Character Development in Animation

S

Sophiaaa

New member
So, what are all of your thoughts on character development in animation? I've actually noticed some surprisingly mixed feelings on the subject.

Personally, I love it. I love it when I feel like I go on a journey with the characters, and watch them change and grow as time goes by. Sometimes you learn new things about them, and sometimes they make choices that are bad and they have to live with the consequences of said actions. And sometimes they grow and become better people.

I think that's one of the reasons why I am not too fond of cartoons from the 1980's. Yeah, some of them can be fun in their hokiness and camp, but, for the most part, there is no real characterization there. At least none that counts. The first time you meet that character, they remain exactly the same and you could skip to the last time you see that character and not feel like you've missed anything. Everything in between is almost a non sequitur. And some people prefer it this way.

I once read a post where someone said that great characters don't need an arc or development. And, I thought about it, and I don't entirely disagree with it. Bugs Bunny is a great character, and he certainly has no need of it. At the same time, most of my favorite characters do have that arc. Most of my favorites are excellently developed.

So, when do you have character development, and when do you not? I suppose the default answer could be between comedy shows and action-drama cartoons. But that's not so clear cut either.

Personally, I think that action-drama cartoons need character development and arcs, or else what is the point? I mean, take "G.I. Joe" for example. Who is Duke? What motivates him? I don't think "defeating Cobra's latest wacky scheme to rule the world is enough to cut it."

I know many people will disagree with me here, but I prefer "Animated" Optimus Prime to "Generation One" Optimus Prime. I think that's because I prefer seeing Optimus Prime become the great leader, as opposed to seeing him introduced like Athena.

Comedy, on the other hand, is different. It's not really required there. Like I said, Bugs Bunny doesn't need it. On the other hand, comedy shows like "The Venture Bros" do it expertly and it stands toe-to-toe with any of the action-dramas on that level.

And, on a personal note, it gets on my nerves when episodes of shows that focus on character development get dismissed as "filler." The characters, in my opinion, matter just as much as the on-going plot... probably more so. But that's just my opinion.

Now, I'm not saying any one of these is superior to the other. But my preference generally lies with character arcs and development. How about you?
 
I also prefer shows with more ongoing storyarcs and character development. My personal holy trinity of western animation being Gargoyles, Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Spectacular Spider-Man. It really enriches a show's story when creators aren't afraid to let the characters and situations evolve naturally over time.

However, I'd be lying if I said that the more episodic story arc light style can't be done well, even in an action drama. Just look at B:TAS for example, Bats in Batgirl Returns is pretty much the same guy he was in On Leather Wings. I think that works because the individual episodes, though self contained are just so well done in their own right.
 
I agree on all points. Character development is one of the things I look for in all my shows, animation and live action, more so than good writing and acting (although those are also pretty important). If a series doesn't have good characters and development then I'm going to struggle to keep my interest, even worse if they throw out character development for no reason whatsoever, other than bad writing.



I'm with you on this. G1 Optimus wasn't an interesting leader or character and imo Rodimus was more interesting as he struggled with it, he made mistakes and berated himself for it. He was a reluctant leader who stepped up to the plate because he had to, even if he was unsure of himself.

(And there go all my friends in the G1 fandom) ;)



Oh God yes. I've seen this quite a lot in the Anime fandom, but elsewhere as well, and it bugs me to no end. People misuse the term as either a) an episode they didn't like/found boring, or b) something not from the Manga. Filler is an episode with no value whatsoever and that can be skipped with no loss of anything, that includes character development as well as story. The weirdest use I've seen is someone saying an episode of Brave and the Bold was filler. That's right an episodic show with extremely little continuity had a filler episode. :confused:
 
Character development is more important to action-drama cartoons practically by default since they tend to be plot-driven in a way that an episodic comedy generally just isn't. So sure, a funny character like Bugs and Mickey hardly needs it.

Character development can lead to some immensely satisfying payoff when a character pretty clearly does or says something that he or she wouldn't have done at an earlier time. This is a good time to point to Goliath in Gargoyles, who I feel doesn't quite get his due:

Early on he could be very stubborn as he was when he refused to accept that his clan couldn't safely remain at Castle Wyvern in the 20th century, and that was made worse with what could be a fiery temper. But later he meets Renard and learns some humility, and becomes more flexible thanks to his time with Angela during the whole World Tour arc. It seems to me he was more mellow during that time also, being much more willing to use reason first and use force only when necessary. Finally we have that landmark moment where he actually accepts Xanatos' thanks in The Gathering, whereas there was a time when Goliath was justifiably completely hostile. Heck, the fact that he led the Manhatthan clan to help Xanatos against Oberon at all was quite an admirable decision, coming from him.

So, I think Goliath's development is actually equal to anyone else's in that show at least.

As a general principle, a story is better off with a healthy dose of character development than without it. It goes a long way toward giving meaning to the narrative.
 
Probably the best example of character development that I can think of is Cheetor from the Beast Wars/Machines cartoon. During the show's first season, Cheetor was like an immature teenager. By the time the final season of Beast Machines was complete, Cheetor was a mature adult. Cheetor pretty much went through puberty during Beast Wars third season. As an adult, Cheetor showed that he was capable of making the necessary decisions that a leader would need to make. Whereas during Beast Wars's first couple of seasons, Cheetor was sometimes considered too immature to handle certain situations on his own.
 
I honestly can't think of a good reason not to have character development. For action shows it seems like an obvious staple, but even most of my favorite comedies do a good job including it.
 
G1 Transformers and GI Joe are somewhat incomplete without reading the comic books also. While the shows and books do not share continuity, the basic personalites and backstories are the same. Especially in the case of GI Joe, where both the show and the cartoon based characters on Larry Hama's action figure filecards.

From an animation standpoint, Duke does not have much character or motivation. The cartoon only says that he has a sense of justice and duty throughout his life. If you know his backstory from the comics, he was an artistic child who was deeply affected by his mother's death. His father was a hippie and dragged him to a bunch of protests, where he came to disagree with his father's agenda and ultimately joined the Army after his graduation in 1968. He went to Vietnam, served as a Green Beret and turned down an officer's commission because he wanted to stay in the feild with his men.

Since none of this is directely contradicted in the cartoon, I think it applies as true for both versions.

I think what works best for action heroes is an "origin arc", followed by their "Golden Age" and concluded in their "midlife crisis/denoument."

The best example in Animation is Bruce Wayne in the DCAU. The best live-action example is probably Captain James T. Kirk. There is an origin story of how they became a hero, followed by a long period where they didn't need much development (outside of their relationships with friends/partners/enemies). Then as they got old, many of their long-standing ways and methods were called into question, and they learned some painful lessons before reaching their final, most mature form.

However, this type of character arc also requires a mega-epic franchise that can explore someone's entire life. In a conflict-based storyline like GI Joe, this kind of storytelling would be nearly impossible.
 
Shockwave says hi.



I disagree, I should not have to read another medium that isn't even the same continuity to know who these characters are. This sort of thing needs to be in the show. Otherwise, what's the point? Is the show telling a story or is it a commercial? In the case of "GI Joe" and "Transformers" we know the answer to that question.



And wouldn't that have made a great story in the cartoon? I think so. It should have been told there too. It would have been more interesting than, let's say, Cobra Commander building an amusement park fun house in the jungle.



But it needs to be seen in both versions. The comic book version of Duke sounds like a real character. The cartoon version is an action figure, and nothing more than that.



Why not have more development all the way through? Lots of shows do it.



I don't know, "Gargoyles" for example did this with a ton of characters and all inside of sixty-five episodes... and still was a conflict-based storyline. "Avatar: The Last Airbender" did it with only sixty-one.

How many episodes did "GI Joe" have? And you barely got to know any of those characters. The exception, maybe, is Cobra Commander... but his origin came in a much despised story and it made no sense and did not cohere with any of what came before. Yes, I understand that there was executive meddling, but good writers who care can work around that... look at what Bob Forward and Larry DiTillio did with "Beast Wars" or what Marty Isenberg did with "Animated."

I'm not saying all 1980's cartoons didn't care. "The Real Ghostbusters" still stands for me as one of the best from that era because they had a guy like J. Michael Straczynski making sure that the audience got to know the characters as well. I find that "The Real Ghostbusters" holds up far better than Hasbro's half hour toy commercials.
 
I like GI Joe. You're a moron if you disagree with me. :p

But in all seriousness, you have some very good points. I think development can occur all throughout a hero's series, but the writer needs to be pretty damned careful. Attempts at development can lead to outcry that he/she is "out of character."

When a series has to go on forever and ever, a problem occurs. True development only happens in a limited scope. Look at Spider-Man comics to see what happens when writers try to add "new" development to an established character. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's hard.

If TF:Animated continued for 65 episodes, I imagine Optimus Prime would settle into his leader role and would end up a lot like G1. Even Goliath in Gargoyles settled into a status quo by the end of the series. If anything, they were just very long origin arcs. Not that it's a bad thing .... dragging out the "origin" development is actually a good idea.

And yes .... Shockwave. I'm gonna go with the broadest strokes and say that all versions presented him as very cold and logical. But really early TFs had mistakes ... after the first year, the filecards and Marvel Universe profiles matched the cartoons.
 
Honestly, they really should have just used his comic origin. And for those of you who laugh at the used car salesman thing, I'd ask you to remember a certain Austrian who got his start selling postcards.



Spider-Man's main problem is that Marvel is actively trying to stunt his character development, so they keep pulling more and more insane schemes to reset him to what they see as a more marketable status quo. Let Peter grow, let him get married and yes, let him become a father and I promise you, we'll see some new life in the stories.



I don't think Goliath ever settled into any kind of status quo. The series ended with him admitting his feelings for Elisa and calling a truce with one of his most hated foes. Two points which where further developed in Greg Weisman's comic series, Goliath was always in a state of constant evolution
 
Can you give an example of that?

I don't even know what you mean. All of us are in a constant state of development, we grow and change due to experiences we have and that will only end when we die. Shouldn't the same be true for fictional characters?

The only finished development is going to be when a character dies. So by that every living character at the end of the series is going to have "unfinished development".
 
It's about memory of the show.
If a character undergoes a development and suddenly the show cancels, then what will we remember him/her/it as?

A show centerd around a snotty brat that, if the show had continued, he'd be a gentle, fearless leader or a great something.
Something that made the show berable.

But as it became canceled, all he was, was a snotty brat and people where glad it became canceled because he was just a snotty brat who annoyed you anyway,
If he'd be a great something to begin with, then atleast we would remember how great the shows character was. Even thought the show was really bad. Which when older you could look back on the stupidity.

So, edited now.
 
I think character development is super important to any TV show, even if it's episodic. The joy of long term storytelling is whatching characters grow over years. If a show can't flesh out and develop its characters I doubt its lasting appeal.

Consider a show like Phineas and Ferb. The show is getting repetitive, but you can still see that it is evolving slowly, especially Candace, who has gone from a 1-dimensional busting machine to a real person. Doofenshmirtz too is expanding, becoming not just a villain, but a father.

Flapjack is one of my favorite shows because the characters evolved so much. Flapjack has always been optimistic and naive, but his relationship with K'nuckles has changed a lot. Bubbie too is surprisingly deep. Its these things that give shows lasting appeal.
 
Well a good writer will at least give the character enough likable qualities and interesting character development in the first season that the audience will still feel satisfied with what they got.

Look at The Spectacular Spider-Man for example. The show only lasted 26 eps, which is what a lot of other current Marvel shows got for their first season. Yet in that short time, we got tonnes of great character development and the show is now remembered as one of the best superhero 'toons ever.
 
Or the show reaches it's ending.


Probably any show that gets cancelled before it reaches it's ending would be considered unfinished character development. Assuming they had it to begin with, that is.
 
Back
Top