Gerald Scarfe’s Hercules Design: From Early Approaches to Animation Approval

The Hercules design was the final character design approved for animation, after Gerald Scarfe had explored both stylized and realistic approaches. That makes the sketches especially useful as a record of a decision in progress: they show the work that preceded approval, while the account describes how Scarfe and the narrator reached the final design together.

The source for this account is Hercules, The Art of Gerald Scarfe, a book published the previous year. It presents Scarfe’s explanation of some of the difficulties involved in arriving at the character’s design. The narrator adds a recollection from the production process: Hercules was the last design to receive approval for animation, and the two collaborators worked through the problem on several sheets of animation paper.

Two approaches, one character

Scarfe tried a stylized version and a realistic one. The account doesn’t describe the precise differences between those approaches, so the sketches are the place to look for their visual evidence. What it does establish is that the design wasn’t settled by choosing one initial direction and carrying it straight into production. The character needed further work before the team could approve a version for animation.

That distinction matters to anyone studying character design for a moving image. A drawing can be compelling as a single image and still need more development before it works as an animation design. The production question extends beyond whether a pose or expression has visual appeal: the approved character must give the animation team a design they can use as work continues. The source doesn’t spell out the specific criteria applied to Hercules, but its account of competing approaches and a late approval shows that the design required discussion and refinement.

Here’s the thing: a late decision doesn’t tell us, by itself, that one approach failed or that the process was unusually difficult. The narrator says the two of them had difficulties coming up with the final design, and that Scarfe’s notes and observations are interesting. Those details point to an exchange of ideas, not a solitary act of drawing. The eventual result came out of working together on paper.

Reading the sketches as process

The five reproduced images offer a visual companion to that account. They’re shown as links to larger images, with the displayed files embedded below. Since the source text doesn’t label individual sketches or explain what changes from one sheet to the next, it’s best to approach them as material from the design process rather than assign a sequence or describe details the accompanying account doesn’t identify.

For designers reviewing development drawings, that restraint is useful. Look at what each sheet actually shows: the character’s proportions, silhouette, facial features, pose and any written annotations. Then compare those observations with Scarfe’s notes, which the book includes, and the narrator’s account of the two approaches. The source doesn’t reproduce the notes in its text, so the images and the book itself carry the visual information. That makes the sketches a prompt for close looking rather than a complete written explanation of every choice.

The medium is part of the story, too. The narrator recalls the pair working on animation paper. In this account, the sheets are where discussion and drawing met: the collaborators could put possibilities down, inspect them, and continue working toward an approved design. That’s a practical reminder for teams facing an unresolved visual decision. A shared working surface can make alternatives easier to discuss, especially when the outcome has to serve a production beyond the original drawing.

What the account does—and doesn’t—tell us

The narrator remembers Scarfe as lovely to work with. That personal detail sits alongside the account of a design that took effort to resolve, giving the production story a collaborative tone. It doesn’t tell us who made each mark on the sheets, how many rounds of drawings were involved, or what specific note settled the final direction. Those details aren’t given here.

Nor does the source provide a launch date for the animated production, name a client or studio, or identify a typeface, colour palette or software. Its focus is narrower: Scarfe’s design process for Hercules, the alternatives he tried, the character’s position as the last design approved for animation, and the collaboration that helped arrive at the final version. Keeping that scope intact lets the sketches remain the focus.

Five sheets from the design process

Scarfe’s notes and observations, as described in the book, give the drawings another layer: they connect visible decisions to the thinking behind them. The narrator’s account adds the human exchange that helped resolve the design. Together, those elements make the Hercules sheets worth studying as evidence of how a character moves from competing ideas toward approval. Gerald Scarfe is on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/officialgeraldscarfe/?hl=en.