Promoting a promotion

In my previous post, I discussed sequels. Eventually, this is the year of the ‘thirds’. The talk is all about Spider man-3, Pirates of Caribbean- the world’s end (third in the order) and Shrek -3. Each of these films has their own audience and they are all critically acclaimed. The makers consider them a safer bet because sequels don’t have the scare of losing at the box office easily. Marketing them is easier what with the previous versions doing really good and a lot of people already are familiar with the characters and have some idea of the plot to expect. It is better to have very high expectations rather than none at all.

Now, what is the stake of movies that are to be released without prior introduction? How are the makers going to create the expectations for them, competing with the sequels that are to be opened at the same time around? They really have to scream hard to get some attention and that is exactly what Disney and Pixar are trying to do for their latest release Ratatouille (pronounced as rat-a-too-ee), an original animated movie releasing in June.

Right from letting people familiarize the pronunciation of the title, to the plot line- (a rat called Remy wants to become a chef in a famous French restaurant. Rodents and restaurants-something that can never be together), extending to the challenges faced by the crew at the production and the crew itself, Pixar has left no stone unturned. The extent of their promotion strategies are none too familiar. They have to do it to stand amongst the giant sequels all of which are expected to have a cake walk.

To top it all, Pixar will be releasing a nine minute clip from Ratatouille to give the audience a glimpse of what to expect from the movie. Desperate move from the great story tellers, but the Pixar fans will only be too happy to see it. Come May 1, the clip will go public at Apple.com. What is more interesting is that, Disney will run a 90 second promotion material at prime time on American televisions, that will drive the audience towards the trailer that is to be released; a promotion for a promotion! Never heard of anything like that!

Come what may, we could only hope that the Disney-Pixar combo will entertain us as well as they usually do.

Some Images:

Image 1

Image 2

Videos:

Technical Ingredients - 48 mb

Trailer

Brad Bird-Podcast

Allegedly leaked out clip

Ratatouille contest and video player

---------------

Animation movies – the ‘sequels’ saga

A big line of sequels to animated movies are in the making than ever before. As far as I know, these are the sequels,

Shrek 3 - (release - May 18th, 2007)
Shark Tale 2 - (2008)
Madagascar 2 – (2008)
Ice age 3 – (2008)
Toy story 3 - (2009)

This has made me wonder why these studios are going crazy into making sequels. What’s the rationale behind this trend? Is it just the studios or does it have something to do with the audience?

A studio like DreamWorks animation has plans to make one sequel every year. That means, a sequel to almost every movie they make. That sounds terrible because sequels bank on the original release’s success. Making a mindless sequel to an insipid movie (Shark tale 2!) is a great risk. When we say ‘better luck next time’ after watching a flop movie, it doesn’t mean that they should try their luck with a sequel.

Since a sequel to a hit movie will already have an audience, the marketing cost will be less. In spite of having the main characters already modeled and rigged, and some environment that can be used again, with prior knowledge of character actions and lighting setup and dialogue style that form a great chunk of initial hard work, they manage to cost more, thanks to the voice talent. The voice actors/actresses demand a bigger pay check especially if it is a sequel. It is estimated that a sequel costs $20 to $40 million more than the original release.

People are ready to pay for what is tried and tested. If the viewers liked the characters in the original movie, it is more likely that they will be interested to know ‘what happened
next?’ and the expectations to a sequel are always high.

With more and more ‘talking animals’ kind of movie releasing every year, importance is given to awe inspiring graphics and animation laced with an awful story. As a result, the audience, rather than being awestruck, becomes dumbstruck. Only a few have all the qualities and reach a wider audience. Such movies are welcome to have a sequel. But endless sequels are not what we want.

Happy ending for ‘Happy Feet’

Happy Feet may have tap-danced its way to the Oscar, beating Monster House and Cars, but, without launching into full Pixar-fanboy mode, I genuinely think Cars earned that trophy.

The other two relied heavily on motion-capture, which is fine, but Happy Feet started to feel visually monotonous: penguins singing, penguins dancing, penguins everywhere. The constant white Antarctic backdrop looked cool at first, but by the end, my eyes needed sunglasses.

Monster House, meanwhile, feels like a film that didn’t need animation at all. With mostly ordinary human characters and a plot that could’ve been live-action, the only real justification for animating it was the house, and that could’ve been handled with VFX in a live film.

Cars, on the other hand, is born from animation. A world run by automobiles? That concept only works when animated - Pixar squeezed personality, emotion, and humor out of metal and headlights. The environments are gorgeous, the story flows, the emotional beats land, and not a frame feels wasted. What more does an animated film need to win - an unnecessary “message”? Hopefully not.

All respect to the teams behind every film, but if anyone deserved to ride off with the knight holding a sword, it was the crew on Route 66.

Animation tips

I am listing some of the animation tips I got on web recently, but some of them are old ones.......
I found them to be very useful...here we go

Jeff Lew's tip:

Happened to see the sneak peek of Jeff Lew's 3d character animation DVD. He advises not to have a bone joint in the chest area, and reasons it out very well. The rib cage is stiff and does not bend itself. Having a joint there will allow for bending which will look unrealistic and too 'spliney'.

Stefan Henry's tips :

It was good to dig this one out. Its a very old one, but definitely stands true till now and will stay that way for ever. In his article in Gamasutra titled Anatomically correct character modeling , he discusses the placement of bone joints effectively that will help proper posing of characters and will animate correctly, all explained with clear images.

Jeremy Cantor's tips :

His article over at Zaayats.com discusses various pitfalls in cg animation and offers solutions to them. Good one !

Pixar-ization of Disney

Image source : http://www.cartoonbrew.com/

There were/are apprehensions over the acquisition of Pixar by Disney. Most were concerned at the future of Pixar under the mouse house. But the news coming out of Burbank and Emeryville are more than encouraging. Disney is sure benefited under the leadership of Lasseter and Catmull, especially by the restructuring of hierarchy and the efforts to bring back directors who have left Disney recently.
Pixar had been on the right track and doesn't need much changes. In fact, the starting of recently dumped Toy story 3 after the merger has brought in a lot of positive energy into Pixar ( not as if there was a dearth of it before).
With both Disney and Pixar working together, they will surely stay on top.

Read Story HERE

A good animator vs a great animator

Carlos Baena (Pixar Animator):

So...between a good animator and a great animator. For me, it's the difference between a good actor and a great actor. The animation skills themselves, with time, you learn them little by little. The acting part of things...the choices you have your character do. That's where the true skill relies. I think it takes a lot of studying to get there. Not necessarily animation studying at this point...but acting/drawing/craftmanship/mime/comedy studying. Also your personality has to do with it sometimes. Something you think may be funny, may not be necessarily funny for other people. It's tough. But in the end, and to answer to your question, it's all on the acting. Some animators at Pixar, I don't think of them as animators anymore...I think of them as actors. Purely. Mark Walsh is a great example for me. He has done some of my favourite acting shots in this company, and the best part, his acting is sincere and comes from his heart and experiences. That's what blows me away personally.


Source : Shaun freeman animation tips

My Showcase page

Finally, I have set up a page to post my animation works ! Though it is temporary, I find it easy to use Google pages to quickly showcase works powered by YouTube

Find my works here ---> Animation works