Brief history of Hoodwinked (RED RIDING HOOD REDUX)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12 December 2005   #1
Brief history of Hoodwinked (RED RIDING HOOD REDUX)

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

"


>>LINK<<



TRAILER: Nick Toon's "HOODWINKED" CG Films (Red Riding Hood REDUX)
(PREVIOUS THREAD WITH TRAILER)

-R
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
Old 12 December 2005   #2
Trailer

Not to be a cynic, but does this look like a mega-low-budget Shrek knock-off to anyone else?
 
Old 12 December 2005   #3
Originally Posted by rocarpen: Trailer

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


I don't think you are being cynical at all. I really hope those are early shots and not finished work.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #4
Originally Posted by Lyr: I don't think you are being cynical at all. I really hope those are early shots and not finished work.

No, those are the final shots; they're also now showing trailers for it on TV and the quality is exactly the same. Frankly, I'm still not impressed with it.
__________________
My eyes are open, yet I continue on dreaming
 
Old 12 December 2005   #5
When I went to see Chicken Little, I saw this trailer and it just looked awful (so did chicken little , which was awful, but thats ot). I can't believe they would even take this out in theaters it should be straight to video.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #6
for me, Chicken little was horrible...but this ! i could understand if it was made by one persone alone, with no money...but for a movie production ? no light, bad design, bad bad animation...how is it possible ?
 
Old 12 December 2005   #7
I think that even a non-industry person will stamp this thing as low-budget and poor quality. (I HOPE!!!) Imagine if Disney put out a 2d film, animated this bad back in the day. They'd be laughed at. How is it that theater release standards have dropped so much? Not that you don't see a lot of crap live action releases, but animation quality/consistency has seemed to be the one thing that doesn't get sacraficed - until now. Man! you can see the constraint on the picnic basket pop on! That's just pure lazy. Key that dam thing frame by frame if you have to. I understand the concept of simplified animation styles. But to completely ignore the fundamentals is kinda......
 
Old 12 December 2005   #8
I think you guys are being pretty disrespectful to the people who did do the animation, lighting, modeling....etc. (no I have no involvement)

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

+ Brandon

Last edited by Bsmith : 12 December 2005 at 08:12 PM.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #9
Originally Posted by Bsmith: I think you guys are being pretty disrespectful to the people who did do the animation, lighting, modeling....etc. (no I have no involvement)

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

+ Brandon


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

-I'd like to go over every shot but no time today. It's just basic things that an animation supervisor should have requested to be fixed. It looks like there was no experienced animation director working on this one. Unless they were expected to crank out 5 shots a day, I can't see an excuse for the lack of revisions.
 
Old 12 December 2005   #11
Quote: but its not the artists fault that the movie is being put out into theaters....they were just chosen to get paid to do this, whether they are good or not. If you read any info on the team choosen to do this, you would know that they are very new to the industry and the movie was shipped overseas for lower production costs. So bitch at the producers and the execs. And its also been noted that some of the production team members read these forums...so instead of of bashing the hell out of it before you even see it....offer some usefull C & C.


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

if i pay the same price .. then i expect the same quality :-)
 
Old 12 December 2005   #12
Theres no point in bashing this movie. Its already been done to death

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthr...ight=hoodwinked
__________________
pauljewell.com
 
Old 12 December 2005   #13
Originally Posted by rcronin: ...How is it that theater release standards have dropped so much? Not that you don't see a lot of crap live action releases, but animation quality/consistency has seemed to be the one thing that doesn't get sacraficed - until now...


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

Art

sorry to be so grim! enjoy the weekend!
__________________
character animator
Watch my short film: Pen' Pals
 
Old 12 December 2005   #14
I knew I would get torn a new asshole for that. I have my own problems with the trailer however I'm not going to complain yet.

Slurry hit the exact point I wanted to make as well but didn't think it fit. I jsut got back from seeing Narnia, and out of the 10 previews I saw, most of them were animated movies. Animated movies have jsut been making more money than live action so movie execs are obviously going to start pulling animated films out of their ass just to make a buck. Theres no way to stop it. Unless.....
 
Old 12 December 2005   #15
chicken little looked good and was animated well, but i was bored to bits.

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

between a boring good looking movie and an ugly entertaining movie, i'd pick the entertaining one.
__________________
Come on you Spurs!
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.