Log in

Home | Dashboard


Archive for November, 2008

Stickman Jack.

November 27th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

I’ve got a funny job. For the last two weeks I’ve been doing nothing but drawing cartoon monsters. I’ve spent entire days with my feet up on my desk, pad and paper in my lap, doodling snail ladies and lizard rappers. For the longest time I had no idea where this was taking me. Maybe I was using the doodling as an excuse to avoid doing more productive work. But all these monsters will be going into the next Spokesmonster video, so I figure I haven’t been totally wasting my time.

I just did a tally of my completed monsters. I’m up to eighteen now. (Many of these are just drawings that will be flashed onscreen for a moment or two, but some of them have been broken down for limb movements and facial expressions.) Here’s the thing: I’d like there to be roughly as many girl monsters as there are boy monsters. But I’m already out of whack. I’ve got twelve boy monsters, only six girl monsters.

Why is it so much easier to come up with male characters than female characters? I’m not the only animator with this deficiency. Look at the old Disney or Warner Brothers cartoons. Disney had Minnie Mouse and Daisy Duck, but they were stuck in minor supporting roles. Warner Brothers had Bugs Bunny in a dress – that’s about it. The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park all have girls in them, but I’d reckon there are ten male characters for every female one.

Why aren’t animators more interested in drawing female characters? Perhaps they’re limited by a sense of decorum. You needn’t have seen too many episodes of the Simpsons to summon up examples of Homer being dropped from great heights, having heavy weights dropped on him, or losing his pants. Those things just don’t happen to Marge or Lisa. If the definition of comedy is inflicting pain or physical humiliation on your characters, and if our culture is uncomfortable with seeing women brutalised in those ways, that’s a powerful disincentive to drawing female cartoons. Why use Daisy Duck if we can’t clunk her over the head for laffs? We’ll just use Donald instead.

But I wonder if the gender disparity doesn’t derive from something more fundamental. Look at the design of the male and female icons on bathroom doors. The male icon is a simple stick figure. The female icon is a stick figure with a dress. Boiled down to their most basic forms, the woman requires more lines to draw than the man.

I’ve noticed in my own drawing that it takes longer to design a female character than it does a male character. With a girl monster I have to worry about hips and boobs and hair and making sure the facial features look feminine – I don’t mean attractive, I just mean that you want your girl monster to actually look like a girl. The cheap way to do this is to give her lipstick and long eyelashes. Or you can be a bit more subtle in the shaping of the jaw and the placement of the eyes, so that makeup is unnecessary. Either way, it takes a little extra work. And I’m a fundamentally lazy guy.

With a boy monster, you just hack out your basic human figure and you’re done – it’s a boy.

For some reason, by default, cartoons come out male.

Why is this? Obviously, there’s a long and complicated history behind the iconography of maleness and femaleness, and much of that history occurred back when women weren’t in a position to complain about what the men were painting on bathroom doors. But those bathroom icons reflect something other than centuries of sexism. Maybe stick figures are assumed to be male for a reason: the basic male shape really is composed of simple straight lines, while the basic female shape is made up of more complicated curves. Maybe it’s not just sexism that skews my monsters male by a ratio of two to one, but physiology.

If my speculation is correct, the pro-male bias appears at the very earliest stage of the creative process – the stage where the cartoonist, chair leaned back, feet on desk, idly doodles on a scratchpad. If every doodle starts as a male, then of course the cartoonist will wind up with a gallery of male characters.

Maybe I’m making an assumption, though. When women doodle, do their doodles come out female?

Babywearing?

November 17th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

Babywearing?

A co-worker emailed me a link to this article about the Motrin “babywearing” controversy. (And here’s the ad that touched it all off.) I guess Motrin has erred in the same way we did with our first cartoon a few months back – by underestimating the touchiness of the ad-watching public.

I have no advice for Motrin or for parents who wish to wear their babies. But I, and the Spokesmonster, feel their pain.

Monster bride?

November 12th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

I’ve been animating the Spokesmonster non-stop for the last two months. After the first cartoon was released, just when I would have liked to take a break, it immediately became urgent (as I described in previous posts) to begin work on the follow-up.

But now that the second cartoon is complete, I can take a bit of a breather and think about what comes next. Our next project here at MyFrontSteps is an application aimed less at the business crowd and more at average folks – homeowners and renters. This new application will allow people to showcase their homes to their friends, their neighbours, and the whole wide world.

Is the Spokesmonster the right character to introduce this new application? Hard to say. One possibility we’ve discussed is that we might retain the Spokesmonster but introduce another character (or characters) to help shoulder promotional duties. And since I already had in mind a friend’s suggestion that the Spokesmonster needed a girlfriend…

Spokesmonstress concept sketches

Spokesmonstress concept drawings

Maybe someday the Spokesmonster universe will be as crowded as Ronald McDonaldland.

The story so far, continued.

November 6th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

Picking up where I left off. Yesterday I explained how the first Spokesmonster cartoon seemed to anger and confuse viewers. A more cautious advertiser – or a more sensible one – might’ve concluded that it was pointless trying to salvage the concept, scrapped the character and started fresh with a new ad campaign involving puppies or wisecracking children. But we are neither cautious nor sensible here at MyFrontSteps.

The controversy had unexpectedly presented us with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how the StepRep service will enable users to keep track of what’s being said about them online – and even do a little damage control. Here’s the Spokesmonster, inspecting the dents in his shiny reputation:

(Of course, the actual user interface is a little less cartoony than the version that appears in this video.)

So now that’s all cleared up. Where do we go from here? A female friend suggested one possible direction. “I think,” she declared after watching the new cartoon, “that the Spokesmonster needs a girlfriend.”

Hmm…

The story so far.

November 5th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

In mid-October, the Spokesmonster made his debut on the projection screen in the MyFrontSteps blounge (that’s the boardroom/lounge, where we hold meetings, drink beer, and play video games). The monster ate a squirrel, the audience chuckled, applause was dutifully bestowed, and everyone shuffled back to work.

A couple days later, the cartoon was uploaded to YouTube, and someone posted a link on the StepRep blog.

A couple more days passed, and then we got word that Benn at the Agent Genius blog had posted an article about MyFrontSteps and StepRep. At the end of his post he linked to the Spokesmonster cartoon and asked his readers, “What do you think?”

Well, they didn’t like it. They did not like it at all. (Scroll down to the comments section.)

Some sample comments:

“I think it’s insane – what were they thinking?”

“Aside from trying to insult as many people as possible with the video, what exactly is the point here?”

“Not funny, not cute, not quirky, not effective at all. By the way, this 100% hillbilly found it a poor attempt to engage, insulting, and quite boring.”

“hi guys. this is really really bad. really bad. nothing good about it at all so nothing salvagable. scrap scrap scrap.”

“It is another case of someone putting up a video that is a result of a brainstorming gone too far.”

“Wow. Way to insult the user! Marketing, basic professionalism EPIC FAIL!”

This was pretty perplexing to us here at MyFrontSteps. It certainly hadn’t been our intention to insult anybody. We thought the cartoon was goofy and harmless.

Obviously, what we find funny in the blounge is not the same thing they find funny in the comments section at Agent Genius.

But you can’t make an ad that everyone hates and then defend yourself by saying, “They just don’t get it.” Marketing is about appealing to your consumer. If the consumer hates your ad, whether he “gets it” or not is beside the point. The ad has failed.

But here’s the funny part. StepRep is a product to help people monitor, manage, and build their online reputation. And now it was our Spokesmonster who required reputation management!

It seemed that this was a perfect opportunity to put our reputation management software into service. So we rushed a sequel into production…

Building a better monster blog.

November 4th, 2008 by Michael A. Charles

This is the first post on what for now we’re calling “Monster’s Blog”. Which is a pretty weak title. Fortunately WordPress makes it pretty easy to go back into the settings and change the name of your blog if you come up with a better idea.

In the next couple days I’ll be posting the history of the StepRep Spokesmonster. Meanwhile you can link to both of the videos in the section called  – tentatively! – “Cartoons”.