bean mouth defender slowly convinces himself that bean mouths might be a problem

[00:00:00]This image has been paraded around as an example of Pixar's decline in visual design, and I don't know why. And I say this as someone who doesn't even like Turning Red, but I dislike it for the correct reasons. Teenage girls are cringe, and the lack of 911 references breaks my immersion.

[00:00:19]At least it looks good, doesn't it?

[00:00:22]Well, no, because apparently all the visual appeal is destroyed because of the shape of their mouths they make when they open them. This has been going on for some time. Every time a new show or movie comes out and the characters have rounded smiles, people complain. I've never understood this. I don't see the turnoff. I mean, it's not my favorite look, but I can never seem why it seem to offend so many people. And it does seem to be something deeper than it just not being someone's cup of tea. People talk about this like they think it's objectively bad as a piece of art. So, I finally just came out and asked. And then I got a bigger response than I've gotten to anything in my life. And that spooked me into hiding for a year. I figure I'm a little late now to engage with the comments, but I have read them, or at least half of them, probably. But I've read enough to notice that a few sentiments keep coming up over and over again. So, I've elected to categorize the common answers and respond to them all at once here. Is this less work for me than just replying to the comments? I don't know. This is going to take a while, so let's just get right to the first answer. Answer type one. I don't have a problem with this style. Thanks.

[00:01:24]I wasn't talking to you. Answer type two. These are not the same art style.

[00:01:29]Several individuals informed me that the images I put together are in fact not all one art style. This is like saying different anime shows look different. I mean, they do, but you can't tell until you've had hours of exposure. Jokes aside, it might be helpful to define what this style is. The bean mouth style, as we'll call it, favors very simple, very round shapes for its characters. In the most stereotypical instances, heads typically [music] consist of two intersecting ellipses and make up half to a quarter of the character's height. Limbs are slightly curved rectangles, sometimes more like noodles. Eyes are round, simple, and usually wide open. Mouths are often large and completely round when wide open, often forming a shape similar to a grub.

[00:02:14]For some reason, everyone pretends to look more like beans. Indicators of texture and volume are minimized as much as possible without sacrificing clarity.

[00:02:22]Sharp angles are rare. Cutesy designs are favored. Realism disdained.

[00:02:28]Now, I think everything I just said clearly applies to all of these to slightly varying degrees. These are all the bean mouth style. I am aware that they do not look precisely the same.

[00:02:39]Gravity Falls characters have their eyes and nose all pressed up against each other which was obviously inspired by Veggie Tales characters and is in stark contrast to Da Taylor Joy over here who also has more detailed pupils than the others. Also, some of these are 3D and some of these are 2D. I can see that there's a similar principle at play and how the characters are shaped. Like if you imagine how the Pixar characters would look if they were rendered in 2D and similar to the others, but I suppose that they'd be difficult to connect depending on how visual you are. So, allow me to help. Do they fit more? Now, I chose these images because I thought they were the clearest examples of this style. All these characters have the signature protruding cheeks, the big round open mouths, and almost chibi-ike proportions. [music] And these are all the main character or nearly the main character of their respective properties. At the time I made the collage, I forgot that big city greens or win or lose existed. Otherwise, [music] I probably would have included them as well. Other possible examples of the Beanmouth style include Adventure Time, Regular Show, Clarence, Fish Hooks, We Bear, Bears, Amphibia, The Owl [music] House, Kith, Primos, Over the Garden Wall, Thundercats [music] Roar, and most of Centaur World. But those all deviate from the standard design in more obvious [music] ways, so I chose not to include them for the sake of clarity.

[00:03:56]Now, if you're offended because I just lumped in a show you considered to be very good with Thundercast Roar, I'd like to remind you that I don't point out the Bean Mouth as a criticism. I'm just noting recurring design patterns across cartoons. To clarify further, it might be helpful to say what the Bean Mouth style is not. I think Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur, The Proud Family, Finas and Furb, The Dragon Prince, Hilda, Haley's on it, Kron San Diego, Total Drama, and Netflix's Shira are definitely not examples of the style.

[00:04:28]Well, actually, Hilda's kind of an edge case. Hilda Hilda's pretty close. Hell House is also kind of an edge case, actually. It's difficult to draw a hard line. You might draw it in different places from me, but this is the general trend we're talking about. Incidentally, I thought my own drawing style was the big mouth style, but when I talked to this with my sisters, they said I don't [music] draw like this, or at least I usually don't. Well, of course not, John. Most of your mouths have corners.

[00:04:51]It's not just about the mouths. Also, I don't know if the term art style is too broad for what I'm getting at. I'm mostly just talking about the ways in which characters are designed, the guidelines that each show uses, and how they draw people. [music] We're not talking about things like background rendering, color design, or even the actual animation. All of which I think are more noticeably different in each of these shows. So anyway, when I say these are the same art style, I am not saying they are all precisely the same. I know as well as anyone that they are not, but they are clearly in the same neighborhood. If these shows had crossovers, you wouldn't have to change the designs much, if at all, in order for the characters to look like they belong in the same world. If you wanted a crossover between uh Tall Drama and Proud Family, they would obviously clash with each other. Answer type three, they all look the same. This completely contradicts the previous answer. Humans are fickle creatures. I'm not sure if people were saying that the different shows and movies look the same or that the characters themselves all look the same or maybe both. Now, as someone who is almost intimately familiar with each of these, it's difficult for me to get into the headsp space of someone who doesn't know these characters and is judging them from just still images. But I guess, yeah, if you ignore the way they're dressed, the characters in this image all look pretty similar. And based on these images, you might guess that most of them have the same personality, which they really don't. But then it sounds like we're dealing with a recreation of the DreamWorks face. And that's more of an issue of how promotional materials are designed rather than how the characters are designed. Also, this is partly my fault for deliberately seeking out pictures of this particular smile. These images may be making the characters look more similar than they normally would. Hey, let's try something. These are all the main characters. All of them are children, ranging in ages from 10 to 15.

[00:06:44]Wait, really? Not much? I wonder if people that don't know can even tell which ones are older or younger. Anyway, uh these are all twain, more or less, and all their faces are similar. I wonder what would happen if I showed the most prominent human adult character from each show and film instead of the child.

[00:07:00]Most of these are just the kid's parents. Okay, that's definitely better in terms of both diversity and communicating what the character is like. And I believe if you look at the rest of the cast of any of these works, you'll find most of the designs just as effective as these. It's mostly just the main protagonist in isolation who look like they come from the same mold, which might be a legitimate issue when it comes to selling the show, but not one that I think affects the viewing experience. A difficulty I face in responding to these is that I don't know how many people are judging just by these images alone, and how many are familiar with what the characters look like and still think they look too Sammy.

[00:07:38]Answer type four. The term cow art style was coined by a portable document format file. I should probably ignore this, but I find it amusing and annoying that it would come up at all. I don't care who coined the term Cal Arts style. The reason I'm avoiding it is because I think it's inaccurate. This style is imitated by plenty of people who never went to the California Institute of the Arts. And I think the same term used to be used to describe the Disney Renaissance style. Bean mouth seems like the more fitting, more accurate label.

[00:08:07]Anyway, answer type five, it's overused.

[00:08:11]Possibly the most frequent response was to say that there's nothing inherently wrong with the style, but that people feel it's used too often these days, and they would like to see more variety in their cartoons and movies. I believe people genuinely feel this way, but I don't think this is rational. I think we're dealing with some selective memory here. I mean, is this style dominating the animation industry any more than other styles that have at other times that don't seem to bother people as much? I mean, some of you guys like anime. Hey, maybe it's worth asking why the style is used frequently to the extent it is. The assumption seems to be that creators are intentionally making everything look similar. Whether that's because studios are mandating shows that visually resemble other popular shows, or because every American animator was trained to draw the exact same way when they allegedly went to the Cal Arts and they never developed beyond that, or because studios have deemed this to be the most economical style and encourage its use as often as possible. I think the actual reason for its popularity is much more mundane. Everything's made by the same five people. Well, more than five, but a lot of the same people.

[00:09:12]History shows that animators tend to stick with the same style, especially when they make several shows close to the same time. All three of Matt Graing's cartoons are drawn in the same style. All four of Butch Hartman's Nickelodeon shows are in the same style.

[00:09:25]All three of Dan and Swampy's Disney shows are in the same style. People get comfortable. And don't come at me with, "Actually, Futurama is different from the Simpsons cuz they're not yellow.

[00:09:33]anyone can see just from looking at them that they're designed by the same people. If you look at the crew behind these beam mouth shows, you'll see they have a lot of artists in common. The most popular punching bag, Steven Universe, was created by Rebecca Sugar, who had previously been a storyboard artist on Adventure Time. Adventure Time was created by Pendleton Ward, who also created Bravest Warriors and had previously worked on Thor Van Orman's The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack.

[00:09:59]Also working on Flapjack as a creative director was Ward's friend JG Quintel, who would go on to create both the regular show and the visually similar Close Enough. Flapjack also launched the careers of Patrick McCale and Alex Hirs.

[00:10:12]Male would go on to create Over the Garden Wall as well as serving as a creative director for Adventure Time.

[00:10:18]Hirs would go on to co-develop Fish Hooks and then create Gravity Falls. By the way, all these five deck guys went [music] to Cal Arts together and they're blamed for starting the bean mouth trend, which I think is why the style has been associated with the school. But it's long since it's been used by plenty of people who never attended Cal Arts, including Sugar. Speaking of Sugar, her partner Ian Jones Carty did storyboards for both Adventure Time and Steven Universe before creating OK KO Let's Be [music] Heroes. Gravity Falls also gave rise to storyboard artist Chris Hutton who would go on to do storyboards for Harvey Beaks along with his brother Shane before the two of them created Big City Greens. Matt Brily also storyboarded for Gravity Falls and Steven Universe and Big City Greens before creating Amphibia. Gravity Falls also launched the career of Al House creator Dana Terrace. Steven Universe employed Matt Vernett and Ben Leven who would later create Craig of the Creek.

[00:11:07]Star vs. The Forces of Evil was created by Darren Nepsy who was surprisingly not connected to anything else. All that is to say, the similarities in character designs may be a matter of artists just drawing the same way they've been drawing for years rather than deliberate trend following. We have seen similar things happen before. Remember when every Cartoon Network show looked like Dexter's Lab? Craig McCracken and Jenny Tartikovsky both got their start on Two Stupid Dogs. Tertikovsky went on time to create Dexter's Laboratory, which McCracken worked on, and then McCracken created the Powerpuff Girls, which Tertikovsky worked on. And then Tartikovsky created Samurai Jack which McCracken did not work on. McCracken would also create Fox for Imaginary Friends while Tartikovsky would develop Star Wars: The Clone Wars and co-create Symbionic Titan. So yeah, part of the reason all those shows look alike is because all of them were made by two guys. Though I do find it interesting that both McCracken and Tardikovsky have more recently created new shows that look very different from their old Cartoon Network shows. I mean, I can see some of the same design sensibilities, but I don't think most people would guess these were made by the Powerpuff and Samurai Jack guys. Maybe maybe creators just need a bit of a break between projects to branch out. I will make one concession. Perhaps the reason this trend feels different from the others is because it's infected multiple networks. The Hannah Barbara/Dexter's Lab look was mostly limited to Cartoon Network. The classic super ugly faces were relegated to Nickelodeon. The low budget Disneyesque animation was mostly on, well, Disney. Those trends tended to be limited to just one network and to a relatively small number of creators. But the female style has defined shows on both Disney and Cartoon Network. The only reason Nickelodeon hasn't hopped on board is because they haven't made any new shows since 2016. And now a derivative of the style seems to be infecting Pixar movies as well. So perhaps this has spread wider than past trends, which is why people find it more bothersome. It doesn't help that the number of original shows seems to be winding down. At the same time, the style has been proliferating. So, there's simply fewer opportunities for experimentation, at least in the three major networks. Taking streaming into account makes the landscape look significantly more diverse, but I suppose it's a little harder to keep track of everything they're producing.

[00:13:15]Unlike anime, which looks alike across multiple studios and genres and hundreds of creators. Answer type six, it's lazy.

[00:13:22]One of the most consistent unifying elements of this style, even more so than the beans, is its simplicity. These characters are pretty quick and easy to draw. things like wrinkles on the clothes, separations in hair, and even parts of anatomy like wrist and ankles or eyebrows or ears or noses. Any detail that's not absolutely necessary is removed. The results are relatively plain, often goofy looking characters with just enough definition to be recognizable as human beings. And some people see this as lazy. Where's the detail? Where's the volume? Why do they look weird from most angles? Where is the love of capturing the human form?

[00:14:00]Now, just to remove some of the implied moral weight, let's say that lazy here means cheap. And since that isn't any better, let's say that cheap means economical. By that definition, yes, you can say this is lazy. Low detail means character is easier to draw, which means artists are trained faster, boards can be drawn faster, animation frames can be drawn faster, rigs are simpler to create and use, the number of possible mistakes are minimized, and look at how much time and money we're saving. Now, this may just come down to personal taste. It seems to be in line with the sentiment that realistic animation is of inherently better quality than unrealistic animation. And to that I say, why are you people so boring? This is boring. If you just want to see real people, we can just film real people. Is this why you think anime is better?

[00:14:46]Because it's more detailed and realistic relatively. Has no one else noticed that anime characters tend to stand perfectly still for as long [music] as possible in order to save cost while they're talking? because no one has time to drive to blocking those hair spikes 24 times a second. Meanwhile, American characters are usually moving every couple seconds at least, unless they're in Family Guy. I'm just saying, everyone makes trade-offs somewhere. Now, to be perfectly honest, there is a level on which I can relate to this one because I have never watched Clarence. So, I'm looking at these images as an outsider, and I do not like what I see. Even by be standards, this is really, really basic.

[00:15:22]These boys don't even have ears. It looks like a 5-year-old drew these. And even the 5-year-old is annoyed that she didn't have time to do better. These are the kinds of designs I'd expect from someone who learned an animation software, but never actually learned how to draw. Not making a comment on their talent, just describing the initial impression I get from looking at the characters. Oh, come to think of it, I used to have the exact same thought about Rick and Morty. Actually, no. No, I haven't changed on that. This still looks amateur-ish. I would prefer it had more detail, more like uh the Owl House.

[00:15:51]So, I guess I can understand how someone else could look at the owl house and wish it looked more like, say, gargoils.

[00:15:57]Perhaps I just have a lower threshold for how much you can reduce a detail before the drawings begin to look cheap to me. Of course, I can get past this pretty easily if the show is interesting enough. I love Adventure Time. Now, I am not going to watch Clarence until after I publish this, so I cannot speak to the viewing experience at this time. Though, I do find myself still a little confused because lowdetail characters aren't anything new. Yeah, Clarence is missing his ears, but Mandy is missing her nose.

[00:16:23]Blossom is missing her nose and her hands and her feet. Johnny doesn't have a mouth when he's not talking. And I'm pretty sure he has no eyes either. My glasses. I can't be seen without my glasses.

[00:16:35]>> This is blue. At least on Cartoon Network, I don't think the average character today is really any less detailed than they used to be. [music] Why the high standards now? Is it because technology has advanced and now people think the baseline for complexity and animation should have advanced as well? Do simple designs feel less appropriate now because the kinds of stories they're telling are different?

[00:16:53]You know what? Put a pin in that. Oh, and just in case it needs to be said, I can attest that these artists are fully capable of designing and animating complex characters when they want to.

[00:17:01]They just choose to reserve that for special occasions. Answer type seven. It feels safe and corporate. Several people compared this to something they called corporate Memphis, a new term to me.

[00:17:14]Corporate Memphis is the kind of illustration you see in a lot of websites and advertisements. It's very flat, low details, simple shapes that often flow seamlessly into each other. I don't really see the resemblance. I can see how the 3D equivalent kind of resembles these movies, though, I'm a little confused. I knew we were clowning on the GrubHub commercials, but I thought that was because the characters moved in ways that don't make sense. Not because the designs themselves are bad.

[00:17:40]I'd actually like to see more commercials that resemble this. Now, something like Kroger ads, those are pretty soulless looking. I can't imagine those characters carrying any emotional weight or telling any serious stories.

[00:17:50]Good thing these designs are far more nuanced. So, is it that the animation is bad, or is it just that you associate it with commercialism, unless you've developed a distaste for it through association? Unclear, but this appears to be one aspect of the style seeming to save. It was also said that the over reliance on round shapes, which are famously known to make characters look friendly, comes across as trying too hard to be light. It gives the impression of design by committee for maximum kid appeal. I'm not sure what to say without knowing how they're designed. I mean, I'm sure there is some truth to them tending to use round characters to maximize appeal. Now that you mention it, it has been a while since we had an ugly cartoon outside of adult sitcoms. So, there probably is some degree to which the suits are playing it safe lately. And just because this seems like the best place to put this, I did see someone point out that Blossom's bow was rounded out in the Powerpuff Girls reboot. Just another indication that perhaps the industry has come to fear corners.

[00:18:48]Stay strong, Phineas. Answer type eight.

[00:18:51]How dare you bring such slanderous accusations against my man Dipper? A surprising number of people were insensed that I lumped in Gravity Falls with the others and insisted Gravity Falls is the good one or they straight up claimed that it doesn't belong in this category at all. It didn't usually explain why. Some claim that Gravity Falls has other characters who look very different from Dipper and therefore the design philosophy is better, but then it sounds like we're dealing with someone who just hasn't watched any of these other shows besides Gravity Falls.

[00:19:19]Because as I said before, you can say the same about any of these. Pick on Steven all you want, but don't tell me they have no sense of shape language.

[00:19:27]It's hard to take this as anything other than people saying [music] the one I like gets a pass because I like it.

[00:19:33]Smaller numbers of people went to bat for each of the other shows and films for what seems like the same reason.

[00:19:37]Look, there needs to be some level of objectivity in categorizing things. Just because you like a show doesn't mean it can't have things in common with bad shows. I agree that Gravity Falls is excellent. It is one of the best of [music] the bean mouth shows, but it is a bean mouth show. In fact, I think it's one of the most quintessential examples of the style. It's probably one of the shows most responsible for popularizing the style. I would like to remind the audience again that I am not labeling the art style as a point of criticism.

[00:20:08]This is a neutral issue for me. Art style has very little to do with what I think of any of these shows. But let's not fall into the fallacy of saying these things can't have anything in common because I like one of them. But feel free to clarify exactly why Gravity Falls isn't in the same category of visual style as Steven Universe, Craig of the Creek, and Star Versus, if you believe that. Answer type nine, it's woke and gay. And now for the most important question. Does anti-bean sentiment fall along political lines?

[00:20:36]The results? Inconclusive. I mean, the anti-woke crowd definitely doesn't care for it, but neither do plenty of left-leaning people. I did get a few replies saying they associate this look with lefty ideas and no one saying it the reverse. I want to see it just a coincidence that these things both became more common at the same time, but I'm not sure. Both this style and queer people are associated with Tumblr, a cultural [music] area I came a little too late to experience. There may be something to be said for how communities focus on representation and pushing against gender norms encourage a design philosophy that can lead to things like this, but I don't think pursuing this further will answer my question. So, answer type 10. It doesn't work in 3D. A lot of people said they don't really mind it in 2D cartoons, but they dislike the Pixar movies that look like this.

[00:21:25]I'm just going to put all my comments about the 3D version here, cuz that seems to warrant a separate conversation. Up until the new 20s, [music] Pixar has seemingly been on a quest to make their films look more and more realistic. Not in the character designs. Those were always stylized. But when it comes to everything else, environment, texture, lighting, physics, the push always seemed to be realism.

[00:21:48]Then in 2021, they released Luca, which not only introduced beings to the studio, but generally had human characters moving in a more cartoony way, mostly in their facial acting.

[00:22:00]Nobody noticed this for some reason, or at least I don't remember many people talking about it at the time. Okay, some will actually say it was Spot who first brought the bean to Pixar, but you don't know who that is. The following year, Pixar released Turning Red. For reasons that evade me, people paid a lot more attention to this one. Now, when I first saw the art for this, my immediate thought was, "Oh, those big round smiles make them look like Ardman characters, like like Wallace and Grommit." The internet saw the same image and thought, "Ew, it looks like if Steven Universe was in 3D." And so it began. Now, having seen Turning Red, I think the resemblance of Steven Universe is pretty appropriate for his general vibe, like it or not. Unfortunately, it was trendy to hate Steven Universe. So, the likeness did Pixar no favors. Since then, Pixar has not made any more movies that look like this. But a bizarre number of people are convinced that they do this constantly. They've only made three movies starring a human with a round mouth. Not even three in a row.

[00:23:00]Three over the course of four years with three other movies in between. But somehow people have this perception that Pixar used to have a new art style every movie. But now they keep doing the same thing over and over again when exactly the opposite is true. Pixar in recent years has been branching out more than ever. Cuz before Luca, they pretty much stuck with the same art style for every film. I think people mistake the diversity of POV species for a diversity in art style. But no, the art style doesn't necessarily change just because you switched from monsters to fish to cars. Look at the way they model humans in each film. They clearly have a consistent look, at least as far as from Finding Nemo to [music] Onward. Okay.

[00:23:44]Okay. Look, look at this. These are young human girls from almost [music] every movie that features one except Fish Boy and Panda Girl. And the reason I'm using young girls is because all girls look the same in animation, which makes them an excellent metric for seeing what the baseline normal human looks like within a film. Now, if you didn't know who these were, or if you don't know who these are, can you tell they aren't all from the same movie?

[00:24:06]Okay, so Merida here has smaller features than everyone else. Guess Tree doesn't fit. Uh Ellie has nostrils, so I guess she doesn't fit. Uh, Connie has all her facial features kind of squeezed into the middle portion of her face and has a longer nose than everyone else that makes her look like she stands out.

[00:24:21]And everybody else here is actually just a background character from one of the Toy Story movies. None of them would look out of place in the same room together. Also, while taking these pictures, I noticed that Finding Dory uses characters from Inside Out as crowd filler, and I think that testifies pretty powerfully to how similar they are. Here's a few more girls I just left out randomly. Would you believe me if I told you that they are minor characters from the Toy Story movies? No, obviously not. You want Pixar to branch out? They have been, and the people hate it. And these aren't even the same as each other. Luca has the mouths move around in the head to face the camera, and a lot of the action of movement is framed with more of a 2D sensibility.

[00:24:58]Characters often move in a snappier, more cartoony way than is typical of Pixar. Turning Red has a bit of like Giblly inspiration in its appearance.

[00:25:06]Facial expressions are exaggerated much more than Luca with the eyes being utilized, not just the mouths. There is less diversity of body types than there is in Luca with almost every character having a similar kind of large head and slightly stocky build. And then Win or Lose, their Disney Plus series is just in a whole new ball game from everything that came before, punely intended. Win or lose is the only Pixar production to reject realism entirely and just go crazy with the exaggeration. Everyone has puff balls for hair. A lot of plants have puff balls instead of leaves. Melts and noses just move around freely on the head. Nobody has an orifice outside of their mouths. Everyone has shitty proportions. Eyes are circles. Some characters have nose. Wrinkles in the face look like they're drawn on. Food looks like it's made of rubber. The action is heightened so much you straight up can't tell where the literal events end and the characters perspectives begin. But it's bad, I guess, because it looks kind of like those GrubHub commercials, which, yeah, in this case, I can see the resemblance.

[00:26:04]The simplified rubbery animation combined with the way the environments often transform around the characters to emphasize the mood does make me think of a commercial. But guys, this is the most creative out of the box animation Pixar has ever produced. That's just true. Why are we pretending this is less creative, less innovative than what they've done before? It's fine if you don't prefer this, but this is not lazy or cliche.

[00:26:27]I guess what I don't understand is there's people who want Pixar to do a hybrid 2D 3D animation like everyone else is doing now, but hardly anyone seems to appreciate the fact that Pixar has been exploring more stylized animation in their own way. Why does this have more artistic merit than this?

[00:26:46]And I totally understand the love for the hybrid style. I like it, too. But I don't understand the demand that everyone hop on the same trend, even if it is a trend I happen to like. If anything, the beam valves are making them more unique in this case. But back to the main issue. A significant portion of the audience doesn't like these simplified CGI characters. And it's not just a preference for realistic CGI. The popularity of Spiderverse and its imitators shows that people certainly don't mind stylization.

[00:27:17]There's something about this specific kind of stylization that rubs people the wrong way. A couple of people said it's the lack of lips in the characters.

[00:27:27]I'm not sure what they mean. I am curious if these people also dislike the Hotel Transennylvania and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs movies because they both, especially Cloudy, have very exaggerated, lowdetail [music] character designs and they're often animated in a simplified exaggerated manner. Sometimes point to the camera more like a 2D show than a 3D show.

[00:27:46]Luca's kind of like that, but significantly more restrained. But John, the characters know Sony movies have corners on their mouths. It's not just about the mouths. Oh, you know what? I just remembered Ruby Gilman Teenage Kraken exist. Now, there is a movie that looks like a Kroger commercial, and it's not even by Pixar. [music] I probably like this movie more than most people, which I mean, I actually watched it once. But I must admit, I don't care for how most of these characters look. Ruby looks fine, but the human characters do feel off. I'm not sure exactly what it is. Something about the way they're proportions just looks unconvincing.

[00:28:20]Like I can't believe a living, functioning person lives like that. My working theory right now is that the Pixar characters, by comparison, have relatively realistic body proportions outside of their large heads. So maybe they feel more grounded because of that.

[00:28:34]But the RubyG characters are exaggerated in almost the opposite way with these giant legs and feet and tiny torsos. And for some reason, it just feels imbalanced and unappealing. in a convincing way. Maybe their limbs wind up looking rubbery and that bothers me, but the rubbery faces that bother some people don't bother me at all. But John, those aren't even be mouth characters.

[00:28:55]They all have corners on their mouths.

[00:28:57]It's not just about the mouths. Answer type 11. No, it really is about the mouths. Okay, if it really is about the mouths, I've got some bad news for you.

[00:29:04]I've got a lot of very bad news for you.

[00:29:09]Actually, let's pause on the substance for a moment. When I look at this cast of characters, I see oversized heads, low detail, big circular eyes with black dots for pupils, designs that only work from certain angles, and mouths that would be being mouths if they didn't break the silhouette. Oh my gosh, they did it first. The only thing missing is the protruding cheeks, but they make up for it with a protruding upper lip. All this time, we've been blaming Flapjack and Steven for starting it when it was the Simpsons who started it decades ago.

[00:29:37]Why is no one talking about how lazy and safe these designs are? I'm having it up. But seriously, The Simpsons 100% fits within the definition of the Vmouth style. I think it fits even better than some of the shows I mentioned before.

[00:29:49]Those over bites are doing a lot of work to convince you that this isn't just yellow gravity falls or big city greens with noses. Okay, to be fair, I suppose the reason no one complains about this is because Grant Granning is the only person who draws faces like this. But if this is lazy, this is lazy, too. I actually think the granning face is more limiting on your ability to draw diverse faces compared to any of the other bean mouth shows. I mean, all three evil shows have worked around this just fine, but the characters do look more alike than, say, Steven Universe characters.

[00:30:20]In other news, I know for a fact that at least some of these artists took inspiration from studio Ghibli, who also has a pension for round mouths, and people appear to generally consider Giblly animation to be some of the best in the world. So, what gives, guys? I don't think it's lower detail. The level of detail is actually the same most of the time. The only thing I can see that would make this feel different is that maybe with Giblly characters, the mouth is usually smaller, even when it's making those same shapes, and it only gets really big when a character is yelling, or on a character who's of more manic energy and personality, like Ponyo. But in these American cartoons, every character has a big mouth that makes shapes like that all the time. I don't even know if this is true, but at a glance, it feels true and might impact audience impressions. I just have trouble believing the bean mouth itself is the issue when it so clearly isn't unique to these shows. There was at least one guy who acknowledged Arman animation also tends to shape their mouths like beans and he doesn't like it when they do it either. At least he's consistent.

[00:31:18]No one was willing to come out and say they don't like it in Giblly films.

[00:31:23]Answer type 12. It's inappropriately goofy looking. This issue seems to be the result of combining some of the other complaints. To the uninitiated, these characters may look manic, especially if you're more accustomed to something like Disney Afternoon or superhero cartoons or most anime. The big round smile can give off a sort of Cheshire cat vibe. Big round eyes with pupils not touching any edges suggests some hyper energy. And even if you know that's not what the personality is, the characters are still goofy looking. At least to a lot of people, they are. That would probably be fine if these were all characters from episodic comedy shows.

[00:31:58]But see, they're not. Earlier, I compared the Beamoth shows to older cartoons like the Powerpuff Girls, The Grim Adventures of Billy Mandy, Johnny Bravo, Dow's Lab, etc. Noting that they also star a lot of low detail characters drawn with simple shapes. What I didn't fully acknowledge was that one, a lot of these characters personalities are easier to read just from looking at them. They don't look manic, and for the ones who do, it's actually appropriate.

[00:32:23]Two, they were also telling different kinds of stories. Now, I haven't watched most of these shows in years, and I couldn't watch them regularly as a kid cuz my family didn't have cable, but I think it's accurate to say that these were all low stakes comedy [music] cartoons. Most of those characters weren't meant to be taken seriously.

[00:32:41]They had no complex narrative to weave, no grand [music] message to send, no lengthy saga to tell. The characters were largely static, and the continuity was either non-existent or negligible.

[00:32:53]Some shows might have episodic moral lessons, but some didn't even have that.

[00:32:57]They're just 10-minute skits meant only to amuse you. Not meant to make you care or make you think or make you ask what happens next. A lot of these shows had main characters who straight up weren't good people because they weren't meant to be taken seriously. You weren't really meant to empathize with them. You weren't meant to be that invested. They were just there to entertain. Anyone who did want to tell more serious stories [music] tended to use a different art style for their show. Like I've never seen a PBS Kids show that looks like Dexter's Lab. Well, maybe Fetch. Even shows on Disney and Nickelodeon at the same time had more detailed art because those networks generally [music] aired more educational shows with more serious stories to tell. Then along came Adventure Time. Adventure [music] Time's characters are one step above Stick figures, which is appropriate because Adventure Time is a weird, silly [music] show about weird, silly characters who live in a weird silly world. And for the first two seasons, that was all it seemed to be, just weird, silly stories about these weird, silly creatures. Then season two started winding down, and things began to shift. Villains were introduced who were not funny. Events would have lasting consequences.

[00:34:07]Characters would be killed and would stay dead. The status quo would change.

[00:34:13]Characters would evolve. character backstories [music] would be revealed, providing surprisingly deep explanations for how they became the weirdos they are today. These revelations would recontextualize some of them such that they now seem [music] more tragic than silly. The show was taken as silly characters in their silly world seriously. And the characters were still weird and silly. [music] They never became more normal. They were just shown in a different light sometimes. A light that made them layered and relatable with many thoughtprovoking and emotional stories to tell. This is no turn off your brain and laugh show. This was a show with things to say, a show that wanted you to care. And yet, the characters still look like stick figures the whole time. I don't know how or why Adventure Time became such a mature, complex series. I don't think they planned it that way when it started, but it is now known as an epic saga, and it spawned many imitators. Many young showrunners were evidently inspired by Adventure Time's blurring of the lines between comedy and action and unbridled weirdness. We now have several cartoons with simple, non-threatening art styles, starring silly characters who go on epic adventures in worlds that test their endurance, their character, and their relationships and teach them many valuable lessons. I don't think any of these shows look as bad as [music] Adventure Time. None of these characters are as ridiculous as Adventure Time, and none of these shows are as pretentious as Adventure Time, but they follow the same pattern of weird comedy series with great adventures, deep lore, and complex themes. Your mileage may vary on how successful each show has been, but the intentions are clear. Back in the before times, [music] there was generally a separation between comedy and action cartoons. Most of the older shows I've been comparing to Bean Mouth to were old comedy cartoons. Action cartoons, like most superhero cartoons, would have a more realistic, [music] more detailed art style to match their more grounded, more serious tone. They were more likely to have ongoing complex continuity and storylines throughout a season of the whole series. Baby John wasn't drawn to these shows as much as the comedies, so I can't relate to those who have nostalgia for them, though I appreciate them more now. And then you get something like uh Samurai Jack, Kim Possible, or The Good Teen Titans, which were both action and comedy. They had continuity but kept it fairly simple and had a clear edge to their visuals. They lie somewhere between comedy and action, and their art style reflects this. Now, we have a bunch of cartoons that try to combine Spongebob like characters with Avatar-like [music] storytelling. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but it describes a phenomenon a lot of viewers don't care for, and the bean mouth is correlated with it. If you're used to action shows looking and feeling like most superhero cartoons or shownen, then seeing something like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Star Versus, or Owl House can feel tonally inappropriate or or mismatched. Why are the googlyeyed bobbleheads suffering as existential crises while going through serious life and death situations? Why is my screw ball comedy series trying to have a moment all of a sudden? How can I take this seriously when everyone looks like a muppet? I compared the owl house to gargoyles earlier and one of the commenters [music] did indeed suggest that the action would have hit harder for them if it looked more like a traditional action series.

[00:37:27]It doesn't bother me. For whatever reason, I have a pretty easy time transitioning from silliness to seriousness and back again. If you tell me this sock with googly eyes is a complex individual with hopes and dreams who has been plagued with loneliness ever since he lost his partner at the laundromat. So now he must go on an epic quest to find the washer that ate his best friend and slay them in vengeance.

[00:37:46]I'm fully on board. But hey, if you want serious grounded action cartoons, it's not like we don't have that anymore. If Empib is too goofy looking for you, you can enjoy Yanu. And if you're like me and find a Yanu mid, then um what's what's DC doing these days? Oh, right.

[00:38:02]Uh whatever happened to Ben 10? My gosh, has everyone gone soft? Well, what's Spider-Man doing these days?

[00:38:08]And what happened to all the grounded action cartoons? I mean, I can think of a few, but they're all adult series.

[00:38:15]Oh, they only make these shows for adults now. All the grounded action shows are adult shows. Come to think of it, even the ones that have had revivals recently all seem to be made for adults.

[00:38:27]Yandu is actually all the kids have.

[00:38:31]Huh? An entire genre of children's programming just doesn't exist anymore.

[00:38:36]Is this the real issue? Has all of children's animation been absorbed into the genre of comedy? Does the backlash against the beam mouth stem from the thirst that older animation fans have for the action cartoons of old? Were Teen Titans Go when Titans representative of the dichotomy that superheroes would find themselves trapped in forever? We can either cuss out Batman or do the potty dance, but nothing in between. Do kids not like grounded action? Were all the other kids like me growing up? Or have media companies just dumbed down and sanded off the edges of everything because they're convinced they'll make slightly more money this way? Or because they only want to make shows for preschoolers now?

[00:39:10]This might actually change my perspective on the whole issue.

[00:39:16]So, adult animation has finally decidedly expanded beyond sitcoms, and in the process, it has almost entirely absorbed the action genre. This has left children's animation with only edutainment and comedy series. Creators who want to tell complex, mature stories in this environment almost have to sneak it in inside the Trojan comedy series.

[00:39:38]So, as conventional action cartoons have been phased out, they've been replaced with these weird hybrid shows that straddle the line between comedy and action adventure. And even that trend may have come to an end already because studios seem to dislike storydriven cartoons. Ever since Infinity Tree and Owl House got cut short, there haven't really been any new child-friendly lore shows, at least none that have really taken off. And perhaps the Bean Mouth represents this shift. It's used for every other show, a symbol for the sameness of the modern landscape. Now it's all weird but cutesy comedies. It's been decreed that only adults can process grounded stories. Young audiences are left with only safe educational content with all the edges sanded off both visually and thematically because kids are made of porcelain. Cartoon fans now have to choose between this and this with nothing in between. The bean marks the end of the shows that once existed in between where childlike innocence and thrill met.

[00:40:36]You know what? I can see why that would bother someone. Maybe it's more about what the beam mouth has replaced than what it is.

[00:40:45]I was right. It's not just the mouths.

[00:40:50]I am aware that I've been treating the bean haters as a monolith. People obviously have different reasons for why they dislike this look, or at least different rationalizations for why they or others dislike it. I assigned all these reasons to one hypothetical straw man and then call that man a hypocrite for not hating all the other cartoons that the reasons apply to. For all I know, they may be perfectly consistent as individuals. Maybe the people who don't like rounded mouths also don't like it when Arvin and Gibway do it.

[00:41:15]Maybe the people who don't like low tel designs also on the Simpson sense and on most Cartoon Network cartoons. Maybe the people who tire of seeing similar looking [music] shows also tire of the days when everything on Cartoon Network looked like Dexter's Lab or when every Disney movie looked like The Little Mermaid or when anime existed. I don't want to give a wrong impression. I have nothing against [music] anime. Or maybe we all just need to grow up and watch adult shows, but it's more likely a combination of issues for each [music] person. I will not demand you watch things that don't look attractive to you, unless that list includes any of this. I still can't relate [music] to art style being as much of a turnoff as it seems to be for others, but you have every right to your preferences, and I can't blame someone for resenting the thing [music] that seem to replace the shows they used to love.

[00:42:00]Oh, I guess Ladybug is another modern children's action cartoon. Oh, and isn't there still a Transformers show and a dragon's show? Maybe. Got to be honest, I completely disregarded those shows because they're CG. TV shows shouldn't be CG. Not unless you're doing something special with it, like arcade or Win or Lose. But if it's just going to be basics, generic CG where everyone looks like a toy, that's visually uninspired.

[00:42:24]Most of it is just franchise slop created to sell toys anyway. So yeah, those don't count. Anyway, I wish I could relate to those of you who are turned off by an animation style, but I can't.

[00:42:41]H I hope that new Avatar show wasn't made for adults.