PDA

View Full Version : Monster House


PaulHellard
08-11-2006, 10:07 AM
Barbara Robertson chats to Gil Kenan and the team about the many challenges in animation and motion capture encountered during the production of this entertaining tale.

Click the image to go to the feature story.

http://features.cgsociety.org/stories/2006_08/monster_house/img04.jpg (http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3695)

Breinmeester
08-11-2006, 10:44 AM
This picture reminds me of this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0782141293/103-3660714-5897424?v=glance&n=283155

and of Mme. Tussaud's,
and of Night of the Living Dead,
and of Polar Express.

ManuelM
08-11-2006, 11:09 AM
come on the picture isnt that bad. acually i think if it was posted in the 3d works gallery by one of cgtalks users, it would go frontpage immediately.

danne82
08-11-2006, 11:27 AM
like their expressions, nicely done

RobertoOrtiz
08-11-2006, 12:31 PM
This was an incredible movie, that I am dying to see again.

Nice sccop with this interview!

-R

Breinmeester
08-11-2006, 12:32 PM
come on the picture isnt that bad. acually i think if it was posted in the 3d works gallery by one of cgtalks users, it would go frontpage immediately.

They're all exactly the same and completely symmetrical. To me they look like puppets not living characters in this picture, especially the girl.

jeremybirn
08-11-2006, 12:48 PM
They're all exactly the same and completely symmetrical. To me they look like puppets not living characters in this picture, especially the girl.

I agree that's not the best still, but if you check out this article about the movie:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=2948
they say that they wanted them to look like puppets, but that they went to great lengths to keep them from being symmetrical, scanning the sculptures, modeling, and rigging asymmetrical models without ever cheating by copying one side into the other.

-jeremy

mrwilt
08-11-2006, 01:16 PM
I bought the book The Art and Making of Monster House. What a fantastic book! The artwork is simply beautiful. I highly recommend it.

pimeto
08-11-2006, 01:58 PM
i cant realy understand why this movie costs 75milion dolars ?
wheare the hell are these money go ?

who is takin such big payments :)

ffs, this movie is costing like a real movie, even more ?!
and it dont seems to be the TOP of the CG! ?!

RobertoOrtiz
08-11-2006, 02:51 PM
People trust me on this one.

This is a very GOOD film, cg or otherwise.
-R

Djampa
08-11-2006, 04:22 PM
With 40.000 animation controls on that 'house character'...
An animation team must go crazy... *lol*

About the budget for CG films in US, why they get up to 75 million or over, if there is something to read deep about it, somewhere (a link or so) it would be valuable to sake our curiosities, maybe a nice CGSociety article?

I know how huge gets all the staff team to produce such kind of films, we just need to look at the credits, with a little bit of simple math we can guess how much money was invested in human resources, with the price of software by station licences, hardware, post production including the distribution costs, everything else... well... not hard to think of 75million, but it could be really great to read about it here at CGSociety from some heavy producer to understand how it goes from the Business Plan to the final stage in terms of investments. Obviously the hundreds or thousands of Excel sheets are quite confidential but some idea would put some light over it.

Thanks once more for another great article. Best wishes.

frogspasm
08-11-2006, 04:43 PM
i cant realy understand why this movie costs 75milion dolars ?
wheare the hell are these money go ?

who is takin such big payments :)

ffs, this movie is costing like a real movie, even more ?!
and it dont seems to be the TOP of the CG! ?!

Firm release dates, and lots of overtime pay. SPI's overhead.
A pretty large cast of name actors. (Not the highest paid in the world, but they still cost a lot of monery.)
Writer's and Director's and Producer's fees.
Union picture.

It really does add up.
Thesmokinggun.com posted a copy of M. Night's "The Village". It's give you an idea of where all that money goes. (Yes, it's not a CG film, but it still should give you an idea)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/hollywoodsides/0228061woods1.html

And I agree with Robert, this movie rocks! I saw it in 3D in the front row, the only seats left when we got there. I thought it was going to be a horrible experience, but it blew me away.

~Mike D.

Darktwin
08-11-2006, 05:41 PM
Agreeing with Robert

This movie was amazing, I enjoyed it from beginning to end, characters were developed very well. The humor was dead on, the story behind the house and the old man was awesome. I really liked how everything came together. Saw it in 3d at the metreon, an truely entertaining adventerous film.

Narratorway
08-11-2006, 05:46 PM
I agree that's not the best still, but if you check out this article about the movie:
http://mag.awn.com/index.php?ltype=pageone&article_no=2948
they say that they wanted them to look like puppets, but that they went to great lengths to keep them from being symmetrical, scanning the sculptures, modeling, and rigging asymmetrical models without ever cheating by copying one side into the other.

-jeremy

All of which means nothing if it still ends up looking completely symetrical, and all the characters did. That said, I'd have to say this is my favorite cg movie so far in theaters for human character design, just baaaarely getting past Incredibles.

And I agree that the movie is incredibly good, but most certainly not for animation (aside from the house of course). The mo cap is bad, pure and simple. I've seen the technique come close to fooling me, but watching this actually felt like a step backwards. I think it's the first animated movie I've seen that I liked in spite of the animation. I find that tragic.

pimeto
08-11-2006, 06:09 PM
With 40.000 animation controls on that 'house character'...
An animation team must go crazy... *lol*

About the budget for CG films in US, why they get up to 75 million or over, if there is something to read deep about it, somewhere (a link or so) it would be valuable to sake our curiosities, maybe a nice CGSociety article?

I know how huge gets all the staff team to produce such kind of films, we just need to look at the credits, with a little bit of simple math we can guess how much money was invested in human resources, with the price of software by station licences, hardware, post production including the distribution costs, everything else... well... not hard to think of 75million, but it could be really great to read about it here at CGSociety from some heavy producer to understand how it goes from the Business Plan to the final stage in terms of investments. Obviously the hundreds or thousands of Excel sheets are quite confidential but some idea would put some light over it.

Thanks once more for another great article. Best wishes.
do you have any idea how much costed the Final fantasy movie ? (spirits within) if that was the name...) ???

well, i dont think that the company that made the movie has to pay licences for the software that is used, for every project ?! or am i wrong ?

P_T
08-11-2006, 06:51 PM
Nice article, would've been better if there's some "behind the scene" pictures to go with the descriptions instead of just still shots from the movie, you know... like the model's wireframe, rig setup etc.

vintagetone
08-11-2006, 07:40 PM
In latest issue of ComputerGraphics I think there is an article on Monster House, in it, and to the point of those who experienced less than state of the art mocap, that the director wanted a more, "touched by human hands" animation look, more like a traditional Harryhausen type of stop animation. They said that to achieve that effect one thing they did was turn off the motion blur. The director really wanted to get a more "fingerprints visible on the model" type look.

DaveW
08-11-2006, 07:57 PM
All of which means nothing if it still ends up looking completely symetrical, and all the characters did.

Looking over the still for 30 seconds I can easily spot nonsymmetrical noses, ears, hair, eyebrows. I think ManuelM is right, if this had been posted in the gallery nobody would be trashing it.

I've only seen the trailer so I can't comment on the story, but the animation didn't look right. You can't get a Ray Harryhausen look with mocap. Mocap is fine when used appropriately, but I think the character designs here are begging to be completely hand animated. Flushed Away looks like they did a much better job of mimicing stop-motion.

I probably would've waited until the DVD to watch this, but all the glowing reviews just might make me change my mind.

lovisx
08-11-2006, 08:02 PM
I must admit that I really liked Monster House, both visually and story wise. Yes the animation was a bit awkward in areas, but I was able to comfortably suspend disbelief. I'm no animator though.

clarkartist
08-11-2006, 08:48 PM
It's good that people here can recognize the difference between good animation and the mocap stuff. The thing is though, the average movie goer doesn't. My own family didn't know the difference and they didn't care whether it was mocap or not. That bothers me. My biggest nightmare is that it might mean more mocap films and less animation (meaning less jobs for animators). I mean, isn't it more cheap to go mocap? I'm not familiar with motion capture at all so I don't really know. Could someone give their thoughts on this?

clarkartist
08-11-2006, 08:55 PM
It's great that people here no the difference between good animation and mocap. The thing is though, the average movie goer doesn't. I mean, my own family didn't know the difference. They didn't care if it was motion capture or not. That worries me. My biggest nightmare is that more movies like this will be made and less animated ones (meaning less animation jobs in the future). Is it cheaper to use motion capture? I'm not familiar with the cost of mocap so I don't know. Could someone share some light on this?

aRTCy
08-11-2006, 08:57 PM
It's great that people here no the difference between good animation and mocap. The thing is though, the average movie goer doesn't. I mean, my own family didn't know the difference. They didn't care if it was motion capture or not. That worries me. My biggest nightmare is that more movies like this will be made and less animated ones (meaning less animation jobs in the future). Is it cheaper to use motion capture? I'm not familiar with the cost of mocap so I don't know. Could someone share some light on this?

Breinmeester
08-11-2006, 08:58 PM
People trust me on this one.

This is a very GOOD film, cg or otherwise.
-R

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm very much anticipating this film! When I saw the trailer it gave me that 'Goonies' and 'Back to the Future' feel. I will definately see it and most probaply enjoy it very much!

CelticArtist
08-11-2006, 09:41 PM
It's great that people here no the difference between good animation and mocap. The thing is though, the average movie goer doesn't. I mean, my own family didn't know the difference. They didn't care if it was motion capture or not. That worries me. My biggest nightmare is that more movies like this will be made and less animated ones (meaning less animation jobs in the future). Is it cheaper to use motion capture? I'm not familiar with the cost of mocap so I don't know. Could someone share some light on this?

Same argument when polar came out, there were just as many animators for Monster House as there were for a 'traditional' 3d Animated film. They used it for the style, not for the cost.

aRTCy
08-11-2006, 09:46 PM
Same argument when polar came out, there were just as many animators for Monster House as there were for a 'traditional' 3d Animated film. They used it for the style, not for the cost.

Oh, ok. Well that puts me at ease now.

LASKER
08-11-2006, 11:25 PM
it was an absolute joy to light and comp on this film. The effects artists produced some dynamite work, and it was really cool integrating it into the shots. The sups had real attention to lighting and shadows which was nice.

Mike

jeremybirn
08-12-2006, 12:22 AM
My biggest nightmare is that more movies like this will be made and less animated ones (meaning less animation jobs in the future). Is it cheaper to use motion capture? I'm not familiar with the cost of mocap so I don't know. Could someone share some light on this?

In terms of what's good for the industry, the biggest threat right now is having a glut of too many similar productions that audiences get bored with. A film that's interesting and different (in content, not just production media) is a good thing for the industry in that regard. MoCap opens CG films up to different directors with different backgrounds and directing styles.

I never heard how many months animators spent on Monster House. They mentioned a 4 month shooting schedule. I don't know how many months of anim work, but as CelticArtist said, that wasn't the main idea.

-jeremy

robcat2075
08-12-2006, 02:02 AM
Thesmokinggun.com posted a copy of M. Night's "The Village". It's give you an idea of where all that money goes. (Yes, it's not a CG film, but it still should give you an idea)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/hollywoodsides/0228061woods1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/hollywoodsides/0228061woods1.html)

That 79 page itemization looks like a license to cook up any cost you want for a film. Just throw in some lame task like "2nd assistant accountant", make up an expense for him and who will ever know if such a person ever worked on the film or not?

I bet there's 100 people listed there that the director never met.

I saw "DGA Trainee" listed twice. I presume that's "Directors Guild of America"?

Directors in training? I've never heard a director talk about how he had been a DGA Trainee at one point.

And DGA trainees get paid?

vintagetone
08-12-2006, 05:02 AM
It could very well be that the industry has surpassed itself technically, perhaps not yet economically in the studio pipeline, but certainly in the end result that the audience experiences, and like the work produced by the artists for the academy of the last century, our technical perfection has lost the dynamism and ability to communicate and transmit the passion of the artist as he/she tells their story. It may be that more "mocap" connected to the creative process rather than to the motion process may inject a bit of realism into this art form and help the audience connect more to the story telling. It really is the story that is the point of the exercise after all, and the personality of the medium rather than its slavish obedience to the physics of every day life that brings us into the dream that is stronger than our waking moments. That is why I still enjoy Hitchcock's films.

Remember that light bulb Hitchcock put in the glass of milk that Cary Grant carried up the stairs? Our mastery of physical and optical virtual reality using the latest computer technology should serve to broaden our pallet of expressions, not limit us to the mundane every day experience that our audience had before they entered the theater to view our work.

There may be a case where puppets are more effective than presenting convincing real hitherto unknown species of life that properly obey every known law of physics and evolutionary extrapolation. The key is remembering that if the audience is not imagining and contributing and identifying their own life stories and experiences along with the narrative, and instead they are only passively receiving your images, they are sleeping, not participating.

crazy3dman
08-12-2006, 09:08 AM
People trust me on this one.

This is a very GOOD film, cg or otherwise.
-R

Quoted for agreement. The whole family loved this movie. Chowder is hilarious!

I really liked the "puppet" look to the characters. I love pixar, but it's nice to see some other more stylized looks also.

Teyon
08-12-2006, 11:49 AM
The movie was feakin' great. Had I carried my old designs into 3d I'd be lucky if they turned out as cool as the characters in the film. I love CG but honestly, the thing about the film that stood out to me was that I stopped thinking about the CG and started enjoying the film about 10 minutes in. For us 3D folk, who are often overly critical on art and unalbe to set that part of their brain aside to see what else a film has to offer, it says a lot that I actually jumped in my seat once during the film. To get that kind of reaction from me in an animated film is unheard of, to get it from me while wearing goofy 3D glasses is pure talent. See the film and try to actually watch it. Don't critique it, watch it, I think you'd be surprised at how much you enjoy the mature way the characters were handled and the story was made to unfold.

I'd also note that I tend to look for asymmetry in models atempting realsim. In cartoons, I can forgive such a thing as long as the character pulls me into the story, which these did. Kudos to the writer or writers and to the animators who cleaned up and improved upon the mo-cap.

***edit: Isn't asymmetry that's actually noticeable considered overdone and jarring? I always thought so***

PaulHellard
08-12-2006, 12:17 PM
The movie was feakin' great. Had I carried my old designs into 3d I'd be lucky if they turned out as cool as the characters in the film. I love CG but honestly, the thing about the film that stood out to me was that I stopped thinking about the CG and started enjoying the film about 10 minutes in. For us 3D folk, who are often overly critical on art and unalbe to set that part of their brain aside to see what else a film has to offer, it says a lot that I actually jumped in my seat once during the film. To get that kind of reaction from me in an animated film is unheard of, to get it from me while wearing goofy 3D glasses is pure talent. See the film and try to actually watch it. Don't critique it, watch it, I think you'd be surprised at how much you enjoy the mature way the characters were handled and the story was made to unfold.

Awesome critique Teyon!! Thanks for sharing! I'm going to the cinema this Sunday!

Kevin Sanderson
08-12-2006, 02:43 PM
The dialogue in this film was a couple notches above your normal animation fare. It really helped make it for me.

Motion capture should be looked at now as a time saving device. I wouldn't think it would eliminate anmator jobs simply because someone still has to go in and clean things up. It's not perfect and probably won't be. Mo cap as it is gives more time to animators to work on something that's sometimes ignored - facial animation - which was excellent in this film! It really helped sell it to me.

As far as cost goes...it's all the people and companies involved. Wages/salaries are always the highest overhead in any business. There's also marketing money that sometimes makes those estimates and other times doesn't. It's not a cheap business to be in. Look at the cost of live action pictures and you can see nothing is cheap. With a good animated film though, you can have a very long shelf life and make more money in DVD sales.

danielkenobi
08-12-2006, 04:27 PM
This is a great movie And I am lookong forward to the DVD release. everithing look so simple on it. I mean the hair, the cloth. and I cant believe that they invest more of the money in the mocap, and the animation is what people are complaining the most.

talos72
08-12-2006, 05:06 PM
they say that they wanted them to look like puppets, but that they went to great lengths to keep them from being symmetrical, scanning the sculptures, modeling, and rigging asymmetrical models without ever cheating by copying one side into the other.

They just as well could have used puppets. In fact, stop motion puppet animation technology has improved greatly and some amazingly sophisticated armatures and rigs can now be built with great level of control and articulation. Probably would have cost the same as CG or even less. Aardman and Burton have produced some beautifully done films with actual puppets as you all know.

In latest issue of ComputerGraphics I think there is an article on Monster House, in it, and to the point of those who experienced less than state of the art mocap, that the director wanted a more, "touched by human hands" animation look, more like a traditional Harryhausen type of stop animation. They said that to achieve that effect one thing they did was turn off the motion blur. The director really wanted to get a more "fingerprints visible on the model" type look.

Interesting, because from what I have heard Sony used the Arnold renderer for this film, and that they had a tough time getting the motion blur to work properly....solution: skip mblur. Of course, this would not be as bad for Monster House since it is not photoreal. Again, some one may confirm that.

Cool article though...thanks for the link.

Anthonie
08-12-2006, 05:11 PM
yeah me too I'm waiting also for dvd release

andy_maxman
08-12-2006, 05:56 PM
I love CG but honestly, the thing about the film that stood out to me was that I stopped thinking about the CG and started enjoying the film about 10 minutes in.

yea....its something i always look forward to when watching a movie an i hate it when my mind wanders on to critiquing the works in the film.....darn! that is just one thing i hate about being in this industry...it takes away the juice of enjoying a film...

animalunae
08-12-2006, 06:14 PM
People trust me on this one.

This is a very GOOD film, cg or otherwise.
-R

I second that!

otacon
08-12-2006, 06:20 PM
People trust me on this one.

This is a very GOOD film, cg or otherwise.
-R

I third that!

pearson
08-12-2006, 08:21 PM
I haven't seen the film yet, but the characters don't even approach the uncanny valley for me. They are plenty stylized, imho.

I've only got the trailer to go on at this point, but the facial animation seemed very impressive, with subtle expressions that just felt spot on.

urgaffel
08-12-2006, 08:24 PM
I'm off to see it tomorrow, looking forward to it :)

Cobster
08-12-2006, 11:14 PM
As someone who is trying to re-create stop-motion in my CG short, I am looking forward to seeing this film.

Re-creating stop-motion in CG was the topic of my MA Computer Animation dissertation and I believe there is more to re-creating stop-motion than not applying motion blur, although this is important. I identified straight-ahead animation as being one of the distinguishing qualities of stop-motion. So using Mocap will be very interesting to see. I'm all for pushing the boundaries and approaches of working in CG.

Good article.

RobertoOrtiz
08-13-2006, 02:53 AM
To all try to watch the movie in a 3d theater. it is worth the price of admission.


-R

Teyon
08-13-2006, 03:14 AM
I'll second that!

VM
08-13-2006, 02:42 PM
I think it was a risky business what they did, having this "cheap but fancy" look, and I think they've pulled it off really admirably :) I love the softness of the images and the film-grain and the simplicity of the textures. Great lighting too, makes the whole thing alive. All in all, fantastic work.

urgaffel
08-13-2006, 07:23 PM
I'm off to see it tomorrow, looking forward to it :)

Or so I thought. Stupid Dutch people are only showing it with Dutch voices. Apparently it's a kids movie so no English version required :argh: So annoying considering both Over The Hedge and Cars are showing with both versions (Cars is still being showed with English voices and that came out quite a while ago compared to Monster House...)

I went and saw Pirates of the Caribbean again instead heh...

AndyH
08-13-2006, 08:37 PM
I just came back from seeing it, and i absoloutley loved it!

Really likeable characters (espeically the main kid and the ginger girl) and a nicely executed plot that is tied up and explained nicely at the end.
I thought it looked fantastic, with great lighting and superb character design - the babysitter design was amazing and reminded me a of someone a lot. Massive kudos to their character team - very inspiring stuff.
The house effects were great too - especially at the end.

I was expecting it to be cliched, forgettable and full of fart jokes, movie references, slapstick and over-bearing morals like the vast majority of CG family films these days, but i was pleasantly surprised!
It reminded me of family films back in the 80s such as the goonies, and the burbs. Back to the good old days!

Best animated film of the year for me - i preferred it to cars, yet its a shame that it will probably do nowhere near as good at the box office.


My only (very picky) crits is the somewhat childish ending (candy? Trick or treating? pah!) and the mocap was occasionally overdone and a bit wobbly on the fat kid when he goes nuts. I was also put off by the fact that it looks like its been rendered at 12fps instead of 24fps, but that becomes unnoticable once you get stuck in.
Thanks for the article - a good read.

Babybell
08-13-2006, 10:31 PM
great film!

Talos, if they had used puppets to create this film i think we wouldnt have seen it for another few years. Could you imagine trying to animate the house 1 frame at a time (Especially when it decideds to go walkabout)? Be an absoulute nightmare no matter how sophisticated stop motion tecniques are at the moment.

Definatly adding it to my DVD collection when its realsed over here. Just hope theres alot of extra features ^_^

csmallfield
08-14-2006, 12:20 AM
That 79 page itemization looks like a license to cook up any cost you want for a film. Just throw in some lame task like "2nd assistant accountant", make up an expense for him and who will ever know if such a person ever worked on the film or not?

I bet there's 100 people listed there that the director never met.

I saw "DGA Trainee" listed twice. I presume that's "Directors Guild of America"?

Directors in training? I've never heard a director talk about how he had been a DGA Trainee at one point.

And DGA trainees get paid?

I don't work in movie production but I do work in commercial production and post. It works the same way just shorter product and tighter deadlines. A lot of the posts I've seen in this thread are understandably not knowledgable of what a production CG or otherwise actually entails. And evne though I'm going to give a broad indication , you can't get a real feel for it until you are on set watching it in action.

$75 million in not a shockingly high budget. The reason things cost what they do in Hollywood in general is two main things, time and rules. The shorter the time it needs ot be made in the more people you need and the more overtime ends up being paid, and for some guild jobs like editing, can be as much as quadruple the normal rate. Sure a team of 30 motivated and very talented people could have made this movie, but it would take them 7 years and would be completely outdated by the time it came out.

My second cost point was rules, not to say they are bad rules, like catering a shoot, providing lodging for cast, crew and extras when out of town, renting equipment, renting space, people to orchestrate every aspect. There is no way one director could know every person on set. It would be dumb and ineffecient. Think of the Director as the person with the vision, and the person that the heads of all the large departments report to, the Director doesn't even yell action nor direct the actors much, that's the Assistant Director doing that stuff. The stuff they show on extra features of movies is a bit fictionalized.

Djampa
08-14-2006, 01:48 AM
do you have any idea how much costed the Final fantasy movie ? (spirits within) if that was the name...) ???

well, i dont think that the company that made the movie has to pay licences for the software that is used, for every project ?! or am i wrong ?

Yes,
137 million dollars in Budget.
Losses over 124 million...
Good article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Fantasy:_The_Spirits_Within


But anyway, that's why I suggest a nice article on this subject, would be nice to have a light. Thanks Pimeto to bring that subject up. :)

It really does add up.
Thesmokinggun.com posted a copy of M. Night's "The Village". It's give you an idea of where all that money goes. (Yes, it's not a CG film, but it still should give you an idea)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollyw...8061woods1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/hollywood/hollywoodsides/0228061woods1.html)

Thanks frogspasm , that's more than a 'light' *lol* that's great to look at, anyway in a full CG feature things might change a little. I still think a nice article on this subject would be really nice. But that sheets say a lot by themselves :D . thanks.

yolk
08-14-2006, 06:20 AM
good work.......I like ......

Eomer41
08-14-2006, 03:20 PM
I thought this movie was pretty good.

I don't know if anyone noticed this or not, but in the CG article on the first page it says the movie is rated PG-13. I think it's really rated PG.

tatiana
08-14-2006, 07:12 PM
Two points to consider then, after the current success of The Monster House which used mostly mo-cap (although at the presentation I saw at the Industry Giants (http://www.abunchofshortguys.com/Mambo4.5.2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=38), Hofstedt spoke about some new scenes that were all key-framed cause they were added in some time after the kids had already gone off contract), based on an interesting POV commentary I read over on the Business of Animation blog:

1. What effect may the possible partnership of Robert Zemeckis/Imagemovers with Disney mean to the CG industry? Is this a direct effect of the apparent success of The Monster House in theaters?

http://cganimation.blogspot.com/2006/08/disney-loves-motion-capture.html

2. And, can you really call yourself a character animator if you're primarily cleaning up motion-capture data on a CG film like Monster House? I'm trying to remember how the credits listed the artists/animators that worked on this film and I can't recall. Might have to go see the film again and find out. :)

http://cganimation.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-are-menace-to-animation-society.html


t

JulianS
08-15-2006, 04:22 PM
Hello There

I just want to thank everybody for the great feedback.
I don't have the authority to talk for everybody but I am sure we all try really hard to make this a different movie and is great to see people appreciated it.

Once again Thank you :)

Gentle Fury
10-13-2006, 05:51 PM
I know its a little after the fact, but man the style and feel of this movie is beyond anything ive seen before....it has a very creepy, almost stop motion feel to it....very filmic in effect, great use of lighting and DOF, also excellant use of grain in the picture to make it not so steryl as most animated movies seem to be.

btw, someone mentioned budget.......well my guess is that about 90% of that budget went to the egos behind the mics.....not the artists behind the computers ;)

Flip_Render
10-26-2006, 11:06 PM
I liked this one, actually enough to just enjoy of it! Nice, simple stroryline, and that nostalgic Goonies -feeling,, ahh!

I actually first thought that this was just animated really carefully, and wondered about the long forearms,, design-wise. Gollum has long forearms aswell, and so does a lot of disproportioned characters, that must move with mocap. But that's where you have to go with the motion originally made by physically-proportioned (real) human.

I liked the tangible look. Is this the first time a feature animation was made fully (/mostly) with GI?

That house is moves so well! It was a great idea to animate it stuttering, to make it look more stop-motion. It makes that horror/low-fi - effect. On the other side, Corpse Bride has stop-motion thats so smooth, that it looks like cg!

CGTalk Moderation
10-26-2006, 11:06 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.