PDA

View Full Version : Brief history of Hoodwinked (RED RIDING HOOD REDUX)


RobertoOrtiz
12-09-2005, 02:10 PM
Quote:
"Hoodwinked" stands out among the new wave of CGI-animated indies. The Weinstein Co., the new firm set up by former Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein, has scheduled a January 13 wide release of Cory Edwards' irreverent, witty and musical take on the Little Red Riding Hood story retold as a comic police investigation. The movie also is eligible for this year's best animated film Oscar.
Just how this fairy tale arrived in theaters illustrates the changing animation scene. Edwards, who has made animated shorts as well as the 45-minute Christmas-themed DVD "Wobots," met Skyy Vodka founder and wealthy inventor Maurice Kanbar in 1999 at Sundance, where the director's brother Todd Edwards was showing his live-action comedy "Chillicothe." A year later, the two Edwards brothers (founding partners in Blue Yonder Films with "Hoodwinked" producer Preston Stutzman) pitched Kanbar on several projects the financier felt were too risky. Instead, Kanbar asked them to bring him a fairy tale with broad appeal, saying, "I know they've got legs."

"


>>LINK<< (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051209/film_nm/film_hoodwinked_dc_1)



TRAILER: Nick Toon's "HOODWINKED" CG Films (Red Riding Hood REDUX) (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=292613&highlight=hoodwinked)
(PREVIOUS THREAD WITH TRAILER)

-R

rocarpen
12-09-2005, 05:29 PM
Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/hoodwinked/)

Not to be a cynic, but does this look like a mega-low-budget Shrek knock-off to anyone else?

Lyr
12-09-2005, 06:43 PM
Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/hoodwinked/)

Not to be a cynic, but does this look like a mega-low-budget Shrek knock-off to anyone else?

I don't think you are being cynical at all. I really hope those are early shots and not finished work.

ArtisticVisions
12-09-2005, 07:19 PM
I don't think you are being cynical at all. I really hope those are early shots and not finished work.
No, those are the final shots; they're also now showing trailers for it on TV and the quality is exactly the same. Frankly, I'm still not impressed with it. :shrug:

Apoclypse
12-09-2005, 07:22 PM
When I went to see Chicken Little, I saw this trailer and it just looked awful (so did chicken little , which was awful, but thats ot). I can't believe they would even take this out in theaters it should be straight to video.

visionmaster2
12-09-2005, 07:49 PM
for me, Chicken little was horrible...but this !:eek: i could understand if it was made by one persone alone, with no money...but for a movie production ? no light, bad design, bad bad animation...how is it possible ?

rcronin
12-09-2005, 08:08 PM
I think that even a non-industry person will stamp this thing as low-budget and poor quality. (I HOPE!!!) Imagine if Disney put out a 2d film, animated this bad back in the day. They'd be laughed at. How is it that theater release standards have dropped so much? Not that you don't see a lot of crap live action releases, but animation quality/consistency has seemed to be the one thing that doesn't get sacraficed - until now. Man! you can see the constraint on the picnic basket pop on! That's just pure lazy. Key that dam thing frame by frame if you have to. I understand the concept of simplified animation styles. But to completely ignore the fundamentals is kinda......

Bsmith
12-09-2005, 08:09 PM
I think you guys are being pretty disrespectful to the people who did do the animation, lighting, modeling....etc. (no I have no involvement)

but its not the artists fault that the movie is being put out into theaters....they were just chosen to get paid to do this, whether they are good or not. If you read any info on the team choosen to do this, you would know that they are very new to the industry and the movie was shipped overseas for lower production costs. So bitch at the producers and the execs. And its also been noted that some of the production team members read these forums...so instead of of bashing the hell out of it before you even see it....offer some usefull C & C.

+ Brandon

rocarpen
12-09-2005, 08:22 PM
I think you guys are being pretty disrespectful to the people who did do the animation, lighting, modeling....etc. (no I have no involvement)

but its not the artists fault that the movie is being put out into theaters....they were just chosen to get paid to do this, whether they are good or not. If you read any info on the team choosen to do this, you would know that they are very new to the industry and the movie was shipped overseas for lower production costs. So bitch at the producers and the execs. And its also been noted that some of the production team members read these forums...so instead of of bashing the hell out of it before you even see it....offer some usefull C & C.

+ Brandon

This is an internet forum for the discussion of computer graphics. Saying this CG movie looks poorly made and low budget is well within the boundaries of acceptable conversation. I don't know who made it, what the budgets were, etc. I just know that the final product is very sub-par.

rcronin
12-09-2005, 08:44 PM
O.k. here's some C&C
Shot#1. Her head looks really dead and static. Emphasize some head motion with the dialogue. The door is heavy. A little finger nudge would not open it that easy. Need weight on the push. Right foot lands flat footed. Walks land on heels first. Basket floats from lack of weight. Gravity will tend to keep it from doing that.
Shot#2 Levitation doesn't exist without a driving force. Need to anticipate into a jump then follow through after it. Right foot lifts off. That's your plant foot. You can't jump without planting a foot?
Shot#3 Robot. The timing is way too even. As well, make it more believable by feeling for the mask before pulling it down.
Shot#4 Again, timing needs breakup. I can see the z rotation keys without even seeing the graph editor. Elbow rotation can be added for less robotic and localized looking anim.
Shot#5 Weird pop in bunny ear. Lip sync could use more than 3 keyframes.
Shot#6 The body is dead. Not even politicans can do twinned gestures like that without body movement.
Shot#7 Could use more interesting pose to pose rather than just delivering line static.
Shot#8 Computer perfect inbetweens.
Shot#9 Poses are floaty and need to be more locked. Don't be afraid to do moving holds.
Shot#10 No motivation for the door popping open. Jumps could use more weight and squash and stretch. More interesting to stumble around than just jump in a perfect straight line.
Shot#11 Weightless smash through window. Camera shake might help. Should land on table and break table.
Shot#12 and #13 continuity error. Red is up front in #13. Axe man looks like a toy with arm rotate action. Red's face could be a little more exaggerated to seems a tad more frightened.
WHIP PAN

-I'd like to go over every shot but no time today. It's just basic things that an animation supervisor should have requested to be fixed. It looks like there was no experienced animation director working on this one. Unless they were expected to crank out 5 shots a day, I can't see an excuse for the lack of revisions.

xtrm3d
12-09-2005, 09:08 PM
but its not the artists fault that the movie is being put out into theaters....they were just chosen to get paid to do this, whether they are good or not. If you read any info on the team choosen to do this, you would know that they are very new to the industry and the movie was shipped overseas for lower production costs. So bitch at the producers and the execs. And its also been noted that some of the production team members read these forums...so instead of of bashing the hell out of it before you even see it....offer some usefull C & C.

welll might be true .. then would the tehater chatge me may be only on quarter if the price for my ticket cause of the ''history'' behind teh production ?
or would my tiocket cost me as much as for another cg movie ?

if i pay the same price .. then i expect the same quality :-)

apoc519
12-09-2005, 09:22 PM
Theres no point in bashing this movie. Its already been done to death

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=292613&highlight=hoodwinked

Slurry
12-09-2005, 11:25 PM
...How is it that theater release standards have dropped so much? Not that you don't see a lot of crap live action releases, but animation quality/consistency has seemed to be the one thing that doesn't get sacraficed - until now...

There used to be one major animated movie a year (Disney). In the odd year when another studio would release an animated deature, Disney would try to squash it by re-releasing a movie or hauling a classic film from the vault to release on home video.
There is simply more animated features being made and released every year. A certain percentage of those will fall into the crap category.
Not saying this movie is crap. I was genuinely impressed with some of the gags and writing I saw. From the 'look' of it though, it seems suited for direct-to-dvd. And that is nothing to be ashamed of.
Mind you, there are many movies from big studios with big budgets that LOOK great but are still crap movies.
If there were only one live action movie being made every year, you can bet it would be a good one andsomething to look forward to.
This plethora of animated films that studios are currently pumping out will eventually crush itself, unable to support it's own weight of suckiness. There will be lots of people scrambling for jobs. If I was a student right now, I'd be worried about my career prospects.
Ebb and flow. Feast and famine. That is the nature of this business.

Art

sorry to be so grim! enjoy the weekend! :D

Bsmith
12-09-2005, 11:59 PM
I knew I would get torn a new asshole for that. I have my own problems with the trailer however I'm not going to complain yet.

Slurry hit the exact point I wanted to make as well but didn't think it fit. I jsut got back from seeing Narnia, and out of the 10 previews I saw, most of them were animated movies. Animated movies have jsut been making more money than live action so movie execs are obviously going to start pulling animated films out of their ass just to make a buck. Theres no way to stop it. Unless.....

tauism
12-10-2005, 06:09 AM
chicken little looked good and was animated well, but i was bored to bits.

hoodwinked may look like it was animated in 3 months but the jokes are hilarious! (can't tell about the story yet though).

between a boring good looking movie and an ugly entertaining movie, i'd pick the entertaining one.

BillB
12-11-2005, 08:56 AM
This plethora of animated films that studios are currently pumping out will eventually crush itself, unable to support it's own weight of suckiness. There will be lots of people scrambling for jobs.
Yeah, like the live action industry has! :rolleyes:

I think the opposite is true - animation is maturing, and with that the market is broadening and deepening. Films like Shrek have shown the 3D has the depth (forgive the pun) to draw in a more mature audience than Disney's fairytales. Just like live action there'll be films that rock and films that suck. And plenty of jobs for both the good and the not so good.

Slurry
12-11-2005, 02:23 PM
I hope you are right.
However, the cheapest animated movie is still going to be FAR more expensive than the cheapest live action film.
Investors will only be willing to take so much of a risk. Especially if the animated movies being produced conitue to strive for mediocrity.
However, it appears the general audience does not mind being pandered to since even the poor animated features are doing well financially.

My point is, how long will that last?

Well, it's good new for us if it does, stricly from a "being able to make a living" point of view. I'm all for more jobs.
I wonder how fickle the public will be with animated films?

Art

pichoo
12-11-2005, 02:50 PM
I can't wait to see how much profit they will make :)

Can't wait to see if the 'normal' audience can accept this movie.

CB_3D
12-11-2005, 06:19 PM
I can't wait to see how much profit they will make :)

Can't wait to see if the 'normal' audience can accept this movie.

I like the visual style and humour of it, overall. .

Indeed lighting and animation are a bit off and rushed, bt i can see that one doing well on dvd for the kids.

ColinCohen
12-11-2005, 06:26 PM
ASIFA-Hollywood is having a screening this Saturday. It will be interesting to see how it plays.

Horton
12-13-2005, 03:22 PM
This is a testament to how maintream CG animation features have become.

This trailer look awful, I thought I was looking at some in-game animation from an early ps1 title.

Pixar and Dreamworks have paved the way through their highly crafted films for a raft of very poor imitations.

Expect lots more of these "safe but dismal, ride the wave, money-makers"

rcronin
12-13-2005, 05:10 PM
Expect lots more of these "safe but dismal, ride the wave, money-makers" Yep
http://www.toonstruck.com/animatedmovies.php

wigal
12-13-2005, 05:34 PM
To be honestI'm glad that there is something coming out... which apparently has its quality in the story and the idea (though similar to shrek) not the effect work.... everybody is trying to make it loook perfect but forgets about the Story... see Narnia, Chicken little etc...

tripping the rift for example has not the best graphics as well, but is fully as hell....

my 2 cents

Unled
12-13-2005, 07:55 PM
To be honestI'm glad that there is something coming out... which apparently has its quality in the story and the idea (though similar to shrek) not the effect work.... everybody is trying to make it loook perfect but forgets about the Story... see Narnia, Chicken little etc...

tripping the rift for example has not the best graphics as well, but is fully as hell....

my 2 cents


I'm not sure what you mean. This movie has focused on the quality of it's story? It looks like they lifted the concept with Shrek and probably wrote it in a night. The gags aren't funny and they are made even less funny by poor execution.
At least Chicken Little had a somewhat more original concept, and Narnia has a great story, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Lyr
12-13-2005, 07:59 PM
To be honestI'm glad that there is something coming out... which apparently has its quality in the story and the idea (though similar to shrek) not the effect work....


Quality story and quality visuals are not mutually exclusive. If I am going to be paying to see a movie I expect BOTH.

wigal
12-13-2005, 08:57 PM
Probably just different tastes!? that what makes life interesting :)

It's not that i like Hoodwinked.. because of its "ugly" fx, but i rather buy a "good" story than "great" fx.... if i can have both :thumbsup:

d_jnaneswar
12-14-2005, 12:03 AM
Quality story and quality visuals are not mutually exclusive. If I am going to be paying to see a movie I expect BOTH.

expecting both is fine... but life is a place where you cant always have the cake and eat it too.. many times u have neigther.. ... I dont expect, but hope to have atleast one or those if not both.. I havent seen many movies that have both tho..
if only those that have to be both are to be released.. then IMO, there wont be an industry.. there wont be a community and there wont be this forum... cuz there aint so many people that can do that.. wether with live action or animation or both...

not to start a flame here :but, for me... hoodwinked looks a lot more bearable than those microsoft blue screens... talk about expecting quality for money payed...;)

As a wannabe animator, i see this as a great sign.. a chance to work in a better animation industry, ...a chance of money flow into the animation industry in the other parts of the world, which in my view, is necessary for animation to thrive in these places which could have a variety of stories come out.. rather than those "one big nice guy - one small talking guy" formula movies.... ...

i happen to live in one such place... If the money starts to flow, I know that the quality bar rises rather quickly in the movies that are coming out of these places.

my 2 cents..

isoparmB
12-14-2005, 08:41 AM
I find it kind of funny when animators talk down to newbies as if their current skill level was all they were ever going to be, when they assume that some newbie's work is just another copy of some other great piece of cinema, when they assume that all newbies just do it for the pay.

Not even rocks remain unchanged, more so, not even the least animator will stay at the bottom of your self-perceieved food chain. We will improve, not because it is inevitable, or to meet up to your expectations, but because we are driven of our own will to do so. Don't let anyone assume for one second that this is everything that we can do, we're just getting warmed up.

Thanks for the animation comments a while back, they are well appreciated. To add to this thread, I would like to state some history on this project. Not to justify the end result, but to at least give insight on how our first movie was produced.


1. The original concept of Hoodwinked, as you will read in the article, was for it to be destined for a straight to video release.

2. The original vision for the film was akin to a stop-motion, clay animation look. All character and environment designs, rig systems, and animation work were done with this in mind. Midway into production, it was suddenly decided that it would become a theatrical release, and that we were to improve upon already existing elements.

3. There were virtually no lighting direction at the beginning of the prod, which resulted in us having to rerender the movie 3 times over.

4. The production began under zero pre-prod conditions. This was necessary for the animation company to come into existance because of the timing.

5. Various supervisors were brought on late in the project to supervise the work, but no one supervisor ever stayed on from start to completion. Sometimes, one supervisor would ask us to totally redo the work of another. We were fortunate enough to have at least two good gentlemen, Glenn and Dan, help us out with regards to data management and organization, but they came in near the tail end of the production. The Edwards brothers and their colleagues were a big help on the directing side, but we could not depend on them for guidance in 3d for obvious reasons (they came from a live action background).


Hoodwinked is our first work as an animation studio, and we hope to make more movies to come. But don't ever assume for a second that we're staying at just that level, or that we're satisfied with just scraping the barrell. We went through hell to get it done, and we've learned our lessons. We're out there to be better than our former selves.

Bsmith
12-14-2005, 05:09 PM
I could tell that there was a little "clay-mation" look for it...which is why I always kinda accepted the look of it and have not complained. That squirrel looked crazy. And I like crazy.

Darktwin
12-14-2005, 05:47 PM
Quality story and quality visuals are not mutually exclusive. If I am going to be paying to see a movie I expect BOTH.

Quoted for agreement, I feel that if I'm going to be paying the same price for a movie ticket to see a movie with a story and great visuals vs. somthing with only of the elements, its not fair to me or anyone else so I'm going to wait until it hits the dollar theatre (now 2 dollar theatre) or until it hits the rent video racks at blockbuster. Not saying this film is a B movie, but I wish movie studioes were more honest with us. This film, judging from the previews doesn't compare with dreamworks or pixar quality at all, so why should we pay to see it for the same ticket price? Again this is my opinion. I really am happy to read people posting and being critical of this film, we as artist should be very critical of films that are being produced for the threatre, I'm starting to feel a little saturated with movies like these, not that I don't like these movies, its just I want to see someone take a risk, a gamble to do something different, but again thats just me.

RobertoOrtiz
12-14-2005, 06:05 PM
Hoodwinked is our first work as an animation studio, and we hope to make more movies to come. But don't ever assume for a second that we're staying at just that level, or that we're satisfied with just scraping the barrell. We went through hell to get it done, and we've learned our lessons. We're out there to be better than our former selves.

First, I would like to thank you for being so candid with us with your replies about the production.

Starting a CG studio from nothing is not a small feat, and doing a CG movie also is another huge endeavor.

I hope that you see that we all are very passionate about CG, so please take our comments as constructive criticism.

Again thanks for your posts,

-R

CGTalk Moderation
12-14-2005, 06:05 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.