This is a lovely video that tributes Disney's animated features over 70 years. I thought I would post this as it was Disney that made me fall in love with animation and one of the reasons I want to be an animator. It would be a dream come true if I got to work for them one day!
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
Monday, 3 May 2010
The Jungle Book
I thought it was about time that I posted the bit from my dissertation about 'The Jungle Book' and what I learned from looking at the differences between the three versions by Kipling, Peet and Disney. It is a long post but I hope that it will help myself and others when they come to creating their own animation based on a book or when making an animation with anthromophic characters.
I have chosen Rudard Kipling’s, ‘The Jungle Book’ against Disney’s animated version to see how they are different and why. This is to see how someone would create an animation based on a book and what he or she should look and avoid.
The reason I chose, ‘The Jungle Book’ is because it is a good example of anthropomorphism and has two characters that are cats, Bajeerah and Shere Khan. I also loved the film as a child so I was interested to see what the differences are and why Disney chose to do so.
The Rudyard Kipling story, ‘The Jungle Book’, is actually part of a collection of stories about Mowgli and his friends. I had never read the story before doing this paper but had seen the Disney film so I was really surprised to find out just how different the two are.
'No one can say at this late date, but the finished Jungle Book, according to animator Eric Goldberg, “bears very little resemblance to Rudyard Kipling’s original, but I don’t think that’s what Walt wanted.”'
(http://bezalel.secured.co.il/zope/home/he/1209439536/1211516902)
For instance, the beginning of each story where Mowgli is found and rescued by the wolves it shows the different ways Kipling, Peet and Disney took it. Kipling wrote that Shere Khan attacks a camp of woodcutters and during this Mowgli wanders off and enters the wolves’ cave. Shere Khan comes to kill Mowgli but the mother wolf bravely protects him.
Peet did not seem to think this had enough drama and tension so gave this scene more action to thrill the audience. Peet had Mowgli carried off by a river clinging to a log; Bagheera tries to catch him but fails. The wolves watch him head for the edge of a waterfall when Mother Wolf saves him just as he goes over.
Personally I liked Kipling’s version and found it was an interesting start to the story although Peet’s version did have a lot of excitement, possibly too much for an opening sequence; I am sure it would have grabbed the audience though!
As you probably know Disney simplified Peet’s version and simply used some amazing paintings of a wrecked canoe with Mowgli inside. Bagheera then carries Mowgli to Mother Wolf for her to care for him.
There are actually three versions of ‘The Jungle Book’, Kipling’s, Disney’s and Peet’s. This is because Disney and Peet had a falling out over the film. Disney did not like how Peet was turning the film dark and sinister; he wanted to mainly focus on the characters and entertainment with the story coming last, which explains the poor plotline that barely exists!
‘Disney's insistence on fun and character also overrode what he discomfortingly called "the icky-sticky story stuff," meaning most of Kipling's dark, smart story elements got trounced in favor of singing, dancing, and slapstick.’
(Online Newspaper - http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/10/jazz_in_the_jungle_or_if_you_d.php)
As they could not reach an agreement, the two of them fell out and Peet left the studio and Clemmons took over. It is really a sad ending as they had been friends for years and never got to make up, as Disney died of Cancer towards the end of production.
The greatest change from the book has to be the actual storyline, the journey from the jungle to the man village. This storyline that Peet created was what Disney and the story team turned to when they had difficulties after he left. Kipling did have Mowgli go back to the man village but he went back and forth from jungle, the idea of him going and staying at the village was a completely new idea by Peet and Disney.
One change that really surprised me was that Baloo and Bagheera’s personalities had almost been swapped. Baloo was sleepy and bossy to Mowgli and was a proud teacher, who taught Mowgli the law of the jungle and the secret words of the animals. Kipling’s Baloo was in every way like the serious teachers you had at school although he was still caring like Bagheera in the film. Bagheera was more of the joker in the book although he did still have some sensibility about him.
(Figure *** - http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/10/jazz_in_the_jungle_or_if_you_d.php)
Peet decided to make Baloo a lazy, easy-going bear but it was not until Phil Harris was cast as Baloo that they really knew what they had. Harris really made Baloo who he is and actually got Disney and their team out of the problem they had with Baloo who was originally destined to be a cameo part.
‘Phil Harris’s performance added sincerity in a colorful character that gave new interest to everything he did, but, most important, this bear suddenly had great warmth, something the picture needed.’
(Thomas and Johnston,1997,p.80)
All three versions do have a similarity; they all included the scene of Mowgli being kidnapped by the ‘Bandar-log’, Kipling’s name for the monkeys. In Kipling’s book, the monkey’s pretend to be men but without a law or a leader. They kidnap Mowgli so he can teach them to be men and to weave sticks so they can make shelters. Peet wanted to pretty much stick to the way Kipling had created the ‘Bandar-log’ but by kidnapping Mowgli to teach them how to rebuild their city and to teach them the secret to mans ‘red flower’, fire. Peet wanted to bring slapstick comedy in to this scene, as did Disney so they created an entertaining and funny sequence of Baloo and Bagheera coming to save Mowgli from the monkeys and King Louie. In Kipling’s, Kaa was a friend and mentor of Mowgli’s and came to help too!
Peet also made the story more like Kipling’s later in his version of the film but Disney did not approve of where the story was going so it was dropped. Peet had planned for Mowgli to return to the man village and be adopted by a woman called Messua, who is believed to be Mowgli’s mother. He stays in the village learning to be a man but is plagued with difficulties because of a hunter called Baldeo who thinks Mowgli is a sorcerer and a man wolf.
During the monkey scene Peet had included a bit about there being treasure under the monkey’s city and Baldeo, the hunter finds out about this and forces Mowgli to show him where it is. Once they arrive, Mowgli distracts Baldeo as he sees Shere Khan coming who eventually kills Baldeo. Mowgli then uses Baldeo’s gun to kill Shere Khan. Mowgli is then a hero to the people of the village and the animals of the jungle and decides to live in the village but visit the jungle as he pleases. As you can see this is an exciting version of the story but due to the darkness of it Disney dropped it as his film was aimed at adults, and children. He also wanted to stick to the plan of Baloo being responsible for returning Mowgli to the village and to concentrate more on the characters, something I do not understand his reasoning for. Yes, characters are important but so is the story. If Peet’s version was made less sinister then I believe ‘The Jungle Book’ would have been even better and I am sure it would have more fans, especially today where fans look back and admit to preferring Disney’s more story based films such as ‘The Lion King’, ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘101 Dalmations’. I believe it was mainly the catchy songs such as ‘The Bare Necessities’ that saved ‘The Jungle Book’ and made it successful.
Due to dropping Peet’s ending and him leaving, Disney and his team were stuck for an ending but Disney urged the story team to not look at Kipling’s book and to just concentrate on personality and entertainment. Disney however did not take his own advice and used the book to get ideas. He finally got his inspiration for an ending from two passages; one from the end of ‘The Jungle Book’ and the other from ‘The Second Jungle Book’. These passages are shown below.
‘So Mowgli went away and hunted with the four cubs in the jungle from that day on. But he was not always alone, because, years afterward, he became a man and married.’
Tiger! Tiger! In The Jungle Book. Page 107.
‘Mowgli was going to answer when a girl in a white cloth came down some path that led from the outskirts of the village. Gray Brother dropped out of sight at once, and Mowgli backed noiselessly into a field of high-springing crops. He could almost have touched her with his hand when the warm, green stalks closed before his face and he disappeared like a ghost. The girl screamed, for she thought she had seen a spirit, and then she gave a deep sigh. Mowgli parted the stalks with his hands and watched her till she was out of sight.’
The Second Jungle Book. Page 155.
After finding this all out I watched the film again and it is fascinating to see how much of Peet’s original work was used and inspired from. Even though Disney broke it down to the very basics it was still taught you the differences between man and animal and we should get along and be friends even if it was a basic story it was still a highly entertaining, musical journey.
From this I have learned that if you truly believe in something that you should follow it as you may be like Disney, who stood up for what he believed in and made a film that became a great success but due to people not liking the poor storyline; I have learned that you should always listen to people’s advice even if you do not take it. Also, that you should have great characters and give them time for your audience to fall in love with and be entertained by but to also have a good story. Catchy and entertaining songs also seem to be a popular way of making an audience fall in love with a film, although I already knew this from my love of ‘The Lion King’ songs. One of the most vital things I have learned though is that anthropomorphism is something that Disney uses to bring their animals to life. It makes you love the characters even more, as you can understand them, feel for them and be brought into their world; an animal kingdom filled with love, friendship and fantasy.
I have chosen Rudard Kipling’s, ‘The Jungle Book’ against Disney’s animated version to see how they are different and why. This is to see how someone would create an animation based on a book and what he or she should look and avoid.
The reason I chose, ‘The Jungle Book’ is because it is a good example of anthropomorphism and has two characters that are cats, Bajeerah and Shere Khan. I also loved the film as a child so I was interested to see what the differences are and why Disney chose to do so.
The Rudyard Kipling story, ‘The Jungle Book’, is actually part of a collection of stories about Mowgli and his friends. I had never read the story before doing this paper but had seen the Disney film so I was really surprised to find out just how different the two are.
'No one can say at this late date, but the finished Jungle Book, according to animator Eric Goldberg, “bears very little resemblance to Rudyard Kipling’s original, but I don’t think that’s what Walt wanted.”'
(http://bezalel.secured.co.il/zope/home/he/1209439536/1211516902)
For instance, the beginning of each story where Mowgli is found and rescued by the wolves it shows the different ways Kipling, Peet and Disney took it. Kipling wrote that Shere Khan attacks a camp of woodcutters and during this Mowgli wanders off and enters the wolves’ cave. Shere Khan comes to kill Mowgli but the mother wolf bravely protects him.
Peet did not seem to think this had enough drama and tension so gave this scene more action to thrill the audience. Peet had Mowgli carried off by a river clinging to a log; Bagheera tries to catch him but fails. The wolves watch him head for the edge of a waterfall when Mother Wolf saves him just as he goes over.
Personally I liked Kipling’s version and found it was an interesting start to the story although Peet’s version did have a lot of excitement, possibly too much for an opening sequence; I am sure it would have grabbed the audience though!
As you probably know Disney simplified Peet’s version and simply used some amazing paintings of a wrecked canoe with Mowgli inside. Bagheera then carries Mowgli to Mother Wolf for her to care for him.
There are actually three versions of ‘The Jungle Book’, Kipling’s, Disney’s and Peet’s. This is because Disney and Peet had a falling out over the film. Disney did not like how Peet was turning the film dark and sinister; he wanted to mainly focus on the characters and entertainment with the story coming last, which explains the poor plotline that barely exists!
‘Disney's insistence on fun and character also overrode what he discomfortingly called "the icky-sticky story stuff," meaning most of Kipling's dark, smart story elements got trounced in favor of singing, dancing, and slapstick.’
(Online Newspaper - http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/10/jazz_in_the_jungle_or_if_you_d.php)
As they could not reach an agreement, the two of them fell out and Peet left the studio and Clemmons took over. It is really a sad ending as they had been friends for years and never got to make up, as Disney died of Cancer towards the end of production.
The greatest change from the book has to be the actual storyline, the journey from the jungle to the man village. This storyline that Peet created was what Disney and the story team turned to when they had difficulties after he left. Kipling did have Mowgli go back to the man village but he went back and forth from jungle, the idea of him going and staying at the village was a completely new idea by Peet and Disney.
One change that really surprised me was that Baloo and Bagheera’s personalities had almost been swapped. Baloo was sleepy and bossy to Mowgli and was a proud teacher, who taught Mowgli the law of the jungle and the secret words of the animals. Kipling’s Baloo was in every way like the serious teachers you had at school although he was still caring like Bagheera in the film. Bagheera was more of the joker in the book although he did still have some sensibility about him.
(Figure *** - http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/2007/10/jazz_in_the_jungle_or_if_you_d.php)Peet decided to make Baloo a lazy, easy-going bear but it was not until Phil Harris was cast as Baloo that they really knew what they had. Harris really made Baloo who he is and actually got Disney and their team out of the problem they had with Baloo who was originally destined to be a cameo part.
‘Phil Harris’s performance added sincerity in a colorful character that gave new interest to everything he did, but, most important, this bear suddenly had great warmth, something the picture needed.’
(Thomas and Johnston,1997,p.80)
All three versions do have a similarity; they all included the scene of Mowgli being kidnapped by the ‘Bandar-log’, Kipling’s name for the monkeys. In Kipling’s book, the monkey’s pretend to be men but without a law or a leader. They kidnap Mowgli so he can teach them to be men and to weave sticks so they can make shelters. Peet wanted to pretty much stick to the way Kipling had created the ‘Bandar-log’ but by kidnapping Mowgli to teach them how to rebuild their city and to teach them the secret to mans ‘red flower’, fire. Peet wanted to bring slapstick comedy in to this scene, as did Disney so they created an entertaining and funny sequence of Baloo and Bagheera coming to save Mowgli from the monkeys and King Louie. In Kipling’s, Kaa was a friend and mentor of Mowgli’s and came to help too!
Peet also made the story more like Kipling’s later in his version of the film but Disney did not approve of where the story was going so it was dropped. Peet had planned for Mowgli to return to the man village and be adopted by a woman called Messua, who is believed to be Mowgli’s mother. He stays in the village learning to be a man but is plagued with difficulties because of a hunter called Baldeo who thinks Mowgli is a sorcerer and a man wolf.
During the monkey scene Peet had included a bit about there being treasure under the monkey’s city and Baldeo, the hunter finds out about this and forces Mowgli to show him where it is. Once they arrive, Mowgli distracts Baldeo as he sees Shere Khan coming who eventually kills Baldeo. Mowgli then uses Baldeo’s gun to kill Shere Khan. Mowgli is then a hero to the people of the village and the animals of the jungle and decides to live in the village but visit the jungle as he pleases. As you can see this is an exciting version of the story but due to the darkness of it Disney dropped it as his film was aimed at adults, and children. He also wanted to stick to the plan of Baloo being responsible for returning Mowgli to the village and to concentrate more on the characters, something I do not understand his reasoning for. Yes, characters are important but so is the story. If Peet’s version was made less sinister then I believe ‘The Jungle Book’ would have been even better and I am sure it would have more fans, especially today where fans look back and admit to preferring Disney’s more story based films such as ‘The Lion King’, ‘Beauty and the Beast’ and ‘101 Dalmations’. I believe it was mainly the catchy songs such as ‘The Bare Necessities’ that saved ‘The Jungle Book’ and made it successful.
Due to dropping Peet’s ending and him leaving, Disney and his team were stuck for an ending but Disney urged the story team to not look at Kipling’s book and to just concentrate on personality and entertainment. Disney however did not take his own advice and used the book to get ideas. He finally got his inspiration for an ending from two passages; one from the end of ‘The Jungle Book’ and the other from ‘The Second Jungle Book’. These passages are shown below.
‘So Mowgli went away and hunted with the four cubs in the jungle from that day on. But he was not always alone, because, years afterward, he became a man and married.’
Tiger! Tiger! In The Jungle Book. Page 107.
‘Mowgli was going to answer when a girl in a white cloth came down some path that led from the outskirts of the village. Gray Brother dropped out of sight at once, and Mowgli backed noiselessly into a field of high-springing crops. He could almost have touched her with his hand when the warm, green stalks closed before his face and he disappeared like a ghost. The girl screamed, for she thought she had seen a spirit, and then she gave a deep sigh. Mowgli parted the stalks with his hands and watched her till she was out of sight.’
The Second Jungle Book. Page 155.
After finding this all out I watched the film again and it is fascinating to see how much of Peet’s original work was used and inspired from. Even though Disney broke it down to the very basics it was still taught you the differences between man and animal and we should get along and be friends even if it was a basic story it was still a highly entertaining, musical journey.
From this I have learned that if you truly believe in something that you should follow it as you may be like Disney, who stood up for what he believed in and made a film that became a great success but due to people not liking the poor storyline; I have learned that you should always listen to people’s advice even if you do not take it. Also, that you should have great characters and give them time for your audience to fall in love with and be entertained by but to also have a good story. Catchy and entertaining songs also seem to be a popular way of making an audience fall in love with a film, although I already knew this from my love of ‘The Lion King’ songs. One of the most vital things I have learned though is that anthropomorphism is something that Disney uses to bring their animals to life. It makes you love the characters even more, as you can understand them, feel for them and be brought into their world; an animal kingdom filled with love, friendship and fantasy.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Silly Symphonies Three Orphan Kittens - Great perspectives!
I saw a clip of this somewhere and the animation by Ken Anderson is just amazing especially the changing perspectives 1.27 and 4.40 minutes in! The kittens are well animated too and show my point of how cats should retain cat movements such as stalking while being anthropomorphic. It also reminds me of when Remus first came home at 12 weeks old and was so clumsy and would knock things over all the time.
The story is from Disney's Silly Symphonies collection and is about three kittens that are heartlessly abandoned during a snowstorm. They take refuge in a nearby house and playfully begin to tear the house apart.
I couldn't find it not in Spanish sorry.
Disney also made a second episode about the three kittens where they befriend a St Bernard and he protects them. They also meet other animals.
I love how the kitten meows as if to say thank you to the dog at 3.48 and all of them do at 7.55 after he hides them from their owner. This episode reminds me a lot of the Simon's Cat book with all the interaction with other animals and especially the way they interact with the bird. With this as a comparision it show what I'm going, which is sort of a combination of the two. Mine is more detailed that Simon's Cat but less than the Disney ones.
The story is from Disney's Silly Symphonies collection and is about three kittens that are heartlessly abandoned during a snowstorm. They take refuge in a nearby house and playfully begin to tear the house apart.
I couldn't find it not in Spanish sorry.
Disney also made a second episode about the three kittens where they befriend a St Bernard and he protects them. They also meet other animals.
I love how the kitten meows as if to say thank you to the dog at 3.48 and all of them do at 7.55 after he hides them from their owner. This episode reminds me a lot of the Simon's Cat book with all the interaction with other animals and especially the way they interact with the bird. With this as a comparision it show what I'm going, which is sort of a combination of the two. Mine is more detailed that Simon's Cat but less than the Disney ones.
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland
I saw Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland the other day and I loved it, especially the Cheshire Cat. Although I have always been a fan of the Cheshire Cat because of how he is mysterious, mischievous, has a funny grin and the fact I'm from Chester in Cheshire so grew up seeing Cheshire Cat stuff a lot. I even used to go to a pub called The Cheshire Cat for meals!
The Cheshire Cat in this version was just amazing, he is just so stunning especially with the gorgeous blue stripes and Steven Fry's voice was so perfect. The smoke effects were also a bit of brilliant animation and made me really want to know how its done and have a go at doing it myself.
Below is a clip from the film of Alice and the Cheshire Cat so you can see just how incredible it is. I especially love how they make his eyes go bigger at certain points such as when he says "claws". Have a look.
What I thought was even more amazing is the work by the guy who designed the Cheshire Cat. I couldn't believe that he had made the image at the top using a graphics tablet!
Below is part of an interview with the artist, Michael Kutsche about the Cheshire Cat. It is well worth reading all of the interview so I have also added a link to it. I have also added an image of him doing the illustration of the Cheshire Cat on his graphics tablet. I so wish I could draw like that!
GK: In your early sketches, the Cheshire Cat is more human-like and is slight and slinky, with hot pink stripes and an unsettling, toothy grin, and your Mad Hatter wore industrial goggles and had less whimsy...
MK: Because it’s a Disney production [some of that] didn’t really have that mass appeal. It would have shocked the kids. Tim Burton is a big fan of that book, and the original illustrator. Tim had his own drawings in his London office, so he wanted to have a little bit of a classic feel, so that the animals were more like animals with a twist instead of having a far-off fantasy. Sometimes he gave like a very quick sketch that was really helpful. I would take that and make it really detailed.
http://www.timburtoncollective.com/labels/michael%20kutsche.html
Kutsche admits that he got the idea from a design by Kei Acedera and Bobby Chiu. Below is the concept art they did that inspired Kutsche's illustration. You can see that he didn't stray far from the original design.
Something a bit extra that I found is a website that sells prints of the art that Kei Acedera and Bobby Chiu did for Alice in Wonderland! (Sadly not including the one above as that is now owned by Disney).http://www.imaginismstudios.com/store/prints?_p=1&viewall=yes
The Making of the Cheshire Cat
"The iconic shot of Alice’s first meeting with the Cheshire Cat, who’s grinning at her from his tree limb, begins with what’s similar to a storyboard sketch, using an assemblage of low-resolution character stills."
"The scene moves to animation, where the character is dropped into a low-resolution environment: the images are kept low-res to allow Imageworks’ animators to create the Cat’s performance without having a lot of data to manipulate."
"The biggest challenge is to create a realistic cat that can generate the trademark exaggerated grin. Here, the all-important hair has been added, ensuring it behaves as it should, where it should be, with the Cat now curled on his limb."
"Here, final lighting is added, along with a full-resolution environment behind the Cat, including the flora and atmosphere added for visual effect."
You can also see that the trees in the background have one of Tim Burton's trademarks... curls. As you can see the branches are curled round like he does to objects, clothes, hair.etc in his other films. I was rather surprised how scuttle he was with it in this film.
I loved that he sneaked the black and white stripes in with a quick sneak shot of the Mad Hatters underpants too! Look out for it when you see the film. My friends pointed out that I spot really odd small detail things that they never do... kinda like that even though its probably down to my Aspergers.
Friday, 26 February 2010
The Lion King DVD
I've just watched the Lion King as I haven't seen it for years. It is a great film and still my favourite Disney film.
After watching the film I went onto the second disc to watch the making of the film in all aspects. While watching I am writing the notes below.
When they started The Lion King it was the B movie (Pocahontas the A) as they didn’t think people would want animals and wanted people characters. The team being the under-dogs pushed themselves to prove them wrong and that The Lion King can be a great movie and they believe that it was really shown when they started working on the Mufasa in the clouds scene.
Their insperations were African art, tapestries (for the bright colours int the film) and visiting Africa. Hamlet, Moses and King Arthur are also mentioned as insperations.
On the 2nd disc there is a section about animals and looking at the real animals they based their characters. This section is not all about the real animals though. There is a section called 'Disney & Animals'. This section is about Disney and their use of animals.
It did after all start with a mouse. Walt inspired his artists to make their drawings of animals better and more realistic with every film. Walt "It's always a challenge bringing a great story classic to the screen, giving visual form to characters and places that have only excisted in the imagination".
It goes on to mention how Disney always brings animals in or go see them in the wild. It also mentions Seal Island. Also the True Life Animal Kingdom at Disney World. Its also talks about the Disney films that involve real life animals such as The Shaggy Dog.
Roy Walt, says when commenting on the opening of 'Disney's Animal Kingdom', "This atrraction garrantees the longstanding union of the worlds of Disney nature fantasy and animal for generations to come."
Walt said after a hard meeting 'Sometimes I prefer Animals to people'.
The section on Character Design for Scar was very interesting. The Supervising Animator for Scar does actually keep calling him a person and makes a lot of anthropomorphic references. I will try and write up the large section where he does this as I am sure it will be helpful.
After watching the film I went onto the second disc to watch the making of the film in all aspects. While watching I am writing the notes below.
When they started The Lion King it was the B movie (Pocahontas the A) as they didn’t think people would want animals and wanted people characters. The team being the under-dogs pushed themselves to prove them wrong and that The Lion King can be a great movie and they believe that it was really shown when they started working on the Mufasa in the clouds scene.
Their insperations were African art, tapestries (for the bright colours int the film) and visiting Africa. Hamlet, Moses and King Arthur are also mentioned as insperations.
On the 2nd disc there is a section about animals and looking at the real animals they based their characters. This section is not all about the real animals though. There is a section called 'Disney & Animals'. This section is about Disney and their use of animals.
It did after all start with a mouse. Walt inspired his artists to make their drawings of animals better and more realistic with every film. Walt "It's always a challenge bringing a great story classic to the screen, giving visual form to characters and places that have only excisted in the imagination".
It goes on to mention how Disney always brings animals in or go see them in the wild. It also mentions Seal Island. Also the True Life Animal Kingdom at Disney World. Its also talks about the Disney films that involve real life animals such as The Shaggy Dog. Roy Walt, says when commenting on the opening of 'Disney's Animal Kingdom', "This atrraction garrantees the longstanding union of the worlds of Disney nature fantasy and animal for generations to come."
Walt said after a hard meeting 'Sometimes I prefer Animals to people'.
The section on Character Design for Scar was very interesting. The Supervising Animator for Scar does actually keep calling him a person and makes a lot of anthropomorphic references. I will try and write up the large section where he does this as I am sure it will be helpful.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Disney observe animals & people before animating
Animators have studied, observed and animated animals for many years. Walt Disney actually thought observing people and animals was essential in making characters come to life.
Disney still does this today, most recently frogs were brought in for animators to sketch and observe for the frog characters in ‘The Princess and the Frog’.
“It’s really helpful for all the artists to study the real thing. That’s the basis of Walt Disney Animation, is you take the real thing and you caricature it and you observe it and you study it and then you reduce it down to its essence, and were really learning a lot, I think by looking at these creatures and these are really beautifully designed and so delicate.
We’ve got both the animators and clean up artists and storyboard artists and I think it’s helpful for all of them to really observe the real thing.
See how they move and see how their anatomy works.”
(John Musker and Ron Clements - Directors of ‘The Princess and the Frog’ – accessed on 3rd Dec 09 - http://media.digisynd.com/AQAAAGUwOk2VYybTmM5Ap0ACo64n1xNn______ew0d3GH4DxoRgO5gvLQUGFp1h1/play;frame=AQAAADkROLWvBZN5l0DfUP3YqYcn1xNn_____wZugl5h__r_tzC363swRO1bw7gP/)
Many animators start animation by animating humans so it can be hard for them to animate animals without their previous knowledge of animating humans having an effect. This is can be a reason why animation has a lot of anthropomorphism.
Disney still does this today, most recently frogs were brought in for animators to sketch and observe for the frog characters in ‘The Princess and the Frog’.
“It’s really helpful for all the artists to study the real thing. That’s the basis of Walt Disney Animation, is you take the real thing and you caricature it and you observe it and you study it and then you reduce it down to its essence, and were really learning a lot, I think by looking at these creatures and these are really beautifully designed and so delicate.We’ve got both the animators and clean up artists and storyboard artists and I think it’s helpful for all of them to really observe the real thing.
See how they move and see how their anatomy works.”
(John Musker and Ron Clements - Directors of ‘The Princess and the Frog’ – accessed on 3rd Dec 09 - http://media.digisynd.com/AQAAAGUwOk2VYybTmM5Ap0ACo64n1xNn______ew0d3GH4DxoRgO5gvLQUGFp1h1/play;frame=AQAAADkROLWvBZN5l0DfUP3YqYcn1xNn_____wZugl5h__r_tzC363swRO1bw7gP/)Many animators start animation by animating humans so it can be hard for them to animate animals without their previous knowledge of animating humans having an effect. This is can be a reason why animation has a lot of anthropomorphism.
Thursday, 3 December 2009
My questionnaire to give people
Below is the questionnaire that I plan to ask people to fill out for my dissertation as primary research. I believe that what I have asked will give me helpful advice and quotes for my dissertation and project. If you wish to be helpful then please leave a comment on this post with your answers.
To view a larger version of the questionnaire you need to click on the image of the page you wish to view.
To view a larger version of the questionnaire you need to click on the image of the page you wish to view.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Behind-the-scenes clip of The Princess and the Frog
Cartoon Brew TV, offer an exclusive behind-the-scenes clip, courtesy of the Walt Disney Company, from their forthcoming hand-drawn feature, The Princess and the Frog.
In the video, supervising animator Bruce Smith (Bebe’s Kids, The Proud Family) discusses the character of Dr. Facilier, the villain of the film, and how voice actor Keith David influences the animators work and the character’s performance. David is shown performing and being directed by John Musker and Ron Clements. There are also some brief bits of pencil tests and color footage that hasn’t appeared anywhere else on the web.
After witnessing Disney abandon their hand-drawn films several years ago, and watching the rest of Hollywood consumed by CG, it’s incredibly exciting seeing classical character animation being produced on this scale. Sometimes you don’t know what you have until it’s gone. The Princess and the Frog marks the return of a beloved moviegoing tradition: the classic Disney fairy tale.
Below is the link to site where I found this.
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/brewtv/princessandfrog.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)