012-2013 people were tired of stick-limbed, beady faced noodle arm cartoons and complained about it nonstop. This was long before SU or Star vs ever airred, and once that meme OP posted came in everyone reworked the definition.
Fun fact: Rick and Morty would be classified under "CalArts" style based on the original definition.
>these moving images don't count because I say so
Also, still catogorizing and labeling the image, gimmie a minute.
>CG isn't animation
I think you've lost all credibility with statements like that, if you had any to begin with. This is John K's levels of ">Not MUH" autism.
Stop lying you little shit.
Hilda is on par with craig of the creek, AT lived for 9 FUCKING years, SU is going on 6 years, and GF went on for 4. That's BIG EPICALLY, LOOK AT ME SHOE HORN AND STRAW MAN MOR, it is. TELEVISED. Voltron had a 2 year lifespan and ran on netflix, Hilda has an artstyle on par with Craig of the Creek. Notice how I don't insult and put my cards on the table while you get defensive and anal over nothing. Because it comes off as me striking a nerve 'insulting' something you like and you ending up at arms about it.
HILDA IS FUCKING CRAIG OF THE CREEK.
>Adult/Mature series are fine, but are on netflix
None of those shows linked were originally on Netflix you dope.
You seem to have a very very specific idea of what a 'Cartoon' is and it's only a knee-jerk reaction to popular modern cartoons you see, which makes your position astoundingly daft.
I guess, we should ignore Megas XLR, Samurai Jack and others while judging the 2000s, right? Because they were shortlived/non successful, right? Now Johnny Test, that is a real 2000s cartoon.
They're not cartoons, they're CG animated shows. Cartoon isn't a genre.
>You seem to have a very very specific idea of what a 'Cartoon' is
I don't, we're not talking the semantics of any and every cartoon. Just the saturated market of ___ ones and the abundance of it today that still is being worked on. You're the daft one giving no counterpoints and having to resort to insults. You asked what do I consider is a BIG cartoon not what I consider a cartoon to be. And when discussing these kinds of cartoons, the ones that THIS FUCKING THREAD is about (ones aimed at kids on a televised platform). Then I'm on the money.
>if I discount everything that doesn't add up, I'm right
Damn user, how long did you have to train to achieve those mental gymnastics?
>samurai jack
>short lived
>3 year life span before cliff hanger
>revived 13 fucking years later
excuse me?
And as great as MXLR is, yes it was non successful with only 25 episodes and 2 seasons total. Also no we aren't talking about early 2000's cartoons, the actual fuck are you guys talking about.
By greentexting and putting words in people's mouths.
You are being insulting, since you're basically insinuating like a big manchild that only cartoons "You" think are relevant or care about matter (Or whichever help your argument) while others, not so much.
That's a double standard if there ever was one. And you're likely hopping around criteria too; age matters? Well Fairy Odd Parents and Spongebob have been around for longer than a decade while still redoing their artstyles.
Littlest Pet Shop lasted 4 years. MLP has gone on for its 9th season. Several of those shows have gone past 3-4 seasons and well over 52+ episodes, but none of these semantics really matter do they?
If it's not so blatant a strawman like MUH CARTOON, it doesn't count? You're not even working with reality anymore if you've just decided that the majority of western animation isn't important unless it has a Mega-popular fandom and trashy in-your-face promotion about it.
Calling others a liar isn't a real argument you dolt.
Tangled is the best
Alright here you go.
Red: Hard /this/ style
Yellow: /this/ style derivative/soft /this/ style
Blue: Shows that are a different style but follow much of the same design philosophy, simplistic forms and geometric shapes.
Green: Certified NOT /this/ style
Black: CGI, a different form of animation
Blank: I don't know immediately and i'm not googling it
Let's get this straight, the only cartoons that matter to you in the context of Western animation and should matter are:
>2D animation; CGI doesn't count but apparently Flash is okay
>For kids
>Are on television, not netflix or any streaming site
>POPULAR AND BIGGLY
>The ones that have a CalArts artstyle
And you don't see any problem with that line of thinking at all?
Please note, the guy you are arguing doesn't speak for me, the OP.
>You are being insulting, since you're basically insinuating like a big manchild
nice
> that only cartoons "You" think are relevant or care about matter
again, look at the fucking thread you are on.
>And you're likely hopping around criteria too; age matters? Well Fairy Odd Parents and Spongebob have been around for longer than a decade while still redoing their artstyles.
Spongebob sure but FOP? No, and spongebob is a cult phenomenon with a fantastic start, 2 movies, tons of tie in games and specials.
>Littlest Pet Shop lasted 4 years. MLP has gone on for its 9th season
With large followings and respected communities, do I negate this? No. Did I say ALL cartoons are X and Y? No.
>but none of these semantics really matter do they?
no, I discredit all cartoons except the ones I've listed that pertains to this thread about specific styles. You got me in a checkmate.
>If it's not so blatant a strawman like MUH CARTOON, it doesn't count? You're not even working with reality anymore if you've just decided that the majority of western animation isn't important unless it has a Mega-popular fandom and trashy in-your-face promotion about it.
You're on the wrong fucking thread.
>Red: Hard /this/ style
ah so literally p much anything made in flash without more than flat shading, black outlines or tone, got it
Or anything flash-looking
wow
D animation; CGI doesn't count but apparently Flash is okay
I'm not and no, I don't think talking about calarts cartoons in this thread about siad subject is a problem you dunce.
it's bean mouth, you retard. And before that, it was noodle arms. And I can only imagine before that people got triggered by anime eyes.
>Teen Titans Go
>Penn Zero
>derivative
>Hartman cartoons, Bojack and others
>same design philosophy
Just admit you know nothing about cartoons or animation
Nope. Get eyeballs and learn about the "functional" "cost saving" philosophy of design.
>And before that, it was noodle arms.
This user gets it.
>There were literal crossovers between Billy and Mandy, KND and Ed Edd Eddy because the blockyStyle (Ooo what special name should we give it here?) fit generically well together.
what the fuck? I agree with most of your post but those shows look absolutely nothing alike.
You are fucking stupid.
Literally a pioneer on that front. The bluest blue on the fucking chart.
My Nigga. However, we do need varying artstyles for our shows more. That way, things don't get stale - a problem we've had since the 80's.
based retard
>since the 80's
Since the 60's. We fixed it in the 90's and now it's back. THAT'S why people are so butthurt.
And? You wanna be a man of many straws? A downgrade is a downgrade no matter how you spin it.
We need a new CalArts label because the old one was John K conspiracy theory. It's the Jordan Peterson equivalent of "Cultural Marxism" which is a real thing but not accurate to the Nazi Conspiracy that was originally made.
Whatever you're doing - it's stupid and you're stupid for doing it, unfortunately. And most of those are shows I actually like, too...
Yeah - "CalArts" being used as an insult really is fucking stupid and has been since inception.
And yes, flash is okay. Digital and traditional animation are still be 2D. Not saying CG cartoons aren't cartoons but if Ed Edd n Eddy can still be fluid and in a 2 dimensional space when they jumped from cel to digital then yes it's 2D and is 'okay'.
Someone already explained to you TTG is derivate from Dexter/PPG and Penn Zero is one of the most visually interesting cartoons around
>cost saving philosophy of design
By this logic over 80% of animation (even anime) should be in the same category. The cost saving philosophy is as old as animation itself.
*are still 2D
He actually did It, I was just talking crap, user.
And they were wrong, simple as that.
>all cost cutting measures are the same
Stop pretending to be retarded, you know I mean the modern western use of it. Simplistic and stilted designs.
It's not a quality judgement. Many red shows are good and green shows shit. It's simply a neutral quantification.
I'm not using the term calarts, you are.
Not that user, but it's the practices in HOW they cut costs. Simplistic designs aren't the same as what anime does with having stills, low frame rates or outsourcing as a whole. Hell we still outsource, and most of the animation comes from the inbetweens mixed with storyboarding. Because we do this making simplistic designs, in this case 'cal art designs' , makes it even easier for South Korea to pump shit out.
I'm not just shitposting, I actually DO believe what i'm saying and genuinely wanted to have a conversation.
seething
>in a interview Rebecca said she changed the designs to be simpler to accommodate storyboard artists better
>They still fucked it up
CN needs to be gassed
>Using reboot dexter
I was just shitposting, user, but... well well I haven't done the math, but just with a quick sight I could say green is at least half of the chart, so where's the pattern? where's the homogeneity? Did you know that there are stadistical and math tools to know if there is or not a patter inside a sample? And It's not easy, it's really hard math, I might show you, but latter.
>And they were wrong
And you are right because you say so?
>the modern western use of it. Simplistic and stilted designs.
It's not modern you dumb fuck. It's old as fuck.
>I actually DO believe what i'm saying
And this is why you are wrong. You think your ideas are the right ones and you ignore the facts other people posts. Like how you think TTG is derivative from that style and your only argument is "I think it looks similar. Get eyeballs!"
It's more than I suspected actually. I wont argue in terms of relevance or other visual problems, in terms of ACTUAL numbers, /this/ is less than half.
That's still a big number though, if it's not a plurality, is it a majority? Must crunch the numbers.
You argument is "he worked on another show so that show must have influenced this.
I pointed out how dumb that was with Rebecca Sugar's pilot.
You haven't proposed a point since then, unless I missed it?
It's just Fry playing his holophone, everything is gonna be fine
You can note the similarities and influences by just watching the cartoons, but it's obvious you don't watch cartoons. You are here just to shitpost.
>It's more than I suspected actually
And how much did you suspected? And how can you compare it with like 10-20-30 years? How homogeneus was the styles decades ago?
>Also
Could you please post the not edited chart? I'd really like to do the math.
See
Fire away mathbro
So your argument is the same as mine, thus we've reached an impass.
I honestly thought it would be more than half.
I'm really curious, I want 00's/90's/80's/70's/60's charts now.
>What should be called
[Spoiler]Kał[/spoiler]Art
Oe just Crapart from kał/fences
THE NUMBERS:
Note: CGI was not counted.
Strict /this/ (Red only):
23/83 or 27.7%
Soft /this/ (Red and Yellow):
33/83 or 39.75%
Loose /this/ and or /this/ influences:
45/83 or 54.2%
NOT /this/:
38/83 or 45.8%
I would argue with Soft and Loose, some of them are just simplistic styles. Simplistic styles have been common in animation sinse its conception, some of them are not related with the bean face. The bean face is the result of simplistic style, not reverse, so saying "soft /this/" is just a nonesense.
>Not CGI
Why not? I think we might add it in a separated category (CGI lol)
Here. Improved
>Red: the meme style
>green: Influenced by that style
>non colored: not that style
>Not CGI
>Why not?
Because those faggots are just shitposters
>nigger D
how about basedstyle
I could only argue with
>Breadwinner
Aren't they before AT were a big thing? They are not related with the bean face.
>SCI
SCI style is just Julia Pott style, it's barely related to /this/ style, you have to look at her work:
youtu.be
youtu.be
youtu.be
SCI style is basically Julia Pott style but with bigger pupils and more lazy traces.
>Dawn of the croods
>Hanazuki
Haven't seen those cartoons, but pretty look like /this/
>basedstyle
lol
But, fair enough, I prefer this one.
>SCI
Yeah, I think you are right.
It's a more abstract way of looking at /this/ style. Some people worry about the root cause (Forced simplicity because of Koreans and cost saving) than they do about the hard /this/ specifically.
The only thing that comes remotely close is anime-like which by my count (giving a few generous ones) we get 14. So /this/ is definitely a majority, not a plurality.
I'm willing to be wrong on some stuff but man were you LAX.
i doubt it
unless it's just a runaway success, HH's style will probably be isolated to HH
Hanazuki is chibi shit. Is chibi calarts now?
Calm your tits, user, I'm just saying, maybe I'm wrong. As I said I haven't seen hanazuki.
Could you please mark the CGI shows? Some people could argue about the, I'd like to do the math considering and not considering CGI shows.
lel HH is just metastasized Deviant-Art style. Influenced heavily by Invader Zim, Bleedman and Panty and Stocking.
We've already seen it surface somewhat in Villainous.
>were you LAX
Not really.
>Some people could argue about the
Only one or two autistic fucks are forcing this "BUT IT'S CGI".
still looks like shit
Yeah, you didn't even give Loud House a green.
The opposite, only one or two autistic fucks want to compare entirely different forms of animation as if it has anything to do with 2D artstyle homogeneity. Might as well bring in Live action.
Because LH is influenced by comic strips
Imagine being this autistic
You can be influenced by more than one thing at a time. SU is influenced by Sailor Moon.
Imagine padding out your argument with a completely different medium.
>only one or two autistic fucks want to compare entirely different forms of animation
Weird way to write the entire world. You are part of a dumb minority.
They're adventure cartoons, though. Which tend to go hand-in-hand with action.
>Alright we're talking about the problems of Pixelshit games in the indie market
>bUt wHaT AbOuT C@ll oF DuTy????!?
This image is bullshit, pretty sure someone shittily drew over the other characters with the 'bean mouth' to prove their point.
>What should this be called
"Cheap shit".
Calling it the Calarts style is implying it's even a style. It's just the most basic and cheap way to draw a cartoon character so that's what everyone goes with. Don't worry, though. In a few years once they figure out an even cheaper method of drawing and animating cartoons, the "bean face" style that some call it will completely disappear and something even worse will take its place.
They honestly just took the style of Captain Underpants and made it more bubbly than it was, there's no effort whatsoever anymore
they have been lightly altered to exaggerate a point, but none are far from reality.
You make a fool of yourself every time you post
Some of you anons really need to relax over this shit, it's the current, most profitable trend and nothing more.
I do agree that 'Calarts style' isn't a fitting term for this popular look however, but I'm not sure where this look originated from to really figure out a proper label.
Half of the characters don't even smile like that....
not an argument there bucko
all similar, except anime.
10 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME
see
>10 years is a LONG FUCKING TIME
For a kid like you
all of those look great
Modern cartoons being trash used to bother me, but I got over it. Now I just stick to shit that's over 20 years old. Celebrate the past, ignore the present, hope for the future. it's the only way to live.
The most pathetic post in this thread.
For anybody bro. You only got like 8-10 of those fuckers, ASSUMING nothing happens.
10 years without much artstyle diversity. For a cartoon fanatic that fucking hurts man.
Based. I play almost exclusively /vr/ and instead of going to the theater to watch bullshit I watch older movies instead.
Anime and music are really the only mediums that "the now" is doing alright, though anime has been getting worse...
>10 years without much artstyle diversity
That is what faggots said 20 years ago.
Is that not how long animation trends usually last?
all around me are familiar faces...
Let me add an addendum to that.
Celebrate the past, ignore the present, hope for the future*
*but keep your expectations exceedingly low because each new generation is worse than the one that preceded it.
crybaby bitch
>that anime one
Based
Sorry sweaty, no. We graduated from the Hanna-Barbera and Filmation days. 4-5 Cartoons being influenced by McCracken don't give the 90's and early 00's a distinct style. That shit was DIVERSE. We've regressed since then.
>all similar, except anime.
Of course they all look similar, because it's the same character. Unless you want the character to be completely abstract or excessively realistic or something they're going to look somewhat the same. And yes even the anime one looks similar.
I think the IJQ/OK KO one is the least accurate though, the hair wouldn't look like that. IJQ's hair is a lot more... poofy? but also pointy?
really not all that similar
even without the tags I would be able to tell what style is which
compare to anime where a lot of the shows look literally identical and could easily all be from the same show, visually
It's cheaper and easier to animate. Cartoon viewership has been on the decline since video games and internet became more widely used.
I want to make Star Bubblegum my wife
Imagine being this young. You know nothing about the 90s or the 2000s. Actually, you don't even know about the 2010s.
That happy merchant needs simpler curves, it's too detailed for the style it's supppsed to be parodying
Nope. Don't even care anymore. I stopped caring sometime in the mid-2000's. Corporations have cut budgets because they know stupid children like yourself will willing accept trash product anyway. And the generation that comes after you will willingly lap up garbage that offends you and you'll pine for the good old days of 2019. It's the cycle of things.
similar in artstyle dingus.
Only because they take actual characters from those shows. If PB was done in all of those styles and not just morphing a different character as PB, you would have a hard time.
not an argument there, friend. Put up or shut up.
>If PB was done in all of those styles
that's what they did...
Adventure Time artstyle wouldn't fit into a show like Gravity Falls
>Put up or shut up.
Funny because you never post arguments. You just keep posting your headcanon.
People didn't stop watching cartoons because of video games and the internet. That's just an excuse. People stopped watching them because the cartoons started to fucking suck. Make better shit and people will watch. And even if they don't immediately, you have to build it back up again. Rome wasn't built in a day. You can't just give a show a higher budget and then cancel it after 6 episodes and say, "Told you people didn't care about quality". That's not how it works.
>people did not stop watching cable cartoons because of the Internet, don't be ridiculous
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
people are more engaged with cartoons than ever, if we were still in the Hanna Barbera phase no one would even give it so much as a passing glance
>People didn't stop watching cartoons because of video games and the internet.
People stopped watching cartoons on TV because they can watch them in the Internet. And videogames are now bigger than ever. Why would a kid or teenager watch cartoons instead of playing Dark Souls or Fornite with friends?
They stopped watching cartoons on tv because of the internet more than anything
>people are more engaged with cartoons than ever
They are not. Cartoons have been dying for decades now. You might think cartoons are popular because you enclose yourself in social media circles that talk about them. But by large, children of today do not watch them even a quarter as much as they did 10-20 years ago. And it's not video games that are to blame. Give the kids a reason to turn on the TV and they will. But these companies don't, so cartoon will continue to become cheaper and the ratings will continue to plummet and toy sales will continue to drop. Rinse and repeat.
what the fuck did you do to ice bear
It does kind of look like toys, comics, and now cartoons are made for teens and 20 somethings only now. Like they have no real intention of making anything actually for kids, and people become horribly offended at the general idea of making them for kids too.
>as much as they did 10-20 years ago
I beat you weren't alive 20 years ago. Kids just watch their shows on Internet. Turning on the TV? You can watch all the episodes of your favorite show on your phone. TV is just obsolete. People still watch cartoons.
It makes sense in the short term. Kids aren't adopting these things and so companies market their stuff to the older folk who enjoyed it when they were kids in order to stay afloat. They can only do this for so long, though. Eventually those people are gonna start dying off and that'll be it.
nice fanfic on reality
Kids have no income, teens and twenty-something do. Sell toys and books to the people who can afford them.
>You can watch all the episodes of your favorite show on your phone.
They can, but they don't. Otherwise you would be seeing an influx of successful cartoons on streaming platforms and toys for all that shit. But you don't. It's all the same type of low-budget garbage you see on Cable TV. The only people who watch it are stoner-age college kids in their 20s.
Nice picture of diehard adult fans cosplaying as characters from a low-budget cartoon with a relatively small, cult fan base.
>but they don't
Because you said so? Stop living in your head
>It's all the same type of low-budget garbage you see on Cable TV
Because it's profitable.
>Because you said so
No, because if they did there would be a ton of cartoons being made. There are far less cartoons being made today compared to 10 years ago. And there were less cartoons being made 10 years ago than there were 20 years ago. That's a trend.
And the few they do make manage to stay profitable because they keep the budgets as minimal as possible while hiring non-union talent to churn that crap out as quickly as they can.
>There are far less cartoons being made today compared to 10 years ago
wow it's almost like cable is dying or something
I wonder what could possibly be the reason for that
No, they aren't, an action cartoon is like Justice league, Symbionic titan and Samurai Jack, there are action scenes in every chapter.
>wow it's almost like cable is dying or something
>I wonder what could possibly be the reason for that
We just established that people are switching to the internet and streaming platforms. And there are a few cartoons being made there. But not that many. You would think with as cheap as cartoons have become to make there would be just as many now as there were when they were more expensive to make. But there aren't. Don't you wonder why that is?
>There are far less cartoons being made today compared to 10 years ago And there were less cartoons being made 10 years ago than there were 20 years ago
Not even the shitposter of Yea Forums are this disconnected from reality. You are so insane that you actually believe the bullshit you post.
Go make yourself a list of every cartoon made in the past 10 years and compare it to the list of shows made 20 and 10 years ago.
Instead of covering your ears and going "la la la, everything is rosey if I just block out the sound!" you could try educating yourself.
>Don't you wonder why that is?
literally just told you why
you even said it
>We just established that people are switching to the internet and streaming platforms.
they can't make profits off everyone streaming everything online
it's not because cartoons are just sooo bad and kids are just sooo irate about "calart" style, a kid would rather watch Gravity Falls on repeat than any e.g. Hanna-Barbera show obviously
>Go make yourself a list of every cartoon made in the past 10 years
You are the only saying tha bullshit. Go make the list yourself. The burden of proof is on you.
>Instead of covering your ears and going "la la la, everything is rosey if I just block out the sound!"
That is what are you doing. You never accept what other people tell you, even when they post facts.
Gravity Falls isn't like that
neither is TAWOG
>even when they post facts.
You haven't posted a single one yet.
I do wonder why people are satisfied with the current state of things. It isn't just cartoons, either. Everything today is less quality than it was decades ago. And blind consumers just willingly accept it. "Oh, this thing costs more than it did before *and* I'm getting less, too? Sure, I'll buy it." People are so willing to accept less of the pie. You're being robbed and you don't even realize it or you're too just to lazy to care.
they look the same?
no as in they don't have that mouth on the top image
looks the same to me
Holy shit you sound autistic as fuck
>generic shitpost instead of an argument
Proving my point. Lazy and dumb.
How old are you? Seriously, I need to know
Twice your age, easily.
Yep. The answer of a kid. It makes sense. All your posts are childish nonsense.
I'm old enough to be your dad. I would put money on it.
I'll tell you this, too. One day you'll be old enough to realize how much the quality of your life has deteriorated and you'll look around and wonder "what the fuck happened"?
well sure they have a bland dried out artstyle you can put it that way.
>Everything today is less quality than it was decades ago
in a lot of respects, that is true
but the funny thing is you're talking about one of the few things where that isn't the case, obviously
A clown laughs to hide his tears. let's see what your attitude is in 10 years, child.
Geo-Rubberhose
Stop wasting dubs, millerfag
Now do the 90's.
"The Boomer Complain"!
I would take 60's Hanna-barbera over today.
70's and early 80's Hanna-Barbera? Eh, it's about even I guess. Today's cartoons have slightly better writing while the 70's had much better voice acting. Animation wise it's a wash.
>Today's cartoons have slightly better writing
>slightly
The writing is way better.
Proving his point dumbass. All these new shows look the same. Guess he forgot loud house, vic and val, and a couple more.
That's probably true. Though you have to deal with obnoxious child characters with grating voices to appreciate the difference, I suppose.
70's H-B sucked hard, but I would definitely take Curly Howard as a Shark and Scatman Crothers as a karate dog over annoying child characters played by actual child actors. I don't know how some folks over a certain age can stomach that crap.
So is this calarts?
>I would take 60's Hanna-barbera over today
Now this is shit taste.
2000s > 90s > 2010s > 80s > 60's > 70s
I see younger family members pretty much give up cable in favor for more accessible options like YouTube.
I would go:
pre-60s > Early 90s > Late 80s > Late 90s > 60s > early 80s > 00s > 70s = today
>annoying child characters played by actual child actors
How many shows do that? Most shows use adult voice actors.
That would be one show. One that started in 1988.
A good show at that. Easily the best Scooby-Doo series.
Does it count that it's half a decade old
No, that's the stuff that the young animators of today learned to draw from instead of drawing from reality like they were supposed to.
I would say
90's = 2000 to 2006 > 80's > 60 and lower > 2010's > 70's
pre-60's > Late 90's > Early 00's > Early 90's > Late 80's > POWERGAP > 10's > Early 80's > 60's > 70's
I meant to put 60's and lower above the 80's
Do you guys think the cartoons of the 2020s will be better or worse than the ones from the 2010s? It's hard to imagine them being worse.
>It's hard to imagine them being worse.
I said that in 2009. They'll look and sound cheaper and there'll be even less of them.
Probably Worse, but we won't know until around 2023.
I think they'll be better. Lots of shakeups at Cartoon Network recently and the introduction of streaming will force some quality.
You either don't actually remember all those decades or you hate the current decade way too much. Imagine thinking Super Friends and other early cape cartoons were better than Young Justice, Justice League action or even teen titans go.
forced diversity
Why did you link me? 70's is at the bottom where it belongs.
It's called CalArt, deal with it soigobling.
I'm honestly not sure which I would rather watch between Superfriends and those other shows you mentioned. I would probably opt to just watch none of them and go to sleep if given the choice.
Because the 2010s had better stuff than most of the 80s and 60s.
A bit too early to tell and Yea Forums will hate it regardless
>Lists have this current decade considered better than the 70s
>Assumes we hate this decade too much and prefer 70's cartoons over current ones
Huh?
>It's hard to imagine them being worse.
Hard lesson in life: Things can ALWAYS get worse.
Explain how the 80s and 60s were better
We could get nothing but still images for animation and the art will be nothing but stick figures filled with fart jokes and lol so randum humor, or we could get all that but it's in CG.
I ALSO put it above the 60's and early 80's.
I feel like today's art styles are barely above stick figures and the difference in quality in terms of animation, storytelling, and humor would be negligible to me anyway.
where's the rope?
For What?
>half
oh my fucking god.
those shows bored me to tears, well they kept me "entertained" just as something to mindlessly watch
but I can tell if there was a show like Steven Universe around when I was a kid I would be hooked on it — most kids would be
DESU it would be hilarious to keep the dialogue and story the exact same, but remake it in this style.
It would be crazy seeing a show use the beanmouth style and be so goddamn edgy
I wouldve loved TTGO if it had air back then. Hell I liked rocket power as a kid. Your point?
DUMB. Every design in your "geometric era" is created by a CalArts student, whereas half the shows in your "calarts era" ARENT made by CalArts students. "Beanmouth" or "Post-AT" would be much better descriptors.
All except for anime and Star vs look like crap.
just call it wormy smile
Hanna-Barbera and Steven Universe bore me to tears. But then, Steven Universe just looks like a Hanna-Barbera show to me. Just substitute corny jokes with huggy wimpy fluffy nonsense.
Retards, all of you. This is the true calarts style.
it looks like they're chewing on a ball
Dipper still manages to be the least shit, a lot of his shittiness comes from his awkwardness and lack of social interaction in who he's romantically interested in
i like the gargoyle girl
Here's her original design if you're curious.
>t. Star vsfag
Where's the "Anime style" era? I remember a fuck ton of shows that tried copying anime when it became huge in the west.
So were sticking with beanface, right? Or is it beanmouth?
>thread bait 4.jpg
I want to chastise you for putting forth zero effort in your bait.
But I have to admit it'll probably work, won't it? You'll get serious replies to this. Why put effort into something when it is wholly unnecessary?
We can do a straw poll - My suggestions for entries would be
Beanface
Beanmouth
Wormmouth
Maggotmouth
sans undertale
No, but this is the inspiration for it
I think I need some bleach for my eyes. Who are these characters supposed to be anyways?
A strawpoll is a good idea. Could you add "four-toother"?
You can't tell?
Left is steve rogers and right is tony stark.
Sure.
Any others? I thought I'd be totally fair and put in, "none of the above" as well.
Wrong thread?
>Yea Forums is stupid
we already know that
Buttface
Gumball's entire joke is that he's supposed to be insufferable, much like the Simpsons or Seinfeld's cast.
>Why aren't you guys complaining about Darling and the Franxxx?
This isn't the Yea Forums board, faggot.
Seinfeld's cast isn't always all bad, sometimes they're relatable. Sometimes they're absolutely shitty. It's never really just one or the other.
But they're almost always all consistently funny.
Yeah but Gumball isn't funny
With how much more people are streamin and playin games and favorin things that are more interactive, I wonder if there's even a point in makin a cartoon show, compared to a video game where people can socialize and create their own experiences. They might lack the imagination or the resources to create an entire world, so instead you create it for them and sit back and watch what happens. And then you add important NPCs that keep poppin up that are that universe's "main characters" since everyone will interact with em at some point. I really do wonder if that's the way to go. I mean games are only gonna become more and more sophisticated, and by makin it more cartoonish you wouldn't exhaust resources for realistic renderin and assets, right? Plus it seems more and more gamers want less punishment or passive, "cinematic" experiences or options, so maybe there's somethin there.
unsurprising considering some netflix shows offer interactive.
episodes
I mean really, why put in the work of craftin these lame stories that people can't connect to when they can talk about issues that are way more real and outside what TV considers appropriate on social media? Why bother? Make a game and watch em go, give players one part of the game where they can watch "episodes", and options where you can go on missions with those characters. The only big, big, BIG obstacle is that online interaction can be dicey and kids can be exposed to inappropriate things, and the filters necessary to prevent any kinda trouble could cost millions of dollars, on top of anything else that could hold the game/cartoon hybrid liable. That's what I'd see an investor keepin from pullin the trigger. Plus the manpower needed to get it off the ground in the first place.
Honestly, the interactive elements of videogames is something cartoons can't beat. Killing this guy with 20 friends after weeks of failed attempts gave me satisfaction beyond any animation.
Unikitty is beanmouth too
Exactly. Games naturally have violence in em, so that might give more flexibility for tellin stories, too. The main issue goes back to liability. People of all stripes play games, which means more chances for very different groups of people to interact, which means potential misinformation that's dangerous, child grooming attempts, the need for sophisticated filters to detect and remove text identified as personal info like an address line, phone number, e-mail, etc.
Also the fact that 3D models, at least for games, aren't always as expressive and flexible as 2D designs. Also, the point of cartoons is for em to have the potential to be merchandised, but there might be more stringent limits on how much advertisin's allowed to be shown to kids if it's in a cartoon (strictly forbidden), or a game.
where's the link already?
strawpoll.me
Sorry bout that user, got distracted. Enjoy.
This is bauhaus user
NTS
NOT
TOO
SHARP
This or calarts simplification
Okay, voted.
But im 22
What are you trying to say?
They have the same head and mouth
We need the term to constantly evolve and for the discussion to keep moving and for more artists to be inspired. If "naming" this style "kills" it then we need to reject every name it's given.
we've figured it out, Kidney bean/beanface it is
Regular Sow doesn't fit there. It's not as clean as the other cartoons there.
Fuck off
My Nigga. Glad to see someone understands what's the problem here!
fkn beanface 2010s cartoons
Dexter only looked like PPG after it was rebooted
Calart is just a rip-off of anime.
the entire point of Steven is he isn't a cunt. Annoying at times, sure, but literally the nicest person you'd even meet, even nicer than Ned Flanders I'd wager.
ah I'm sorry, let me find another picture off google then
Very mature.
so rebellious!
Beanworm.
Bean-shaped head with a worm smile.
>Liking anything but the original Ben 10
you all disgust me.
Should we really be calling it "beanface"?
it's still the same fucking thing, am i missing something here?
these are official renders so it means....wait was that supposed to prove it's not cal arts ,';^)