Can we finally nip the cal-art/new aged digital inking thing in the bud, because this shit is used for every new cartoon beanfaced or not. It's reaching soul v. soulless levels of lack or reasoning behind said thought process.And on the note of this "new wave" of animation, why are people harping on digital ink/flash animation. And I mean all of it, not just tweened animation in shit like Johnny Test, but all of it entirely. There are films and shows, even anime that shows how far technology has come. Also let's not forget frame by frame is still very much do-able with it too.
Tl;dr I feel a lot of people talking about modern day animation and cartoons look at it at face value and don't take a lot of things into consideration. WHAT makes something cal-arts?
>WHAT makes something cal-arts? Nothing. It was last year's big zoomer maymay shitpost for the sake of deriding any modern cartoons and ironic shilling of TTG as the bestest cartoon currently. Anons have since grown bored and gone back to waifufagging, and bitching about politics.
Ian Taylor
The specific complaint people are trying to make but cannot articulate when they call something "CalArts" is that they believe what they are watching is being made to bend over backwards to accommodate the tools made to produce it rather than making the tools conform to an artistic vision.
Michael Jones
Animation has been digitally inked since Beauty and The Beat. I think Ed, Edd n Eddy was the last tv series to paint on cells.
Either way I do agree that some shows tend to disregard colour theory in their designs and layouts these days. Especially in cheaper productions, I do suspect that the process being easier has led to it being overlooked.
On the other hand the new Looney Tunes shorts show that it doesn't have to be the case. At Annecy they showed how the character got a new colour pallet in each short that would suit and work with their environments. You can see similair thought going to a show like Wander over Yonder.
Ayden Sullivan
What about how given we are in a set time where show runners have fellow peers, some ofcourse from similar or the same universities and background. Is it that they can't help sharing similar styles is some regards and their works all seem derivative or the same thing?
Aiden Ramirez
>last year newfag detected
Easton Gonzalez
>WHAT makes something cal-arts? Why do you still need to ask this question with an obvious answer.
It sounds like you've been paying too much attention to people who don't really know what they're talking about. That's not everybody though, and you shouldn't take clueless shitposts so seriously.
>WHAT makes something cal-arts? In general, complaints about the "calarts look" referred to shows with flat, geometric, overly simplified character designs, a lot of generic stock expressions, and a soft, bland, cutesy aesthetic. That's the convention and the generally agreed-upon meaning. When people use that term for anything modern that they don't like, they're just being idiots.
Anthony Thompson
All of Yea Forums isn't the people who subscribe to your wip's. Just post the shit when you're done
Matthew Lopez
Cal *clap* Arts *clap* is *clap* not *clap* what *clap* you *clap* think *clap* it *clap* is *clap*
Jaxson Ross
fuck off timbox
Isaac Lewis
Like ? Because the "bean mouth" thing has been done since the boys in over seas watched Donald Duck in black face in the 1940's. Hell if this was 2008, I'd hear more about "NOODLE LIMBS" in modern cartoons, despite rubber hose cartoons and early Bugs Bunny had it. It sucks when a show, especially one with a promising pilot, just to play it safe visually. Yet what people argue about are the same basic geometric shapes that we can't really unlearn. Heads are round, circle/ovals are used to build them up. Hips are an upside-down trapezoid. Maybe it's on all me for not having a good bull shit detector. But knowing the invilids on here, some people take shitposting to heart and see it as fact, thus spreading disinformation.
People wouldn't mind if only one or two cartoons looked like that, but it's a very large trend at this point. We're reaching Hannah-Barbera levels of sameness, except these are all made by different people from different studios. Even the early 2000s faux anime cartoons had more distinct styles.
Brayden Anderson
>Its another "One cartoon is the style of the entire decade" episode I mean, Hartman had a couple cartoons with the same style, but is that really what you're going with?
Nolan Bailey
What about the shows thats were ran by DC, Gendy/Craig McKracken cartoons looking derivative of eachother. Hell, to this day I see a lot fo people drawing parallels of different Nicktoons beind "rip offs" of Ren and STimpy or Spongebob etc. I fucking love Dexter's Lab, and back in the early 2000's with Cartoonnetwork city, a lot of the characters looked like they could be characters in eachother's shows (save for Edd ed n eddy, or xoalins showdown, etc).
Matthew Cooper
I hate your drawing too.
Connor Jones
>What about the shows thats were ran by DC Literally set in the same animated universe 90% of the time, with the outliers being in unique styles themselves (Teen Titans, The Batman, Brave and the Bold)
>Gendy/Craig McKracken cartoons looking derivative of eachother They shared the same crew between series. When Dexter ended, the same artists went to Powerpuff, and then onward to Samurai Jack and Fosters. Plus it's just a better style than CalArts/Beanhead shit. They put a heavy focus on character design in those shows. You don't see the same level of attention in Steven Universe for example.
>Hell, to this day I see a lot fo people drawing parallels of different Nicktoons beind "rip offs" of Ren and STimpy or Spongebob etc. No one defends the Snookums and Meats and Coconut Freds of the world. People DO defend Thundercats Roar to the death.
Dominic Lewis
Do NOT post the savior of cartoons while defending calarts schlock
Levi Miller
>Do NOT post the savior of cartoons while defending calarts schlock You're implying I am, I'm talking about the term. People mean what they say and not say what they mean. cal-arts is the kafka-esque of Yea Forums and you're perpetuating the tism.
What else are we supposed to call it? "Bean head/mouth" is a common alternative, but it doesn't fully describe the art style or why it's so disliked and it leads to strawman arguments where people bring up some old cartoons with bean shaped heads and nothing else in common.
Adrian Butler
> (Teen Titans, The Batman, Brave and the Bold) I was referring Justice League era DC. Beyond the Batman, Static Shock, Hell Justice league even takes artstyles from Superman/Batman TAS. And don't get me wrong, it works perfectly. Don't fix what isn't broken But something like, Time Squad to Billy and Mandy or Ben 10 to GenRex shows that shows worked off their peers back then. Go all the way back to the grand daddy of cartoons and ever since Mickey Mouse. We've had cartoon and over exaggerated slapstick, common sight gags, anthro characters and so on. And because of this cartoons gained an identity, people took inspiration from and and cartoons matured. And even though Yea Forums never admits it, if it weren't for cartoons they wouldn't have had anime. I don't know, maybe instead of finding a flavor of the month (or years in this case) use a description why something looks bad rather than using in-group used terms to save face and save yourself from giving and explanation. Steven Universe has falt colors at times, no shading, inconsistent, choppy during action scenes that range from a 5/7 out of 10. It's entirely just me being sick of our own version of "soi" . Discussion is going to end up being buzzword rock paper scissors and this entire site with be a complete cesspool of shit posters. And on the topic of previous cases utilizing "bean mouths" and "bean heads"seem to get off scott-free due to nostalgia goggles or blissful ignorance.
tl:dr just say the show looks sterile, say the character is unrefined, say the silhouette isn't memorable, say it's non expressive Say SOMETHING
for whatever it's worth, user, I think this looks pretty cool
I mean, it's true that more than anything each decade is going to look more like one show/creator than anything, but that's how it always is with these kinda things and I personally like what I see with yours
Carson James
Wander's art director (Alex Kirwan; who was also MLaaTR's art director) is Supervising Producer on the new Looney Tunes shorts, so that makes sense
If you don’t know what it is by now you are either a fan of it, inexperienced or retarded. Lurk more.
Alexander Green
>it's a meme
Calarts Alumni detected, kys.
Eli Mitchell
It's just a buzzword that means "cartoons after my childhood"
in a decade there will probably be a new one that means the same thing
back in the 2000's there were a lot of cartoons with a broken glass aesthetic like Fairly OddParents, but you never see them complain about that
Gabriel Lewis
I don't know what it is because the definition can be construed toward what you A) don't like and B) is made recently. Sure you can give me solid examples of shows that have artstyles so damn bland they blend in. But so far, what this gay name fag says
>I was referring Justice League era DC Yes, those shows are from that era. Beware the Batman isn't though. Unless you meant Batman: Beyond.
>Hell Justice league even takes artstyles from Superman/Batman TAS. Like I just said, they're in the same animated universe. Look up "DCAU".
>Don't fix what isn't broken But something like, Time Squad to Billy and Mandy or Ben 10 to GenRex shows that shows worked off their peers back then. Those shows have shit all to do with each other besides being on the same network.
>Go all the way back to the grand daddy of cartoons and ever since Mickey Mouse. We've had cartoon and over exaggerated slapstick, common sight gags, anthro characters and so on. And because of this cartoons gained an identity, people took inspiration from and and cartoons matured Okay. How does this relate to the CalArts style being complete garbage though.
Cooper Campbell
No one likes The Fairly OddParents And people did complain about "broken glass" Canadian flash shit, a lot. John K himself called that stuff "fake Genndy"
Aaron Torres
CALARTS is a neat and pretty term you can use to define whatever aesthetic trend is prevalent in animation at any given time. It doesn't have any fixed properties, nor does everyone who comes out of CalArts fit the description of its current properties at any given time. CalArts just happens to be a school where most of the industry exists, and therefore becomes a scapegoat for the general "perpetuater of current stylistic dogma". There's an element to it that also implies a brand of nepotism that might exist in the industry, as alumni are more likely to get jobs. It's vagueness helps it fit multiple different negative aspects that people have issues with in the current climate. It's not a perfect definition of "Cal Arts" as a PLACE but it works.
Gavin Peterson
>Like I just said, they're in the same animated universe. Look up "DCAU". I'm aware, but it still had a set style that was mimicked liked the other shows that had "shit all to do with each other". Some shows are made by the same animation teams, some are made with the intent to capitalize on another shows success and some were made in vain of their successor. Hanna Barbara to Cartoonnetwork and so on. >How does this relate to the CalArts style being complete garbage though. You're missing the point of the thread
Jayden Flores
Because the broken glass aesthetic didnt dominate 3/4ths of the artsyles in the 2000s.
Nolan Martinez
>A sensible reason for the term Wow user, thank you for being a human being. Not sharply, but bolder thick outlines were definitely a thing in most major cartoons at the time. Zim, Butch Hartman's cartoons, MLaaTR, Dexter, Johnny Bravo, PPG's, Samurai Jack (although it's not animated under lineart but the figures are very sharp), time squad, Billy and Mandy especially in later seasons. That's not 3/4th I'll give you that, but those are some big boy boomer toons still talked about today.
