PDA

View Full Version : Disney's "The Wild" trailer


arctor
01-09-2006, 06:37 AM
Walt Disney Pictures' 'The Wild' Trailer Will Debut on Starz on January 9

The world television premiere of the trailer for Walt Disney Pictures' upcoming animated adventure "The Wild" will escape onto Starz screens this January 9. Starz Entertainment Group (SEG) partners once again with Walt Disney Pictures to bring the 1:40 teaser trailer to their flagship channel.

"The Wild" is an irreverent comedy that follows the after-hours life of an eclectic group of animals at the New York Zoo. The impressive vocal ensemble includes Kiefer Sutherland (as the respected lion leader), Greg Cipes (as Samson's rebellious son, Ryan), Jim Belushi (as Benny, the street smart squirrel and Samson's best friend), Janeane Garofalo (as a pampered giraffe), Richard Kind (as a dim-witted anaconda), William Shatner (as a wicked wildebeest), and Eddie Izzard (as Nigel, an acerbic koala). "The Wild" is slated for release April 14, 2006.

"The Wild" trailer will premiere on January 9 at the following times (all times are ET/PT):

* Starz at 7:15 p.m. * Starz Kids & Family at 5:30 p.m. * Starz Comedy at 10:00 p.m.


----

...and you can see the trailer sometime today (Jan 9) on www.disney.com and www.movies.com (I'll edit this with full path when the trailers are actually up) and I'm guessing apple.com sometime later in the week(?)...

vfx
01-09-2006, 09:09 AM
It's already there...

http://disney.go.com/disneymotion/showcase/index.html

But thanks - cos I wouldn't have looked otherwise.

seven6ty2
01-09-2006, 09:30 AM
I could've sworn this movie had already came out though and that it was named Madagascar... Curious.

Breinmeester
01-09-2006, 09:48 AM
Hmmm, though the animation is a lot better than I expected, it still looks pretty awfull. Those backgrounds and that character design are terrible!
Storywise it's just a mix of 'Finding Nemo' and 'Madagascar'.
I think I'll let this one pass silently....

BAROBA
01-09-2006, 11:24 AM
That really does look like madagascar....
But the designs are alot less appealing then Madagascar.
I dont think they are terrible, but they are 'forgettable', after some time you wouldn't know from which movie they would be.
Looks like something you would rent for the kids ...

crozonia
01-09-2006, 01:39 PM
Strange, the Wild trailer won't load up. But I can view everything else including the video about "enjoying yourself". Nice.

Jim

vfx
01-09-2006, 02:42 PM
same here dude - has issues loading - NIce - Disney can't even preview their trailer well!

Kaszub
01-09-2006, 02:54 PM
Execution looks nice. Good animation, rendering, image quality. Overall design isn't very appealing to me, story does't seem to be very original, but I think it could be quite entertaining and I will probably go and see it in cinema while waiting for "Cars", "Open Season" and "Meet the Robinsons" :-)

...still w8ing for HD quicktime for closer look :)

Slurry
01-09-2006, 03:17 PM
I had troubles loading it initially but it worked the second time.
This looks A LOT better than the stills that were posted on this site a few months back. Seeing it in motion makes a HUGE difference.
Also, I didn't like the design when I originally saw it but I think this looks really good. A refreshing change from some of the other movies that are being made/released.
Somewhere in the middle of realistic and cartoony.
I've heard there have been lots of production woes on this film so I hope it really does well. It looks like it's coming together nicely.
Good luck to those working on it. Bring it home!

Art

Wabit
01-09-2006, 03:39 PM
All this stuff… its everywhere… same stories… same characters…. Its all aimed at the same market… they’ll be little McDonalds toys, cups and tacky computer games.



This industry is just going to get diluted with the same old pap – oh… I… I…I need a lie down, or a shower to wash it all off, or maybe even hide on a remote island until all this stuff blows over.

Emmanuel
01-09-2006, 04:01 PM
I don't get it, why the heck would somebody constantly repeat the same mistakes !?
Nemo-SharkTale, Bug's Life-Ants,Madagascar-The Wild.
Are they kidding ? There's no freakin way I will watch this crap after I watched the superb Madagascar.They should come up with ideas of their own and stop repeating themselves, especially such a short period after "that other zoo animals comedy movie".
I wonder which will be the car movie to compete with "cars".
Will they call it "Engines" ? "Wheels" ? "Revenge of the gas suckers" ?
Oh boy.

-Sai-
01-09-2006, 04:15 PM
Congrats CORE for finishing up the film.. It looks quite interesting and some of the action sequences look nice..I can't wait to watch the high res trailer.:)

lovisx
01-09-2006, 04:22 PM
I still can't get the trailer off of disney.com, but yes congradulations to C.O.R.E., hopefully this won't be the last.

Bsmith
01-09-2006, 04:40 PM
whats with all the animation films dealing with animals...there are other things in this world.

agreenster
01-09-2006, 04:42 PM
whats with all the animation films dealing with animals...there are other things in this world.

Like ants. :)

Congrats CORE! Can't wait to see it.

SheepFactory
01-09-2006, 05:12 PM
That looked way better then I expected to be honest , now i am very excited to see the movie. Congrats to everyone at core.

agreenster
01-09-2006, 05:17 PM
I don't get it, why the heck would somebody constantly repeat the same mistakes !?
Nemo-SharkTale, Bug's Life-Ants,Madagascar-The Wild.
Are they kidding ? There's no freakin way I will watch this crap after I watched the superb Madagascar.They should come up with ideas of their own and stop repeating themselves, especially such a short period after "that other zoo animals comedy movie".
I wonder which will be the car movie to compete with "cars".
Will they call it "Engines" ? "Wheels" ? "Revenge of the gas suckers" ?
Oh boy.

Just remember, they were working on The Wild a long time ago too. I remember hearing about it long before I ever saw a single piece of art from Madagascar. I heard about The Wild in 2003, so go easy. I'm sure they knew there was "another" movie about zoo animals, but it's all speculation as to how much they knew.

beaker
01-09-2006, 06:00 PM
Just remember, they were working on The Wild a long time ago too. I remember hearing about it long before I ever saw a single piece of art from Madagascar. I heard about The Wild in 2003, so go easy. I'm sure they knew there was "another" movie about zoo animals, but it's all speculation as to how much they knew.Yea, there was a movie called "Wild Life" in development at disney back in the early 90's. It was supposed to be the next cgi movie for Feature Animation after "Dinosaur". Unfortunatly Dinosaur did really bad and they canned it. The story for "The Wild" is very different then "Wild Life".

There are a few articles copied into the animation nation forum here:
http://www.animationnation.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000221
http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000189#000003

agreenster
01-09-2006, 06:03 PM
Yes, but I remember The Wild specifically because I had a friend go and work on it. I dont know anything about Wild Life

leigh
01-09-2006, 06:11 PM
Hmmm... I don't think it looks that bad :) I'll definitely go watch it when it comes out.

Capel
01-09-2006, 06:35 PM
wow, this looks a lot better than i expected. some really nice animation in there. looking forward to it.

baby
01-09-2006, 07:04 PM
doesn't work for me...

can someone drop it somewhere for those who can watch it...


why can't they all have their trailer on QT HD !! I can't watch anymore tiny little vidz...

chrisWhite
01-09-2006, 07:33 PM
Wow, that actually looks really good, despite the unfortunate timing I'm very impressed. I like the style of the animation and some of the character designs.

aaron111
01-09-2006, 08:39 PM
I don't get it, why the heck would somebody constantly repeat the same mistakes !?
Nemo-SharkTale, Bug's Life-Ants,Madagascar-The Wild.
Are they kidding ? There's no freakin way I will watch this crap after I watched the superb Madagascar.They should come up with ideas of their own and stop repeating themselves, especially such a short period after "that other zoo animals comedy movie".
I wonder which will be the car movie to compete with "cars".
Will they call it "Engines" ? "Wheels" ? "Revenge of the gas suckers" ?
Oh boy.

I agree. I can't believe they keep doing this crap. Is their seriously that little real writing talent out there that major studios like disney can't come up with their own ideas. And worse yet, in this case they stole from what was a mediocre concept in the first place. Obivously this looks somewhat different from madagascar, but WHY must there always be two animated films with the same theme coming out within the same year. It's just ridiculous.

baby
01-09-2006, 08:42 PM
is that a Disney movie or a Disney production ?

I would think it's a Core movie produced by Disney... nope ?!?

kemijo
01-09-2006, 09:50 PM
Hilarious! And it looks great! I had my hopes up and it still looks better than I expected. Nicely done to CORE FA and Side Effects folk.

I never saw Madagascar. I loved the animal designs and trailer, but when everyone told me "it's just not funny" I began to lose interest. My thoughts were confirmed when I saw the short film with the penguins...I just didn't laugh. If The Wild's script keeps the humour up to the level of the trailer, it'll be a winner for me.

arctor
01-09-2006, 10:18 PM
it's a Disney movie that was made by C.O.R.E.

here is a better link for the trailer:
http://movies.go.com/movies/movie?name=thewild_2006&genre=family&studio=Walt%20Disney%20Pictures

CelticArtist
01-09-2006, 10:49 PM
I never saw Madagascar. I loved the animal designs and trailer, but when everyone told me "it's just not funny" I began to lose interest. My thoughts were confirmed when I saw the short film with the penguins...I just didn't laugh. If The Wild's script keeps the humour up to the level of the trailer, it'll be a winner for me.

Funny, the only funny part about Madagascar were the penguins. This looks ok, not worth my money though, i'll wait and rent it. But, congrats to the people at CORE, i've heard of your woes and work with some former employees, hopefully it feels good to finally have some footage out there and know it's going to be out soon, for good or ill.

JWRodegher
01-09-2006, 11:20 PM
I´m still not convinced about the movie, the character design, well, I´m not sure if it works fine. Anyway, it does look WAY better then it did. I might go and see it. Good for the CORE people and al those involved! I hope it goes really well for you guys! Cheers!

Kid A
01-09-2006, 11:43 PM
Funny, the only funny part about Madagascar were the penguins. This looks ok, not worth my money though, i'll wait and rent it. But, congrats to the people at CORE, i've heard of your woes and work with some former employees, hopefully it feels good to finally have some footage out there and know it's going to be out soon, for good or ill.

You're supposed to support your fellow animators. Is that $5.00 you'll save on renting as apposed to seeing how it was meant to be seen really that much?

Anyways I think it looks really good. I'll definately go and see it. Good on you CORE.

CelticArtist
01-09-2006, 11:47 PM
You're supposed to support your fellow animators. Is that $5.00 you'll save on renting as apposed to seeing how it was meant to be seen really that much?

Anyways I think it looks really good. I'll definately go and see it. Good on you CORE.

well...
a. i'm not an animator, i'm a modeler.
b. if it's crap, i'm not going to support it, however, i'll support my fellow artists to the end, i just would like us all to be on quality projects.
c. the money they lose by me not going to see it in the theaters isn't being lost by the artists. However, there is the arguement that it puts future artists out of jobs, i disagree with that assessment, as movies will continue to be made, but if we only support the good ones with our cash, they'll make more good movies.

thanks.

Capel
01-10-2006, 12:30 AM
if we only support the good ones with our cash, they'll make more good movies.

thanks.

oh if only that were true. truth is, we digital artists comprise a really small percentage of the people that go to see these movies. and since we're in this line of work, we tend to be WAY more critical of just about everything. hard not to be that way, but oh well.

i'm just glad that it looks better than i expected. :)

ReBootedOne
01-10-2006, 02:57 AM
As an aspiring character designer, I must say that those designs are just... awful. I mean, geez, how generic can ya get?
Wasn't a huge fan of Madagascar, but I loved it for its character design. Here, it's like the same exact plot, but with dull, generic characters. I mean, this is just a touch too close to realism to really create any true feeling and empathy for these characters...
However, I shan't judge till I see it. But I will plant a healthy little seed of prejudice beforehand. :scream:

-eric

SuperSize_Friez
01-10-2006, 06:00 AM
First off, for those of you having trouble watching the trailer, try this link:

http://movies.go.com/movies/media?name=thewild_2006&genre=family&studio=Walt%20Disney%20Pictures

Some people are crying because they don't like the look of the film. They hate the character designs and backgrounds. I believe the words "terrible" and "aweful" were used. Were you watching the same trailer I was? I mean come on! People have different tastes but there is no way you can call them aweful. For aweful character design check out Hoodwinked.....shudder. The Wild stuff is solid. It's not "artistic" like Madagascar, it's more realistic, but that doesn't make it bad. I can't say I like the character designs of the almighty Pixar's CARS (too Veggie Tales/saturday morning cartoony) but I'm sure that movie is going to kick ass because it's Pixar. This film doesn't have that going for it and all the fanboys are saying "haven't I already seen this movie". Wow, what a clever comment. Of course they are similar! It IS the terrible Antz/Bugs Life, Finding Nemo/Shark Tale trend rearing it's ugly head again but don't go giving the originality credit to Dreamworks.The Wild or The Wild LIFE as it was called in the beggining was supposed to be released BEFORE Madagascar. Unfortunately for DISNEY/CORE, they ran into several technical and script problems and had to push the date back. HURRAY for Dreamworks. Boooo for Disney. They are by no means the same Film so save your decisions until after you have seen them both. I'm sure they will be VERY different films.

I'm still scratching my head as to WHY Disney would allow pre-viz stuff to be the first images released to the public. Especially when it's coming from a new and unknown company. That planted the seed of "prejudice" in many of the animation wanna be's heads. The real professionals saw those images for what they are while the wanna be professionals started crying bloody murder over the grey skies and lack of shadows. It should have been a GIANT neon sign but some people just want to flame.

In the end, the general public will decide if this film is a hit or a miss. Not the fan boys. We'll just have to wait and see.

baby
01-10-2006, 09:22 AM
but i think there is more effort in hoodwinked designs than in this one !!
then of course I don't speak about the technical side.
But damn this looks so...flat...

MartyMcFly
01-10-2006, 09:43 AM
Madagascar left a bad taste in my mouth......This looks like the same meal.

Just not my taste,...But if the movie comes out and the reviews are generally favorable..I'll give it a shot. At this point though...It's not looking that great.

Breinmeester
01-10-2006, 10:46 AM
First off, for those of you having trouble watching the trailer, try this link:

http://movies.go.com/movies/media?name=thewild_2006&genre=family&studio=Walt%20Disney%20Pictures

Some people are crying because they don't like the look of the film. They hate the character designs and backgrounds. I believe the words "terrible" and "aweful" were used. Were you watching the same trailer I was? I mean come on! People have different tastes but there is no way you can call them aweful. For aweful character design check out Hoodwinked.....shudder. The Wild stuff is solid. It's not "artistic" like Madagascar, it's more realistic, but that doesn't make it bad. I can't say I like the character designs of the almighty Pixar's CARS (too Veggie Tales/saturday morning cartoony) but I'm sure that movie is going to kick ass because it's Pixar. This film doesn't have that going for it and all the fanboys are saying "haven't I already seen this movie". Wow, what a clever comment. Of course they are similar! It IS the terrible Antz/Bugs Life, Finding Nemo/Shark Tale trend rearing it's ugly head again but don't go giving the originality credit to Dreamworks.The Wild or The Wild LIFE as it was called in the beggining was supposed to be released BEFORE Madagascar. Unfortunately for DISNEY/CORE, they ran into several technical and script problems and had to push the date back. HURRAY for Dreamworks. Boooo for Disney. They are by no means the same Film so save your decisions until after you have seen them both. I'm sure they will be VERY different films.

I'm still scratching my head as to WHY Disney would allow pre-viz stuff to be the first images released to the public. Especially when it's coming from a new and unknown company. That planted the seed of "prejudice" in many of the animation wanna be's heads. The real professionals saw those images for what they are while the wanna be professionals started crying bloody murder over the grey skies and lack of shadows. It should have been a GIANT neon sign but some people just want to flame.

In the end, the general public will decide if this film is a hit or a miss. Not the fan boys. We'll just have to wait and see.

<Yoda voice> A lot of anger in you I sense.. </Yoda voice>

It was obvious that those first images were previz, but the design is still the same. I disagree about the Hoodwinked remark, I think Hoodwinked has a better design. The Wild howerver has far better animation and I believe animation has more power to captivate an audience. But I also believe the design has more power to lure people to the cinema.

That planted the seed of "prejudice" in many of the animation wanna be's heads. The real professionals saw those images for what they are while the wanna be professionals started crying bloody murder over the grey skies and lack of shadows. It should have been a GIANT neon sign but some people just want to flame.
I can't understand why people keep throwing the 'stop flaming' argument around. I've seen no flaming, I merely read what opinions people had about the movie. It's a CG discussionboard, CG films will be discussed. I honestly think the character design is awfull, so I'm allowed to say so. It doesn't mean I hate the film or that I hope it does bad or that I don't wish the people at CORE all the best for the film. It simply means it doesn't appeal to me enough to make me want to see it. Take what you read for what it is and don't be offended, because no-one is trying to offend anyone here.

CelticArtist
01-10-2006, 07:49 PM
oh if only that were true. truth is, we digital artists comprise a really small percentage of the people that go to see these movies. and since we're in this line of work, we tend to be WAY more critical of just about everything. hard not to be that way, but oh well.

i'm just glad that it looks better than i expected. :)

very true, and i agree with you 100% about our being a minority (god i hope it stays that way). but i was speaking (although i didn't define it) in the sense of we as the general public. Thankfully though, the public does seem to be coming to it's senses when it comes to crap movies, most of the 'blockbuster' movies that were absolute steaming piles have failed this year (not all, but most).

pearson
01-10-2006, 08:39 PM
On the one hand you have style like Madagascar, and at the other end of the spectrum was Aslan in Narnia. The Wild designs seem to fall solidly in the middle, and thus seem completely forgetable. The voices and animations will provide performances that are memorable, but the design just doesn't stand out to me at all.

I'll probably rent it, but I'm not in any rush.

SkullboX
01-10-2006, 08:49 PM
You're supposed to support your fellow animators. Is that $5.00 you'll save on renting as apposed to seeing how it was meant to be seen really that much?

Anyways I think it looks really good. I'll definately go and see it. Good on you CORE.
'Supposed' to support my fellow animators? You could also use that reasoning for not seeing it out of respect for the animators who worked on madagascar, since The Wild so blatantly rips it off.

It looks good and it indeed seems the people at core put a lot of effort into making a quality movie, it's just too bad the people in charge went for a second hand script instead of creating something original people will actually remember. I won't be seeing this.

Rick May
01-10-2006, 08:58 PM
The Wild or The Wild LIFE as it was called in the beggining was supposed to be released BEFORE Madagascar. Unfortunately for DISNEY/CORE, they ran into several technical and script problems and had to push the date back.

The Wild Life was a completely different Disney film that disappeared a few years back.

However, you are right that The Wild has been around for quite some time. I can't remember the date that they began story work on it, but I saw material as early as 2002 before CORE was awarded the CG work from Pandemonium (which got the project from Disney) who was doing the development/story/pre-production.

-Sai-
01-10-2006, 11:12 PM
'Supposed' to support my fellow animators? You could also use that reasoning for not seeing it out of respect for the animators who worked on madagascar, since The Wild so blatantly rips it off.



you have no clue what you are talking about.:rolleyes:

Brettzies
01-10-2006, 11:40 PM
'Supposed' to support my fellow animators? You could also use that reasoning for not seeing it out of respect for the animators who worked on madagascar, since The Wild so blatantly rips it off.
Regardless of the qulality being good, bad, or indifferent, they are only suffering from being second to release. That's definetly a disadvantage and leads to these kind of statements, however, the films were in some form of pre or post production at the same time. No one would willingly produce such a similar film after the fact. Given the wide range of opinions for Madagasscar, people could end up liking this more...who knows.

Antz came out before Bug's Life, and Bug's Life is generally regarded as the surperior film. I think the Wild has a huge hurdle to overcome, especially in the general public who may see it as a rip off. They don't have the knowledge of how these things get made. If anything though, Dreamworks has a bigger history of copycat syndrome and trying to beat people to the punch.

ThommyBoy
01-11-2006, 12:38 AM
As an ex-Mouse myself I could never understand why so much overlap of product from the big boys goes on between competitors. I know they are all afraid to risk their own capitol on a "new" idea, so they tend to copy one another as the market shows its fiscal "worthiness". I also know that a little kid who likes stuffed lions at the end of the day will not care if its a Dreamworks or Disney lion so they tend to feed eachother, but COME ON MAN, there is so much more to do than just your Companys version of a Zoo movie, or your version of a bug movie.Heck, at least wait a few years until you release your "copy".

Disney Feature Animation Presents: Troll
Dreamworks Feature Animation Presents: The Invincibles!


Cheers, THOM

Brettzies
01-11-2006, 01:50 AM
but COME ON MAN, there is so much more to do than just your Companys version of a Zoo movie, or your version of a bug movie.Heck, at least wait a few years until you release your "copy"I think some of it is really just coincidence in greenlight timing and not knowing what the other is up to till it's too late. On the other hand, I think there is some blatant pushing to release before movie X comes out or even outright copying of theme or setting to compete with company x's movie. Hell, Disney use to re-release old films just so there'd be competition for whoever was releasing something at the time. Then again, maybe it's just something in the water.

Kid A
01-11-2006, 03:03 AM
since The Wild so blatantly rips it off.


Please educate yourself before you speak. This film was in Disneys hands and in production well before Madagascar.

SuperSize_Friez
01-11-2006, 03:43 AM
Please educate yourself before you speak. This film was in Disneys hands and in production well before Madagascar.

So true. DreamWorks ripped a lot of stuff off from The Wild. They beat Disney to the punch though and get all the credit. The Lion in The Wild was originally named Alexander and then suddenly DreamWorks named THEIR Lion Alex. The Lion in the Wild had his name changed to Samson. These films were racing to finish production first. Dreamworks won and haven't held back rubbing it in Disney's face. Have you noticed how many times they say "The WIIIILLLLLDDDDDD" in Madagascar? Over and over and over. I agree, there is no need for studios to come out with the same themed films year in and out but don't assume Disney copied them. Get the facts first. The Wild had the terrible luck of not releasing before Narnia as well. Now the Lion in The Wild (which looks amazing in it's own right) will be compared to the the super realistic Aslan. I guess the moral of the story is finish first and enjoy all the praise. Finish last and regardless of when you started production, you copied.

SuperSize_Friez
01-11-2006, 03:50 AM
The Wild Life was a completely different Disney film that disappeared a few years back.

Yes The Wild Life was the title of a different film that Disney was considering some time ago but The Wild WAS using the same title for much of the production. Just thought you'ld like to know.

Shaderhacker
01-11-2006, 04:01 AM
Finally got a chance to see the trailer.. It looks tons better than the stills from before (but I knew it would). The animation is pretty stiff, but in all honesty, the whole idea is repulsive. The issue is not who (Dreamworks or Disney) came up with the idea first, but rather, who put their idea out first. Since Dreamworks did this, it just "feels" like a ripoff...

Well, I hope it garners some money for the hard effort..

-M

Brettzies
01-11-2006, 04:33 AM
The issue is not who (Dreamworks or Disney) came up with the idea first, but rather, who put their idea out first. Since Dreamworks did this, it just "feels" like a ripoff...That's exactly it. And unfortunately for the film, most of the public won't know any better then to think of it that way. Then again, they may not care either way.

I'd like to see the trailer on the big screen, it's just such a different experience for me that way.

Crapshooter
01-11-2006, 05:23 AM
I could've sworn this movie had already came out though and that it was named Madagascar... Curious.
That really does look like madagascar....
All this stuff… its everywhere… same stories… same characters…. Its all aimed at the same market… they’ll be little McDonalds toys, cups and tacky computer games.
I can't believe they keep doing this crap. Is their seriously that little real writing talent out there that major studios like disney can't come up with their own ideas.
I know they are all afraid to risk their own capitol on a "new" idea, so they tend to copy one another as the market shows its fiscal "worthiness".
The issue is not who (Dreamworks or Disney) came up with the idea first, but rather, who put their idea out first. Since Dreamworks did this, it just "feels" like a ripoff...

Given that so many people ARE SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING, you're all right ... it is tiresome to see someone copy someone else, regardless of who started their post first.

Shaderhacker
01-11-2006, 07:01 AM
Given that so many people ARE SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING, you're all right ... it is tiresome to see someone copy someone else, regardless of who started their post first.

No. They aren't all saying the same thing. Some comments are blatant accusations and others are more opinionated.

-M

mlmiller1983
01-11-2006, 08:05 AM
Yeah another CG talking animal movie for kids. Think I'll pass this one.

xino
01-11-2006, 08:19 AM
Given that so many people ARE SAYING THE EXACT SAME THING, you're all right ... it is tiresome to see someone copy someone else, regardless of who started their post first.

Now that's a good burn.

Awara
01-11-2006, 12:14 PM
the trailer is not appeling... I'll pass on this one.


A

Emmanuel
01-11-2006, 02:50 PM
Even considering the fact that The Wild (Life) started production before Madagascar...it still is about a Lion dad searching his son...like...like...that fish movie ?
Maybe I am just a villain, but to me the fact that The Wild was in production before M. is no excuse, people were "killing" SharkTale for beeing a "rip off" of Nemo, and ST was a completely different film set in the same scenario, so I just don't see why Disney would not consider doing something different with this movie or release it later, after having rewritten the story (a giraffe and a lion as two of the 4 main characters for example is too much of a similiarity).
It's possible.What are writers paid for after all ?If that movie bombs, I doubt that the fact its production started before M. will interest any of the movie goers or investors.

Teyon
01-11-2006, 05:07 PM
A Koala with an Irish accent? Do they have Koala's in Ireland?

Anyway, I liked Madagascar's art and the story was good...not funny (to me) but good. This looks to be about the same in terms of story - good...not funny (to me) but good. In terms of art style, eh....there's only so much you can do with zoo animals really and I guess going psuedo real was good for being different but wouldn't it have been neat if they'd used toon people instead? Like a bunch of kids going after a friend who was abducted or something. Or if they really wanted to do animals, buying the rights to Redwall and doing that in 3D.

Anyway, as a movie, I'm sure it will be good but as a comedy, maybe not so much. Finding what works to make most folks laugh is tough though, so I applaud the efforts of those involved.

Rick May
01-11-2006, 09:02 PM
Yes The Wild Life was the title of a different film that Disney was considering some time ago but The Wild WAS using the same title for much of the production. Just thought you'ld like to know.

You're right. My mistake. I had completely forgotten about that. I even dug up The Wild "beat sheet" from 2002 just to remember what it had said and the title in big bold letters was The Wild Life. It still didn't register.

So many people are confusing The Wild (the Disney/Pandemonium/CORE thing) with WildLife (the other Disney movie that never saw the light of day because Disney felt nervous about the suggestive nature of it) that I just assumed you were talking about the latter. My trip! :)

akaiwa
01-12-2006, 03:06 AM
Even considering the fact that The Wild (Life) started production before Madagascar...it still is about a Lion dad searching his son...like...like...that fish movie ?


I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. When the lion shouted "DAD" and the dad tried to run to him, it felt exactly like Nemo where the father had to watch his son be taken away but was powerless to stop it.

Even without comparing it to Madagascar, the movie looks pretty awful. One shot looked identical to a shot from Madagascar (the overview of the park, with balloons in the background, and focuses on the speaker). Yes, it's the same zoo, but what is the audience going to think?

Chicken Little was atrocious (story wise) and this doesn't look much better - just an 'overwater' version of Finding Nemo.

But I know exactly what will happen - Disney will absolutely flood the stores with tons of varying merchendise weeks before it comes out - non stop promote the film on every medium possible, and put trailers and commercials for it everywhere. The kids become hyped up about it and Disney, by treating it as an enormous success, MAKES it a success. I work at a bookstore and noticed this - there was Chicken Little crap EVERYWHERE before the film came out (ridiculous stuff, too), and kids would go "Aaah! Look, Chicken Little! Can we get this?" when they haven't even seen the movie. I was grocery shopping and there was an ad over the itercom (true story) where a voice (poorly impersonated) said "Hi, I'm Chicken Little..." and briefly mentioned some sales, followed by a quick vocal ad for the movie.

I personally hope this gets what it deserves (which at the moment, IMO, is trash). And the BS about seeing the movie just to support the industry is incredibly naiive. I don't want to get into that now, I really don't, so I won't go into that anymore.

Shaderhacker
01-12-2006, 03:30 AM
Even without comparing it to Madagascar, the movie looks pretty awful.

I love it when people are harsh on CG films and have little to no experience or don't work at anyplace that can produce better results. :rolleyes:

First off, I'm not trying to defend this film, but it doesn't look awful just because there are similarities to Mad. That's a ridiculous statement.


But I know exactly what will happen - Disney will absolutely flood the stores with tons of varying merchendise weeks before it comes out

Did you see any marketing merchandise for Valiant? I didn't think so.. Disney will only promote what they know is a sure-fire hit. You will be hard-pressed to see merchandise about films that they didn't actually make themselves (in this case) other than Pixar films.


I personally hope this gets what it deserves (which at the moment, IMO, is trash). And the BS about seeing the movie just to support the industry is incredibly naiive. I don't want to get into that now, I really don't, so I won't go into that anymore.

I would stop before you make yourself look even more foolish with your remarks....

-M

Kid A
01-12-2006, 04:18 AM
is incredibly naiive. I don't want to get into that now, I really don't, so I won't go into that anymore.

You don't want to get into that yet you brought it back up you illiterate f*ck

dantea
01-12-2006, 04:25 AM
Did you see any marketing merchandise for Valiant? I didn't think so.. Disney will only promote what they know is a sure-fire hit. You will be hard-pressed to see merchandise about films that they didn't actually make themselves (in this case) other than Pixar films.

Chicken Little is special to Disney as it's their first self-produced all CGI feature film. I can just as easily see Disney promoting Chicken Little even if they thought it was going to be flop.

Shaderhacker
01-12-2006, 05:44 AM
Chicken Little is special to Disney as it's their first self-produced all CGI feature film. I can just as easily see Disney promoting Chicken Little even if they thought it was going to be flop.

Well, like I said.. they won't promote films that they didn't actually make.

-M

Cronholio
01-12-2006, 05:54 AM
Wow, some of you guys are so angry about this movie. Why all the hostility? It's a kid's movie and it's really not a bad movie. Derivative? Sure, but it's visually impressive and more entertaining than probably 85% of the true crap that Hollywood pumps out. Not every movie can be an instant classic. Sometimes you'll just have to settle for entertaining. You guys act like you all have such discriminating tastes but you all probably paid to see Matrix Sequels and the Star Wars prequels in the theaters and bought the DVDs. :p

As far as supporting the industry... It's true the artists who worked on this movie won't get anything out of your going to see this movie, most of them have moved on. CORE on the other hand might get something out of your support though (I'm not just talking about money here), and they are a company worth supporting. The people there really care about this industry and people like you guys and gals who work or desire to work in this industry. They honestly want to make great movies and I'm sure they will if given the chance. The Wild just happened to be their foot in the door and I think it's a pretty impressive first effort. Then again I didn't think Valiant was as bad as everyone else seems to think, Jimmy Neutron is good for a laugh, and I'm probably going to spend some money on Hoodwinked this weeked...

Crapshooter
01-12-2006, 07:24 AM
The Wild just happened to be their foot in the door and I think it's a pretty impressive first effort. Then again I didn't think Valiant was as bad as everyone else seems to think, Jimmy Neutron is good for a laugh, and I'm probably going to spend some money on Hoodwinked this weeked...

Now there's a mature, rational, experienced and inspirational post. You can't score a hat-trick every time, you can't win every game, but bustin' your ass to try to score and win is good for something.

I will also see Hoodwinked and The Wild and Over The Hedge and Barnyard and Open Season. A lot of dedicated people, artists and managers, spend untold hours and try their best to do what they can to make good movies. Does anyone in this forum honestly believe that any studio, producer, manager or artist actually intends to make a less-than-stellar movie on purpose?

xino
01-12-2006, 08:52 AM
Does anyone in this forum honestly believe that any studio, producer, manager or artist actually intends to make a less-than-stellar movie on purpose?

Stay around for awhile and the sad truth will come forth. Sad ain't it? :-(


I'm looking forward to seeing this as well as most of the others people have continuously "ripped" here in the forums. Unless it's as bad as most of the National Lampoon's movies, I know I'll enjoy myself at most if not all of them on some level, whether a mature or juvenile level. ;)

Wabit
01-12-2006, 09:09 AM
You don't want to get into that yet you brought it back up you illiterate f*ck

steady mate, i dont think that type of response is welcome here. We are only talking about a movie after all... not trying to find a cure for cancer.

Kid A
01-12-2006, 01:30 PM
steady mate, i dont think that type of response is welcome here. We are only talking about a movie after all... not trying to find a cure for cancer.

Thanks Dad.

Breinmeester
01-12-2006, 01:36 PM
Things are getting out of hand here...:rolleyes:Cool it!

Dennik
01-12-2006, 02:40 PM
I once thought because i am an animator, i HAD to watch every 3d movie that comes out, cause its something that interests me.
Ok, i take that back. People will get sick of the medium in the next couple of years.
MAKE SOMETHING ORIGINAL WILL YOU?!?!?!?!

alexichabane
01-12-2006, 03:11 PM
There seem to be a lot of negative comments about "The Wild" (or as it could have been called "Finding Madagascar"), but I think it looks decent. I like the animation style and the production value seems pretty high. There's no doubt that the story is lame, following the same formula as every Pixar movie (where one character gets lost and group of others go out to save them). Appearantly it has been in development long before Madagascar, and has been rewritten since, but it can't help but feel like an imitation of other studio's work. For me the biggest problem is the art direction, the charater design has none of the style or personality of Madagascar or Open Season. Being from Toronto I'm hoping this film does well, but here is nothing about the film that blows me away. Alexi.

CelticArtist
01-12-2006, 05:06 PM
Thanks Dad.

You're an anonymous poster with 6 posts to your name, challenging people who are in the industry, and on top of that, you're calling them names, watch it Kid, we do ban people here.

Kid A
01-12-2006, 05:34 PM
You're an anonymous poster with 6 posts to your name, challenging people who are in the industry, and on top of that, you're calling them names, watch it Kid, we do ban people here.

Go ahead and ban me. As you can see I rarely post and my life won't change one bit if that's taken away. If my posts offend you too bad. So because I only have 6 posts and I don't announce to the world that I'm a "modeler" my comments aren't valid? I guarantee I've been in the industry long before you. Why aren't you bashing some of the posters with only a few posts that are saying the movie looks like crap?

Vladius
01-12-2006, 05:37 PM
I think, this movie will injure Disney company one more time. Disney used to be a good company years ago.

Shaderhacker
01-12-2006, 05:39 PM
Go ahead and ban me. As you can see I rarely post and my life won't change one bit if that's taken away. If my posts offend you too bad. So because I only have 6 posts and I don't announce to the world that I'm a "modeler" my comments aren't valid? I guarantee I've been in the industry long before you. Why aren't you bashing some of the posters with only a few posts that are saying the movie looks like crap?

I think it's your immaturity that will be the basis of banning.

You can say what you want.. it's HOW you say it that counts..and HOW you are speaking now isn't very promising..

-M

Shaderhacker
01-12-2006, 05:41 PM
I think, this movie will injure Disney company one more time. Disney used to be a good company years ago.

Disney is a huge company. There are so many movies that come out of Disney. The ones that they make (and what Pixar makes) will probably be the ones that count towards big profits for the company.. others won't matter so much.

-M

Emmanuel
01-12-2006, 09:27 PM
The problem is: every failing original movie leads almost naturally to a "secure" sequel of successful movies at Disney's.
If their "new" ideas bomb, they do another Lion King, Peter Pan, Nemo, Toy Story...I like good sequels, no doubt, but....

flipnap
01-12-2006, 11:10 PM
i love it.. do you guys really think some three year old kid is gonna shrug his shoulders and say "nah, dont wanna see it.. looks like madagascar".. he'll beg his mom and dad, theyll take him, and pay their money for their tickets, itll come out on DVD and theyll rent it or buy it. Please, Disney will merchandise the crap out of this and thats all that matters in the end.. how much money it makes.. and it will make money.. no matter who you think ripped off who. most kids seeing this wont even equate the fact that these movies are similar.. they just dont care.. they want to ride the ride.. and as far as my own personal thoughts, i thought it would look a lot worse than it does.. style is a bit funky but it works.. we can sit here and argue about crap.. but trust me, kids make money and people make kids.. it never stops...

arctor
01-12-2006, 11:16 PM
I've resisted the temptation to reply to this thread after my initial post...but what the hell...

Having worked on The Wild for 2.5 years I can tell you that everyone involved in making it agrees that the apparent similarities with Madagascar are a little too much...we all were pretty dismayed when we started hearing about Madagascar but there was little we could do about it so we just kept on truckin' and did our best...but this is just one more example of Hollywood's state of complete artistic bankruptcy....oh here's another example:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377981/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0483632/

anyway....
there were many times during the making of The Wild that we had to change things because Disney wanted to make the movie better - my phrase for it was "an excersise in the pursuit of mediocrity"...I can think of hundreds of examples...really too depressing to think about...I can only guess that the reasons for Pixar's ability to bring out great movies time after time (cars looks like it may break that streak...) is that they have earned the power to control their own projects and they don't seem to be motivated solely by money (having 3Billion in the bank helps)...something that Disney is not in a position to say....Disney's movie making is just one small (very small) part of an elaborate web of divsions/affiliates/subsidiaries that make up the Disney empire...merchandising and theme park rides are far more important - but where to get the content?...who cares - as long as little billy and sally scream and cry until mommy and daddy takes them to Disnayland and/or buys them toys, toys from movies that haven't even come out yet...
This isn't a critsism of Disney - they are not in the business of making good movies, of making art, of contributing to the culture or to society in general...and I stronly feel that they shouldn't be blamed when they crank out another chunk of shit in an attractive package - that is what they DO, and in doing so they employ many thousands of people all over the world, who consume goods and services made by hundreds of thousands of other people etc etc, this is called 'life on earth'.... The funny thing is that at times in their history (even recently) they have contributed to our culture and have made good movies and they have made art...which makes their failures all the more stark.
all of the above holds true not just for Disney but for the industry in general...
there have been many hundreds of posts here and on other forums about they lack of creativity in film, and animation in particular, the fact that so few studios and producers are willing to take any chances at all...but why are we so suprised? why do we even question it? the film industry is just that - an industry....it's not a club that just anyone can join and say 'hey...I've got this great idea for a movie that's pretty original, I just need $100 million and 2 years to make it'...who of us would be willing to risk that kind of money on something that may not create any kind of return for years, if at all?...I'd like to say that I would - but when push comes to shove I don't think I would...we all have ideas for projects that we think are really good and that are creative and artistic - and maybe we're right...but in order to realize these ideas someone has to fork over the cash - at that person or company has the right to expect a return on that investment...and I can be honest with myself and say that many of my ideas probaby have only a limited appeal...
so this is why we get the same crap shoved in our faces year after year - in film, on TV, in books, in music...all of it...
those who can invest in films want to make money - and the safest way to do that is to try to reproduce the success of something that has come before...and the best way to do that is to make appeal to the same audience...and the best way to do that is to make it the same....don't take chances with anything!...don't cast with actors who are right for the role, hire popular actors...don't write complicated scripts that require any real investment on the part of the audience, use all the tried and true plot devices/characters/situations/conflicts/solutions...and get it all in under 90 minutes...with a soundtrack full of current pop stars if possible....
it's the rare exceptions to all this that make working in this industry bearable...the chance that one day you'll find yourself working on something that you're really happy and excited about...

as for The Wild...
All I can say is that I'm proud to have worked on it, mostly for the experience and the great people that I had the chance to work with...personally I like the look of it, I like the character designs and the style of animation - but that's just a personal taste...I think it's easily one of the most complex CG films ever made, lots of deep detail etc...and in all honesty I like the story and characters more than I did Madagascar...but again that's just my personal tastes....
if you have no intrest in The Wild - then by all means don't see it...I'd like it to be successful if only to help show the world the abilities of those who worked on it and of C.O.R.E. a great company to work for, full of smart and talented people that will do bigger and better things in the coming years.

flipnap
01-12-2006, 11:52 PM
amen to that..

Kid A
01-13-2006, 03:35 AM
I've resisted the temptation to reply to this thread after my initial post...but what the hell...

Having worked on The Wild for 2.5 years...


BANG ON!!!

kemijo
01-13-2006, 04:39 AM
I've resisted the temptation to reply to this thread after my initial post...but what the hell...

Having worked on The Wild for 2.5 years...(etc)

Fantastic post! This should be a sticky. Congrats on completing the film, I'll be seeing it for sure.

Cavebat
01-13-2006, 07:24 PM
as for The Wild...
All I can say is that I'm proud to have worked on it, mostly for the experience and the great people that I had the chance to work with...personally I like the look of it, I like the character designs and the style of animation - but that's just a personal taste...I think it's easily one of the most complex CG films ever made, lots of deep detail etc...and in all honesty I like the story and characters more than I did Madagascar...but again that's just my personal tastes....
if you have no intrest in The Wild - then by all means don't see it...I'd like it to be successful if only to help show the world the abilities of those who worked on it and of C.O.R.E. a great company to work for, full of smart and talented people that will do bigger and better things in the coming years.


Well said. :)

thekenny
01-13-2006, 07:50 PM
bo
you really have to change your signature file.
:thumbsup:

Cavebat
01-13-2006, 09:59 PM
bo
you really have to change your signature file.
:thumbsup:


Whoops. Done!

It's been a while since I've been on here.

:)

Capel
01-13-2006, 10:18 PM
I've resisted the temptation to reply to this thread after my initial post...but what the hell...

awesome post. perfectly put. and i'm looking forward to the film!

oboreo
01-14-2006, 02:00 AM
I think it's easily one of the most complex CG films ever made, lots of deep detail etc...

what do u mean by deep detail? 'cuz the backdrop and set don't look that detailed or refined.

JWRodegher
01-14-2006, 02:59 AM
Arctor, I couldn´t have said it better myself, not even tryin really hard.
Even if I think you are mostly right, I have to disagree with one thing.
I know it seems logical that the best way to achieve succes is to repeat the succes formula from someone else. It does work (unfortunatelly o thankfully?). BUT whenever something risky gets it´s way to the people, it grows so all over any kind of succes that´s overwhelming.

I mean, repeat formulas is ok, but it´s not the best way to achieve succes IMHO of course!

Back on topic, congratulations on this one, wish the best for you and the people at C.O.R.E.
cheers

Cavebat
01-14-2006, 03:53 AM
what do u mean by deep detail? 'cuz the backdrop and set don't look that detailed or refined.


sigh... :)

fromblownspeakers
01-14-2006, 07:26 PM
I was going to see this in the theatre anyways before seeing the trailer, to support fellow Canadian artists, but I look forward to seeing this movie now. If the story is decent I think it could be better than Madagascar. It was obvious Madagascar was rushed out to beat Disney/CORE as evident by it's lack of story and heart. Just please tell me The Wild won't have dancing lemurs... *shudders*

Congragulations! Glad you finsihed the movie! Too bad the feature division had to such down or what not

Emmanuel
01-14-2006, 09:23 PM
Oh, Madagascar actually had both heart and soul.
The movie captured *my* heart when they played the theme from "Born Free" right there at the beginning, absolutely perfect.
The design was fresh and funny, the comedy was decent, the characters were cool.
And at least they didn't let animals drive a car, like the "Wild" trailer shows.
And whatever "The Wild" will be, Madagascar definitly stands on its own feet, erm, paws, erm, hoof, erm...anyway !

BalrogBlog
01-15-2006, 07:33 AM
at least they didn't let animals drive a car, like the "Wild" trailer shows.
And whatever "The Wild" will be, Madagascar definitly stands on its own feet, erm, paws, erm, hoof, erm...anyway !

Ummm.........yeah.......the Wild Trailer shows the animals RIDING in the back of a GARBAGE TRUCK! No car driving, sorry. You'll have to cut this film up some other way.

Oh, and by the way, I REALLY hope you worked on Madagascar because this whole lovefest thing you are having with the film is kinda creepy. "It captured my heart"! ........ummmm..........yeah.......

BalrogBlog
01-15-2006, 07:38 AM
what do u mean by deep detail? 'cuz the backdrop and set don't look that detailed or refined.

You are judging DETAIL on a LOW RES trailer. Come on now! Are you really expecting to see detail in that tiny little trailer. Wait for the Hi res trailer or see it on the big screen and THEN you can complain all you want. Seriously..........some people!

BalrogBlog
01-15-2006, 07:48 AM
A Koala with an Irish accent? Do they have Koala's in Ireland?

Irish accent huh......yeeaaaahhhh...........you don't get out of New York much do ya bud. It's a British accent. Which leads to the question you SHOULD have been asking....Why is it a British accent and not an Australian accent?

BalrogBlog
01-15-2006, 08:08 AM
" I work at a bookstore and noticed this" ........"I personally hope this gets what it deserves (which at the moment, IMO, is trash). And the BS about seeing the movie just to support the industry is incredibly naiive. I don't want to get into that now, I really don't, so I won't go into that anymore."

You work at a BOOKSTORE and you are in a forum comprised mostly of industry professionals and you are pissing all over them saying you hope their hard work ends up in the trash. Is this film original? NO! Would it be nice if all films were fresh and original? YES!!! Is the Wild garbage, trash, refuse? NO! Far from it. If you don't like the film from that tiny trailer, say you don't like it and leave it at that.

Hey....can you get me a discount on The Making of THE WILD book when it comes out. You must get a discount at your work! What do ya say?

Emmanuel
01-15-2006, 02:38 PM
Ummm.........yeah.......the Wild Trailer shows the animals RIDING in the back of a GARBAGE TRUCK! No car driving, sorry. You'll have to cut this film up some other way.

Oh, and by the way, I REALLY hope you worked on Madagascar because this whole lovefest thing you are having with the film is kinda creepy. "It captured my heart"! ........ummmm..........yeah.......

Well, the thing is, I used to atch the tv show "Born Free" as a kid with my Dad each time, and we had a very exceptionally close relationship, he was my best friend, and he died
last year from cancer after some torturing months.
So, I go into "Madagascar" and they play the tune my dad and I whistled quite often cause we loved that tv show.
What do You exspect.It was perfect for me in that moment, that's why Mad captured my heart.Sometimes, things are as they seem, Ya know.

oboreo
01-16-2006, 06:13 AM
You are judging DETAIL on a LOW RES trailer. Come on now! Are you really expecting to see detail in that tiny little trailer. Wait for the Hi res trailer or see it on the big screen and THEN you can complain all you want. Seriously..........some people!

I was inquiring about , not judging, where the details are. Fine, given it's a low res trailer, there is still no hiding that the backgrounds and sets are stark and in lack of vibrance. I know it's mostly nite time, but the lighting makes the background looks blend.

KolbyJukes
01-16-2006, 06:54 AM
Looks nice, way better then I was expecting from the Disney preview on the Tarzan DVD. Anyway, I'll be seeing this in theatres for sure - I gotta support good Canuck studios.

Romero
01-16-2006, 06:24 PM
steady mate, i dont think that type of response is welcome here. We are only talking about a movie after all... not trying to find a cure for cancer.


Thanks Dad.


Haha that is 2 of the the funniest posts in sequence I have seen on cgtalk in a long time.

Anyhow I don't see what the big deal is. I think the movie looks good. Aside from the originality aspect which is quite controvertial, I'll definetly go see it. People go to movies for different reasons, sometimes it animation sometimes its story, and other times its for personal reference for brainstorming your own ideas. I personally think its silly to right this movie off because it has similarities to Madagascar. Although I do miss originality, I will still go see it.
Congrats Core. Tough luck on the timing!

BalrogBlog
01-17-2006, 07:49 PM
If you want to see the trailer for The Wild the way it was meant to be seen, it's playing before Hoodwinked. I know many of you don't want to go see Hoodwinked but I went in with the intention of leaving after the trailer and getting my money back (you can do that within the first 30 minutes or so) but I decided to watch a bit of the movie and got hooked. It was like a bad car accident. I couldn't take my eyes off of the horror. The story was really good though and funny to boot. If you can get past the terrible visuals check it out.

thekenny
01-17-2006, 08:48 PM
but what did you think about the trailer in the theatre. was it digital or film?

thoughts?
-k

BalrogBlog
01-18-2006, 04:54 AM
but what did you think about the trailer in the theatre. was it digital or film?

thoughts?
-k

The trailer looked great on the big screen. A HUGE difference from that TINY little trailer online. I'm definitely going to see this movie when it comes out. I'm pretty sure it was a film projection. Looked damn good though.

Terrell
01-18-2006, 05:53 AM
it's a Disney movie that was made by C.O.R.E.

Then it is not a Disney movie. Simply having Disney's name on the picture does not make it a Disney movie. It's simply someone else's movie produced by Disney, ala Pixar. If Disney Animation didn't create the picture, then it's not their film.

Shaderhacker
01-18-2006, 02:25 PM
If Disney Animation didn't create the picture, then it's not their film.

Or Circle 7 Animation.

-M

ClosPMT
01-18-2006, 05:43 PM
shouldn't there be a higher res. trailer online by now?? anyone know??

baby
01-18-2006, 11:36 PM
I read weird things.

Valiant is not a Disney Movie...it was distributed in certain country by Disney...IN france for example no Disney at all on the movie.

Then it's not because a movie is not created in the disney building that it's not a disney movie.
if Disney puted all the $$ to make it, then it's a Disney movie...and The Wild is.

http://www.excessif.com/imagescrit/thewildcinefrhd.jpg

ClosPMT
01-19-2006, 01:30 AM
no word on a high res trailer eh??

arctor
01-19-2006, 08:04 AM
GAH!!
I hope I can find a better version of that poster... :eek:


for my demo reel... :)

thekenny
01-19-2006, 09:55 PM
OH my GWAD.

check it out http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/thewild/

You can even get an ipod version of the trailer.
Freaky.
The blacks look a bit crushed on my laptop, but I think they aren't kiddn' around.
Freaky.
I mean almost 3 years to day we start talking about hiring for the show. It's been a long time coming.
-k

chrisWhite
01-19-2006, 11:46 PM
Sweet, that trailer looks awesome! Now about an HD version :)

-Sai-
01-19-2006, 11:52 PM
yeh .. impressive.

Great JOb CORE!!:buttrock:

ClosPMT
01-20-2006, 12:14 AM
where are those sceptics??? The Environments are the best part.. look at the jungle! god damn!

kurtw
01-20-2006, 01:20 AM
Awww yeah.

Now I can point my co-workers at something and go "See....see! You can do character work in Houdini."

Looks awesome, I wish they released the trailer like this originally instead of using the disney-tron stream-o-matic.

Martin_G_3D
01-20-2006, 05:46 AM
Is this CG or some fluffy puppets you win at the village fair composited in?

Not going to see this one.

-Sai-
01-20-2006, 07:43 AM
Is this CG or some fluffy puppets you win at the village fair composited in?



What a cheap post . May be you can tell us how to make it better.I know this is a cg forum and you have all your right to say anything but making this kind of blind statement makes you look like a fool.

Martin_G_3D
01-20-2006, 08:11 AM
What a cheap post . May be you can tell us how to make it better.I know this is a cg forum and you have all your right to say anything but making this kind of blind statement makes you look like a fool.

Cheap post? May look like one, but the stuffed animal look is what pops up my mind all the time so that is what I share.

Of course I could type a whole page of stuff that has the same conclusion if you want me too.

First of all, myself and most likely the general viewing audience is growing sick of the amount of movies like this one. Second, as stated, the character design bugs me as it really looks like stuffed animals brought to life. The animation seemed very odd as well in some parts (especially the scene he runs to the door while screaming for his kid and the giraffi walking with his legs in close-up), for the rest i see a lion, a hippo, penguins and a giraffe.. and the overall look of the snake makes me think of the snake in Robin Hood.

I gotta admit that the second time i watched it in the high res quicktime version it looked more appealing overall, but i dont think i can be bothered with this one.

Emmanuel
01-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Its a strange character design/style, not 100%realistic and not 100% toony, and absolutely not Disney-style like Lion King or Home on the Range.
I just don't like it, the eyes are not appealing to me, and there is nothing standing out, it looks so uniform somehow...maybe not colourful enough...the croc doesn't look either cool or mean, compared to for example Bruce the Shark...dunno, wait and see...

Cronholio
01-21-2006, 02:33 AM
Then it is not a Disney movie. Simply having Disney's name on the picture does not make it a Disney movie. It's simply someone else's movie produced by Disney, ala Pixar. If Disney Animation didn't create the picture, then it's not their film.

Nope, it actually is Disney's movie. It's their story, their money, their distribution, and Disney was very much in control of the production of The Wild. It's not a Disney Feature Animation movie, but it is most deffinitely a Disney movie. BTW, Reel FX also did the opening of the movie, the first sequence, and they did a fantastic job. Their work is very different from anything you've seen in any CG movie. Go check it out.

SiNo
01-21-2006, 07:53 AM
Hi,

Congrats to all of those who worked on this movie.
I can't wait to see it. And I thought Arctor's post is great.

SiNo

BalrogBlog
01-23-2006, 05:40 AM
Its a strange character design/style, not 100%realistic and not 100% toony, and absolutely not Disney-style like Lion King or Home on the Range.
I just don't like it, the eyes are not appealing to me, and there is nothing standing out, it looks so uniform somehow...maybe not colourful enough...the croc doesn't look either cool or mean, compared to for example Bruce the Shark...dunno, wait and see...

This movie is beautiful. Technically it's up there with the big studios. It's obvious that this studio had some really talented people work on this film. True the "DESIGN" of the film isn't fresh and fancy but it looks damn good for what it is. The story is very unoriginal which sucks but having some student/freelancer make silly comments on the LOOK of the film shouldn't upset the artists that worked on this film. They did a great job. Stuffed animals? It sickens me that the Hoodwinked threads are full of people saying that Hoodwinked looks great when it looks like a student did it and this film gets torn appart because it's Disney and it's unoriginal. Hate the story but stop ripping the look of the film appart. It looks incredible. I wish this team had worked on the Hoodwinked script. That would have been something!!!

Shaderhacker
01-23-2006, 05:46 AM
I wish this team had worked on the Hoodwinked script. That would have been something!!!

Well, if that was the case then Hookwinked would've been late coming to theatres and the budget would've been much more than $15M..:p

-M

dalmanna
01-23-2006, 05:46 PM
You're supposed to support your fellow animators. Is that $5.00 you'll save on renting as apposed to seeing how it was meant to be seen really that much?

Anyways I think it looks really good. I'll definately go and see it. Good on you CORE.


yeah dude i agree these people need to stop moaning at least go see it before you say it sucks.

thekenny
01-24-2006, 02:31 PM
Well, if that was the case then Hookwinked would've been late coming to theatres and the budget would've been much more than $15M..:p

-M

If you read Cory Edwards thread on animationnation it sounds like it wasn't made for 15$m
http://www.animationnation.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=011029

Yes it would cost more, but it wouldn't necessarily be late. If the story is locked and everyone knows what you are making then things can get done and get done on time. Feature animation traditionaly is plagued with story revisions which can often slow a production down. In the case of The Wild, the story changes helped improve the movie and they were worth taking some time finish and get right (IMHO). I think it is commendable that the "powers that be" actually took that approach rather that push the movie through the meat grinder just to 'beat' another product. We all just have to wait a few months and see how this one does in the theatres.
-k

arctor
01-24-2006, 05:31 PM
Well, if that was the case then Hookwinked would've been late coming to theatres and the budget would've been much more than $15M..:p

-M

there is a big difference between being late and having the people who are paying for and distributing the movie push the release and delivery dates back to improve the film.
The Wild was not late.

KOryH
01-24-2006, 11:56 PM
Well,
most likely will see this film on netflix.
With 2 young (too young for theaters) kids and a career. I have to be careful with how I spend my time.

The Wild just dose not have enough going for it to get me to go to the movies. And I really don't expect my family to be dragged along just for me to support an industry that puts out movies like this for a quick buck or to undermine the business of a rival company.

I work in the Animation Industry and I love it. I have been a life long fan. I like to see the industry grow, but throwing stuff out there just to be out there is not enjoyable for me to see.

2 cents

arctor
02-22-2006, 02:31 PM
now on Apple


...finally

lots of options :)

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/thewild/

ZebulonPi
02-22-2006, 03:16 PM
Take 1 part Madagascar and 1 part Finding Nemo, mix well...

Arctor, I WOULD be proud of what your part in making the movie is, and noone can ever take that experience away from you, but BOY, this has really got to be one of the most unoriginal movies I've heard about in a long time.

It's tough... when you're throwing out the amount of money that these things take, you need comfort, not originality, so you go for what works, not with what MIGHT work. John Altman's The Player is rife with how Hollywood sells movies ("think Raiders of the Lost Ark meets Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon!"), so it's no wonder someone high up bought the "think Madagascar meets Finding Nemo! It's gold I tell you, Gold!!" line. Seriously, who would fork over $100 million for a pitch of "it's an existencial story of the ramifications of Heisenburgs Uncertainty Principle, as portrayed by the homeless in their quest to find answers to life's meaning..." Every once in a while you get a Brokeback Mountain, but mostly you get Jurassic Park 4.

I hope the addition of this movie on your resume gets you a great position someplace making movies you can be proud of.

BRUTICUS
02-22-2006, 03:42 PM
Arctor, I WOULD be proud of what your part in making the movie is, and noone can ever take that experience away from you, but BOY, this has really got to be one of the most unoriginal movies I've heard about in a long time.

.

I really hope that sometime soon the industry and entertainment companies starts to realize this, that people want ORIGINALITY.

hilick
02-22-2006, 04:37 PM
sometimes I feel bad for some people who have to say something about not being original, just because of the thread's general tone. OK, it's been said that The wild doesn't have a story as original as Pixar movies have. Forgive me, I'm a huge Pixar fan, but I think they have the same story in all their movies, which puts family in the middle because they are making kids/family movies. Isn't it the same in Toy story, the fear that the new toy will take over and the other toys wouldn't be part of the family anymore, isn't it the same in bug's life, one goes away for the good of the family, isn't it the same in Toy Story 2 when Woody, being part of the family is taken away and the others are saving him, isn't it the same in Monsters inc when Sully did everything in his power to be reunite with the family (see the snowman sequence), not to mention Finding Nemo. They just have the best "in-betweeners" in the industry and they are taking a different path most of the time. I think they are the best storytellers, well along with Miyazaki and Ghibli, which in my view is very different from the story itself.
Not to mention that Disney is making movies for kids/family so I'm sure the kids wouldn't mind to see this one and I'm sure they will go to McDonalds for the toys, parents will go and buy the stuffed toys and take their family to Disneyland.
Now from the professional pov I thing The Wild looks incredible and is well animated, congrats to CORE.

Nichod
02-22-2006, 06:01 PM
You guys realize that not a single one of us at CGtalk is the target audience of this movie. And really they could care less what we think. Since we maybe make up 1% of the people that will actually see this movie. I will, I'll take my son, he'll love the voices, color and the talking animals. And I'll enjoy that it is CG. Anyway, see it, then judge.

kurtw
02-22-2006, 06:16 PM
I really hope that sometime soon the industry and entertainment companies starts to realize this, that people want ORIGINALITY.

Honestly, people don't know what the hell they want.

Often, originality is too risky. This industry is all about money and minimizing risk. A few months ago, Brad Bird put it best at a speech during a presentation on the history of animation. Hollywood is a big dumb shark that goes after whatever simple concepts that will make money. You get a blockbuster that features a hero with a red shirt, then soon all the blockbusters will have guys with a red shirt.

Try to get a studio or bank to finance a 50 to 150 million dollar project with a unique concept. It would be extremely difficult to do so. If you want to make a project based on a concept that already been done and is somewhat profitable, then its an easier pill for the investor to swallow.

You find studios taking risks on products when they have an established set of films that will make money, or you may end up like Lions Gate, launching a few original films that tanked causing its shares to drop.

People don't really want originality, most people are happy to be spoon fed stuff that they are told to like. Look at television. That entire medium is based upon selling viewers to advertisers. You want to entertain people? Yes. Why? So you can sell them bars of soap and beer.

If you want originality look at shorts or independent films, where the risk involved in producing them is lower.

If any industry needs originality it would be the radio and music industry :)

kurtw
02-22-2006, 06:29 PM
I hope the addition of this movie on your resume gets you a great position someplace making movies you can be proud of.

This takes the cake for the most idiotic post I've seen on this message board.

mangolass
02-22-2006, 07:50 PM
it's no wonder someone high up bought the "think Madagascar meets Finding Nemo! It's gold I tell you, Gold!!" line.

Think about it ~ movies like this take more than a year to make ~ so it would have been written and approved years before Madagascar came out, right?

I don't even know which script was written first ~ not that it matters. Coming out after Madagascar, The Wild looks will suffer at the box office because it looks unoriginal. I don't think that was their intention when they started the production.

I might rent it eventually, tho, even though I already saw Madagascar in the theater.

LT

beaker
02-22-2006, 07:51 PM
I really hope that sometime soon the industry and entertainment companies starts to realize this, that people want ORIGINALITY.Stop fooling yourself. People want to be entertained. If they want originality then every one of the oscar contenders would have made over 100 million by now. Look at any top 10 list for last year. All really good movies but none of them made much money (many lost money).

beaker
02-22-2006, 08:04 PM
I hope the addition of this movie on your resume gets you a great position someplace making movies you can be proud of.

This takes the cake for the most idiotic post I've seen on this message board.The trouble is that people outside the biz don't understand how the everything works out here. People think that life is a cakewalk in hollywood and they lay red carpets at your feet. Also of course everyone in cgi can see the future and knows exactly what movies are good and which ones are bad.

First, you can't always choose which movie you work on, well a little bit, but it all comes down to timing of when projects start up. Do you want to wait 3 months with no work and be on an awesome movie or do you want to pay the bills? Also when your working on a movie, you never know if it is going to be good or not. Everyone who worked on Shrek thought it was going to bomb. After watching the same scenes 100 times over, you loose perspective and have a hard time figuring out how it is going to do.

No matter how much crap people feed you about putting "story" in your demo reel, it makes no difference when your actually working in the field. All of us are employees and crafsmen who implement other people's ideas. Not story people, not the director. We have zero say on what does and doesn't go into the movie.

I have had many early screenings of movies at studios my friends work at. They would ask me what I liked and what I didn't and what jokes I thought we're funny. Many times they would be surprised and be like "oh you thought that part was funny? We all thought that was stupid and kept wishing they would take it out of the movie."

kurtw
02-22-2006, 09:13 PM
First, you can't always choose which movie you work on, well a little bit, but it all comes down to timing of when projects start up. Do you want to wait 3 months with no work and be on an awesome movie or do you want to pay the bills? Also when your working on a movie, you never know if it is going to be good or not. Everyone who worked on Shrek thought it was going to bomb. After watching the same scenes 100 times over, you loose perspective and have a hard time figuring out how it is going to do.


That is dead on, people don't realize that in the end, it doesn't matter. It's not your film. You are hired as a worker or vendor to provide a service for a production company. Do I care what film I work on? No. Do I care about getting my pay check? Yes. Ideally we all get to work on cool stuff, but most times you work on mundane shit, fixing deformers, popping shadows or geometry, breaking glass, fixing pipeline stuff, etc. What if a movie I worked on did bad? I don't care. Its not my movie, it's not my millions of dollars at stake. I don't have a vested interest in it other then the movie hopefully doing well enough to earn a sequel and having a chance to bid on more work.

Who do people think work on The Wild? Or any other animated feature? The same people who worked on Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Incredibles and many other fx films and animated features. Lot's of very experienced and talented people work on these films for a living. If it's a good film or a bad film, who do you think will get the blame? Not the artists, usually the company executives, the director , the screen writers or the producer.

If the client wants me to do a flying pink elephant zooming at the camera with a monkey on its back throwing poop at the German Luftwaffe for a World War 2 film, guess what? That's his right if that is his vision. I'm just getting paid to follow orders.

ZebulonPi
02-23-2006, 01:09 AM
I'm just getting paid to follow orders.

I'm sorry, I thought you might have been an artist, my bad.

To arctor, to whom my post was intended, I STILL hope you enjoyed your experience, and I STILL hope you get to do things in CG that you WANT to do, not just get paid for. There should still be artistry in CG, and not just vert slaves in cubicles.

ZebulonPi
02-23-2006, 01:28 AM
The trouble is that people outside the biz don't understand how the everything works out here. People think that life is a cakewalk in hollywood and they lay red carpets at your feet. Also of course everyone in cgi can see the future and knows exactly what movies are good and which ones are bad.

First, you can't always choose which movie you work on, well a little bit, but it all comes down to timing of when projects start up. Do you want to wait 3 months with no work and be on an awesome movie or do you want to pay the bills? Also when your working on a movie, you never know if it is going to be good or not. Everyone who worked on Shrek thought it was going to bomb. After watching the same scenes 100 times over, you loose perspective and have a hard time figuring out how it is going to do.

No matter how much crap people feed you about putting "story" in your demo reel, it makes no difference when your actually working in the field. All of us are employees and crafsmen who implement other people's ideas. Not story people, not the director. We have zero say on what does and doesn't go into the movie.

I have had many early screenings of movies at studios my friends work at. They would ask me what I liked and what I didn't and what jokes I thought we're funny. Many times they would be surprised and be like "oh you thought that part was funny? We all thought that was stupid and kept wishing they would take it out of the movie."

I SO don't think what you guys have to go through is a cakewalk. Unlike a lot of people doing this, I'm older, and have worked in IT as a contractor, so I understand the whole "need to get paid" thing. I STILL think that if you're only in CG to get a paycheck and could care less about what you're working on, that artistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you do, you shouldn't be doing it. Whatever you touch will be crap because there's no SOUL in it. Disney took the soul out of animation, turned it into a money machine, and people hated them for it. kurtw seems to think there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm an idiot for believing in it. I think he should be a plumber if he wants a steady paycheck.

jeremybirn
02-23-2006, 03:06 AM
I think beaker and kurtw made good points. To act as if they aren't artists or don't care about their work either misses or ignores what they were trying to explain. Even the best films couldn't get made if the whole crew were playing junior screenwriter or wanna-be director all the time, trying to second guess what they were asked to do by the production. Sometimes you may luck-out and work on a film with a great story,other times the screenplay might seem downright stupid to you (and you might be right or you might be surprised about how the film turns out), and other times something may look great but a year or two into the production another studio beats you into theaters with something similar. But, no matter what, you do the best you can at your job and take pride in that, and that's pretty much the beginning and the end of the story.

-jeremy

Romero
02-23-2006, 03:11 AM
It surprises me how many children are actually on this site. I have seen numorous post by a few different members re-itterate that exact same shit over and over. And how people are so narrow minded that they won't see a movie because it has similarities to something that has already come out. Also its funny to see people who don't even have the balls to show there names try and tell industry professionals how things are run in the animation industry.

Back to the topic at hand, my question is for any of the artists who had worked on the film. Was The Wild made purely in Houdini ?

beaker
02-23-2006, 03:26 AM
I STILL think that if you're only in CG to get a paycheck and could care less about what you're working on, that artistry has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you do, you shouldn't be doing it. Whatever you touch will be crap because there's no SOUL in it. Disney took the soul out of animation, turned it into a money machine, and people hated them for it. kurtw seems to think there's nothing wrong with that, and I'm an idiot for believing in it. I think he should be a plumber if he wants a steady paycheck.I think you missed the boat on what we said. Nowhere did we mention that we're only in this for the paycheck.

We are simply giving you a little insite of how things work on a film. I have had people from the outside scold me for a crappy product as if it was my fault for the story or the bad dialogue. We do the best we can do with what we are given whether or not the project is crappy.

Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, etc... (naming the turtles here :) ) all had many other people building their most famous pieces. They couldn't have possibly produced the huge body of sculptures, cathedrals, buildings, etc... all on their own. Other then apprentices, could you actually name one of the hundreds of people who were swinging the hammer building these great works of art?

Have no illusions about this industry if you want to get into it. Cg people working in film are craftsmen and technicians, not really artists. We are carrying out to the best of our abilities the craft to interpret someone elses ideas, designs and story. When you become the art director, film director, designer, etc..., then you are doing creative artistic work. This isn't a bad thing, just how it is.

kurtw
02-23-2006, 04:29 AM
I'm sorry, I thought you might have been an artist, my bad.

Oh no. I'm just the Janitor here. The toilets clog up something fierce after BBQ day. :thumbsup:

arctor
02-23-2006, 04:43 AM
jeremy and beaker have it right...

I can say that from my point of view everyone who worked on The Wild did the very best job they could and I'm proud of the work we did and to have worked with them, which is saying quite a bit really...as for the film itself - we were never a part of that, things are very different when you're looking at bones and nulls and polygons and fur...so much damn fur...for 2 and a half years...so good or bad...?...well that's up the the audience to decide in a couple of months...


@ Romero >
not that it matters much but most of the modeling was done in Maya (there really isn't any such thing as a Houdini modeler), then brought into Houdini for final modeling touches etc. Everything else was Houdini...rigging, animation, finaling, fur, feathers, shading, lighting, crowds, water etc etc...then prman and Shake...

ZebulonPi
02-23-2006, 05:40 AM
I think you missed the boat on what we said. Nowhere did we mention that we're only in this for the paycheck.

Do I care what film I work on? No. Do I care about getting my pay check? Yes. What if a movie I worked on did bad? I don't care. Its not my movie, it's not my millions of dollars at stake. I don't have a vested interest in it other then the movie hopefully doing well enough to earn a sequel and having a chance to bid on more work. I'm just getting paid to follow orders.

Sorry, beaker, I was responding more to this than anything else, that, and kurt calling my post idiotic when all I was trying to do was support arctor. Obviously I don't know the industry, not being a part of it, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I still find it interesting that my ideas on people working in CG to be "artistic" were met with such venom, but maybe a lot of people don't see their jobs that way. Again, my lack of experience in the industry, shining through. I will take all these responses and ponder them, and enjoy the fact that I do this as a hobby, and not as a job.

Thank you for your insight, gentlemen.

crozonia
02-23-2006, 05:48 AM
Actually, myself and another character modeler modelled exclusively in Houdini. (We came from SoftImage backgrounds, so why learn MAYA?) I modelled the Rhino and the Rottweillers that appear in the trailer in Houdini. But like you said, it doesn't matter which package was used for modeling so long as it was done RIGHT. This movie is proof that Houdini is not just an FX software, but a complete character animation package.

jeremy and beaker have it right...

I can say that from my point of view everyone who worked on The Wild did the very best job they could and I'm proud of the work we did and to have worked with them, which is saying quite a bit really...as for the film itself - we were never a part of that, things are very different when you're looking at bones and nulls and polygons and fur...so much damn fur...for 2 and a half years...so good or bad...?...well that's up the the audience to decide in a couple of months...


@ Romero >
not that it matters much but most of the modeling was done in Maya (there really isn't any such thing as a Houdini modeler), then brought into Houdini for final modeling touches etc. Everything else was Houdini...rigging, animation, finaling, fur, feathers, shading, lighting, crowds, water etc etc...then prman and Shake...

Cronholio
02-23-2006, 05:59 AM
Actually, myself and another character modeler modelled exclusively in Houdini. (We came from SoftImage backgrounds, so why learn MAYA?) I modelled the Rhino and the Rottweillers that appear in the trailer in Houdini. But like you said, it doesn't matter which package was used for modeling so long as it was done RIGHT. This movie is proof that Houdini is not just an FX software, but a complete character animation package.

Yeah, I was actually shocked to see that other character modeler using Houdini, but he was an old Softimage guy so he wouldn't know a good modeling package if he were hit in the head with it. ;p

Seriously, I haven't modeled in anything but Houdini for a couple years. It has it's quirks but it's entirely useable. I watched that Freedom of Teach Human Anatomy DVD and was suprised to find Houdini is capable of performing everything required in the video without any additional SOPs or scripts, right out of the box. The guy in the video uses Maya and half the tools he uses are scripts provided by the community.

kurtw
02-23-2006, 06:45 AM
Sorry, beaker, I was responding more to this than anything else, that, and kurt calling my post idiotic when all I was trying to do was support arctor. Obviously I don't know the industry, not being a part of it, and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I still find it interesting that my ideas on people working in CG to be "artistic" were met with such venom, but maybe a lot of people don't see their jobs that way. Again, my lack of experience in the industry, shining through. I will take all these responses and ponder them, and enjoy the fact that I do this as a hobby, and not as a job.

Thank you for your insight, gentlemen.

It didn't sound like you were supporting Arctor or anyone else who worked on The Wild, myself included. What's a person susposed to think when you tell them that hopefully next time they may work on a project that they would be proud of. You are implying that The Wild is something that someone should not be proud of, which is clearly not the case. Ask anyone who worked on it. It came across as a bit anal.

As for my other comments, I was rhetorically speaking. I did come across as highly mercenary and perhaps I should have rephrased things to make them more clear.

Having the luxury to pick and choose what film you work on is very rare. If you have a choice between projects, then yes, you can decide whats in your best interest to do, but its all in context. If you were at a studio and theres 2 projects on the go, one is a very high profile film and the other is a television commerical, what would your choice be? It would depend on the specific task required on those projects. If the film job was cutting mattes, and the tv job was animating. Some people would pick the tv job if they love animation, and others would take the more tedious film job in hopes of getting a film credit. Different strokes for different folks. If I don't have a choice, thats fine, it doesn't bug me, work is work, you work on cool projects, and sometimes you work on boring stuff from time to time. Back to the point...

I'd think most people would give (or has already gave :) ) their left nut to work on a big budget Disney film.

ZebulonPi
02-23-2006, 11:32 AM
It didn't sound like you were supporting Arctor or anyone else who worked on The Wild, myself included. What's a person susposed to think when you tell them that hopefully next time they may work on a project that they would be proud of. You are implying that The Wild is something that someone should not be proud of, which is clearly not the case. Ask anyone who worked on it. It came across as a bit anal.

Well, then, I need to apologize to everyone, especially you and arctor; arctor, because I somehow along the line came to the conclusion that he was NOT proud of The Wild, and was working off that, and you, kurt, for sticking up for working in CG overall, and me missing that point.

Now that I've pissed off everyone in the CG industry while still having less than 10 posts to my name here, I'll go slink off into a corner and start working on those legal name change forms...:blush:

dalmanna
02-23-2006, 11:41 AM
Oh no. I'm just the Janitor here. The toilets clog up something fierce after BBQ day. :thumbsup:

lol man, it seems the quest for the perfect rig is nothing compared to the quest for a clean toilet.

dalmanna
02-23-2006, 11:43 AM
If the client wants me to do a flying pink elephant zooming at the camera with a monkey on its back throwing poop at the German Luftwaffe for a World War 2 film, guess what? That's his right if that is his vision. I'm just getting paid to follow orders.

now that sounds like a movie i wanna see.

ZebulonPi
02-23-2006, 12:41 PM
Having the luxury to pick and choose what film you work on is very rare. If you have a choice between projects, then yes, you can decide whats in your best interest to do, but its all in context. If you were at a studio and theres 2 projects on the go, one is a very high profile film and the other is a television commerical, what would your choice be? It would depend on the specific task required on those projects. If the film job was cutting mattes, and the tv job was animating. Some people would pick the tv job if they love animation, and others would take the more tedious film job in hopes of getting a film credit. Different strokes for different folks. If I don't have a choice, thats fine, it doesn't bug me, work is work, you work on cool projects, and sometimes you work on boring stuff from time to time. Back to the point...

I'd think most people would give (or has already gave :) ) their left nut to work on a big budget Disney film.

You know, I've been thinking about this, and I think I understand the differences of thinking on this (and please correct me if I'm wrong). When you're starting out, just learning stuff, you can do whatever you want to... model what you want, animate what you want, it's all up to you, so you get used to that, having that choice to do whatever you want.
Unless you're the head of a CG company, though (and maybe not even then), once you start working in the CG world, you don't GET a choice any more. You can pick what jobs you want to work on, but any work is good work when you're trying to gain experience and make a living (something I understand from IT contracting), and you take your pride and your artistry in your own work, in your own little piece of what you're doing, and don't really worry about the big picture, as it's totally out of your hands.

Does that sound right?

arctor
02-23-2006, 02:51 PM
You can pick what jobs you want to work on, but any work is good work when you're trying to gain experience and make a living (something I understand from IT contracting), and you take your pride and your artistry in your own work, in your own little piece of what you're doing, and don't really worry about the big picture, as it's totally out of your hands.

Does that sound right?

yeah, that's about the long and short of it...

sometimes I get asked by people what they should get into in the industry, modeling, animation etc etc...and I always tell them to do something that they enjoy - because they'll be doing it for 8-10 hours a day - every day, sometimes for months on end...there is always the chance to do other things depending on the studio and the project but it's not guaranteed...at the end of the day this is a job.


@ jim - I guess I wasn't paying attention to you guys LOL...I thought those models came out of Maya into Houdini...ah well nice to see...

Romero
02-23-2006, 05:32 PM
@ Romero >
not that it matters much but most of the modeling was done in Maya

Not at all, I was just curious how much of the production was based around the app.




@ Romero >
(there really isn't any such thing as a Houdini modeler)

I beg to differ......:scream: Anyhow good job and congrats, looking forward to seeing it when it comes out.

thekenny
02-23-2006, 05:56 PM
Not at all, I was just curious how much of the production was based around the app.

Like Arctor said.... "most" models were done in Maya.. that would include sets/props/vechiles, and some characters. As Jim mentioned the occassional model, more towards the end of production was modeled in Houdini. "most" set/props/vechiles etc were textured in Maya and transferred to Houdini. Things like trees/grass/leaves were done in Houdini with custom tools. Characters were UV'd in Houdini. 3D paint was done via DeepPaint/Photoshop. Fur/Feathers were done with custom tools in Houdini. Rigging, animation, lighting, vfx were done in Houdini. Lighting used Halo with a custom tool for color correction, and renders done via Renderman were sent to Shake. The majority of the pipeline was done in and around Houdini. We built our own asset management tool and database which help organize everything. It was pretty slick, sometimes a bit brute force, but at times very elegant.

As far as Houdini and modeling. You can do it and you can do it well if you give yourself a chance to learn. Sure it isn't as slick as some of the other packages, but it has its advantages. For the most part my experience is that someone with 'classic' softimage skills will adjust faster to Houdini than someone without, but I've been surprised before:)



-k

voodoomonkey
02-23-2006, 09:20 PM
[QUOTE=thekenny]Like Arctor said.... "most" models were done in Maya.. that would include sets/props/vechiles, and some characters. As Jim mentioned the occassional model, more towards the end of production was modeled in Houdini. "most" set/props/vechiles etc were textured in Maya and transferred to Houdini. Things like trees/grass/leaves were done in Houdini with custom tools. Characters were UV'd in Houdini. 3D paint was done via DeepPaint/Photoshop.

Hey that's not true. Did we forget Kazar? ^_^
I started him right around the same time as Ryan.
So that would put him being created towards the beginning of the show.
True there was some back and forth. But that was mainly due to the tools not working
at the time. That of course is no longer an issue.

JIM, You and Rak taking all the Houdini credit... shame.:D

As far as Houdini and modeling. You can do it and you can do it well if you give yourself a chance to learn. Sure it isn't as slick as some of the other packages, but it has its advantages. For the most part my experience is that someone with 'classic' softimage skills will adjust faster to Houdini than someone without, but I've been surprised before:)


I got to say guys, I enjoyed modeling in Houdini.
I found it had a blend between Mirai and Softimage.
Having both of those backgrounds before digging into Houdini helped allot.
So I second Kenny on his opinion.
Basically if you know what's going on under the hood, you'll have a blast.
If you don't, you'll struggle.
It's like Uber software, you can make it into anything you want.
Mind you I'm no Guru like Kenny. We can't all be Houdini Gods.

BTW, I'm damn proud of being part of the team that brought this monster to life.
I remember when we started there was all of maybe 20 of us.
The building was still undergoing construction.
You'd come in and there would be dust everywhere.... :D Ah, good times!
I only spent 18 months on the show. I wasn't there for the whole ride.
But I know how hard everyone worked.
How many long hours we spent trying to perfect the look.
So a shout out to my fellow co-workers.
Chin up, be proud. It's absolutely amazing the work everyone did.
I'm stunned by the beauty of the images.
Props to you all and may the future be bright.
Cheers
Cesar Dacol Jr.
Aka, The Voodoo Monkey

crozonia
02-24-2006, 02:54 PM
Oh, sorry Cesar! Didn't know you modelled Kazar in Houdini. See Arctor? There's plenty of closet Houdini character modellers out there!

CGTalk Moderation
02-24-2006, 02:54 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.