The Blurring of the Line Between Animation and LA

The LA Times has released an article that I think is pertinent to the interests of this board. I thought about posting it in the Pixar’s Better thread but it contains enough stuff to warrant its own full discussion.

My favorite bit of the article? The mention of the fact that it seems that del Toro is pretty hands-on at PDI/Dreamworks and is finally getting things done. (Sorry, huge del Toro fan here.)

As I’m a bit too feeble minded to start a full-on conversation without stimuli and provocation from others, I’m just going to let someone else start us off.

Great article, thanks, aerostarmonk! If memory serves, you pointed out elsewhere that del Toro tends to drop in and out of projects. Still, it’s great to hear he’s contributing at DreamWorks. The Deakins/lighting bit was also very welcome info.

Here’s a “spectrum” of live action to full CG animation that might be useful for purposes of discussion. Like a rainbow, the colors blur, but there are still some discrete points in between:

->Pure live action.

->Live action with minor CG dressing (e.g., buildings added to or deleted from cityscapes).

->Live action with CG set-pieces, creatures, or other ancillary elements.

->Live action with CG “star” (e.g., Scooby Doo, King Kong, Yogi Bear).

->Hybridized live action and CG animation.

->Motion-capture CG animation.

->CG animation with live-action elements (e.g., WALL-E).

->Pure CG animation.

If anyone thinks WALL-E belongs in the “pure CG animation” range…cool!

Oh, I read that article, it was pretty interesting. A lot of people out there dismiss cartoons and aniamted films for “childish stuff”. But without animation,many films that are popular with audiences require computer animation, even if it’s in a live action film. Not to mention the animation required for video games.

There’s so much more to animation than most people think!

Thanks for posting this, aerostarmonk! It pleases me to no end to see Rango being featured and some positive works being spoken about animation being recognised as a medium on the same level as live-action.

The latest trailer for Rango actually showed a few scenes for the animation reference. It’s very enlightening (I’m too lazy to post the link here, but you can go to the Rango thread and have a look).

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Del Toro’s name during the Megamind credits. That guy’s brilliant.

That is a very interesting article indeed. I wasn’t aware that del Toro served as a consultant for Megamind, but I did know about Deakins. Guillermo del Toro is certainly a visionary storyteller, so I can only imagine what fantastic stories he may bring to the studio.

There’s a typo in the article: “‘Guillermo brings a unique vision and unmatched level of inventiveness to his storytelling,’ DreamWorks’ Damaschke said. He citied Del Toro’s advice…” blah blah blah. I’m giving myself a pat on the back for that one. :3

One needn’t have to imagine too much as his two pet projects are already well documented. They were to the two films that he couldn’t get past the pitching stages over at Disney for his failed Double Dare You production label. I’m guessing Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark had more than a little to do with him leaving Disney. As I’ve heard reports that it was originally supposed to be a Disney or more closely associated studio subsidiary release rather than Miramax as stated in the Wiki article. That could be mostly hearsay though.

In fact the very same blog had an article on his upcoming personal projects back in October.

And one doesn’t have to look too hard for more information. The only thing anyone has to worry about is whether these will be pet projects that will ultimately fall apart due to either del Toro’s excessive multitasking or being so watered down that he just up and leaves. Both instances have occurred often in the past.

/del Toro fanboyisms

Here are some examples of productions that blurred the line between CG animation and live action in interesting ways:

Dinosaur (2000) The sets were all filmed live, then digitally tweaked or composited to create the environments in which CG characters were animated. This presented many challenges in early production as each shot was developed. Live-action film crews had to foresee camera angles and frame compositions that animators would require to realize the storyboarded ideas. This is evident in some of the pre-animation “workbook”/animatics scenes included in the DVD extras. Also, the look of the finished film had to seamlessly integrate the CG characters and live-action sets. All told, Dinosaur is a very complex production achieved very well, and arguably the first true hybrid of live action and CG animation given the degree to which both are intertwined (Tron, while certainly a landmark, is another story altogether).

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001) Aki Ross was the photorealistic CG star of the first photorealistic CG film, which invested heavily in motion capture but was a notable achievement in hair animation. The two most likely reasons for its lack of financial success in the West are the heavy Eastern vibe of its story and the uncanny valley. Aki Ross looks real enough to put one’s arms around, and that’s one issue. Also, she looks more realistic than the other CG cast members, which causes another problem. Finally, the sight of moving photorealistic mouths is not always pleasant in this film. Still, the film is arguably better than its reputation suggests. An interesting question arises: would the film have been better served by filming it as live action with CG effects composited in? The answer might be revealing in a discussion of the blurred line between approaches.

Die Another Day (2002) Starting minimally with GoldenEye and increasing with Tomorrow Never Dies and The World Is Not Enough, EON Productions began a trend in which traditional miniature effects and stuntwork were supplemented with, then sometimes edged out by, CG work for certain action scenes. This came to a head in Die Another Day to widely-expressed cries of “Foul!” The blurring of live-action and CG animation works well in other films, especially where the fantasy component is otherworldly and at the forefront of the story. In this case, it was disconcerting to many viewers when a CG Bond parasurfed among bergy bits on a monster wave induced by laser-carved glacial calving. Also, CG shots of Bond’s invisible car were somewhat less than seamlessly integrated with live-action sets. Digital work on Bond films has continued with removal of stunt harnesses and wires, plus at least one notable use of CG-animated characters in Quantum of Solace. But Die Another Day exemplifies the problematic nature of depicting Bond as a CG character.

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003) Computer animation was used in several different ways throughout the film, from CG-animated cityscapes to CG creatures and props to the “CG star” approach used for Mr. Hyde (a la Hulk and King Kong). It’s true that the “steampunk” look of the film dovetails into the idea of heightened technology as the 19th century ended, but even so, the juxtaposition of antiquated scenery and high-tech film technique is often disconcerting in this film. Unfortunately, the budget was likely not large enough to effectively realize the ambitious scope of the production. The results are generally fine but not so extraordinary, leaving the viewer with a sense that this is less a seamless hybrid of live action and CG animation than a hodgepodge of disparate elements.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) According to its WikiCerebellia entry, this film was largely shot on a “digital backlot” against greenscreen in high-def video that was daily composited into CG backgrounds, begging the question of when a live-action film with CG visual effects becomes a hybrid of live action and CG animation. Whatever the answer, the look of the film enhances the subject matter (gee-whiz retro robots, weapons, and flying machines of many varieties) and blurs the line between live action and animation in an appropriate way given its fantastic content. Speaking of which…

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl (2005) The production process entailed heavy use of greenscreen and reportedly more than 1,000 visual-effect shots, again posing the question of how the line is blurred between live action and CG animation. The look of most of this film, certainly in its Planet Drool scenes, is quite hybridized. Where it suffers in the integration of live action and CG animation, it’s most likely a function of a comparatively low budget. The story lacked the broad appeal beyond kid sensibilities necessary to make the film financially successful, but the material was very well suited to a blend of live action and CG visuals.

Happy Feet (2006) Although primarily an animated film, there’s a high degree of photorealism in every shot, and motion capture was used to choreograph dancing penguins. Toward the end of the film, the scenes with humans are live action composited into CG shots in a way that looks like motion capture (and could be, but probably isn’t)…thereby evoking the uncanny-valley effect often seen in motion-capture “animated” films. It’s almost as if there’s a limit on how much blurring between animation and live action the viewer will tolerate. This film doesn’t quite fracture such sensibilities, but it’s no surprise that some viewers find it difficult to separate the scenes with humans from their empathy for anthropomorphised penguins.

Arthur and the Invisibles/Minimoys (2006) An interesting hybrid in at least two ways: there are multiple scenes with smooth transitions between the live-action world and the Minimoys’ CG world, especially when a human boy shrinks through a telescope; and the CG sets and characters were created using photogrammetry and video capture (motion capture without markers). The following article thoroughly explains it all:

awn.com/articles/production/ … page/3%2C1

300 (2007) Zack Snyder’s graphic novel translated to cinema is another example of the digital-backlot variety of blending live action and CG animation. This film raises a question to which the answer is unclear: Are CG effects composited onto film, or is live-action footage stored in a computer for use in eventual digital transfer to film? The answer might point to another determining factor of where a film lies along the spectrum between live action and CG animation, and maybe digital grading has much to do with it. The look of the film (from trailers, I haven’t yet seen it) simultaneously evokes traditional cinematography and CG effects, and it looks like the trend will continue with Snyder’s upcoming film Sucker Punch.

As always, please feel free to correct any factual errors in here.

Cheers! Steve

Sky Captain had all of the hallmarks and elements to have been a fantastic film. The problem? Kerry Conran couldn’t get a decent performance out of any living actor on the set. He got a better performance out of Laurence Olivier, and the guy had been dead for nearly a decade and a half.

A neophyte director with a background mostly in FX work trying to command A-list celebs? Yeah that was never going to work out for anybody.

The film was simply gorgeous to look at though. Too bad its failure has probably nailed the lid on the coffin for any more diesel pulp inspired films.

I don’t think I could possibly tell you guys how much I love retro-futurism. Especially reflective of that particular era.

You got everything right, JustSteve. Don’t worry. And thanks for the marvelous and insightful input, as always.

Agreed re: Sky Captain, aerostarmonk. Gorgeous visuals and great integration of live action and CG components. Besides the poker-face acting (which might have been by design, but even so…), it was too bad the logic and timing flaws piled up toward the end.