I spent the morning wandering the hall of Disney Feature Animation (Walt Disney Animation Studios to the wider world).
In the front hallway, the long display case no longer holds videos and artwork for The Princess and the Frog. Development art for Tangled has replaced it ...
Upstairs, Tangled's animators are moving briskly along with footage.
... "I'm doing five or six feet a week. We saw the reels of the picture last week, and the color that's in it looks great. And it's the first time CG characters are singing songs the way they do in the old Disney features." ...
The walls in animators' offices are decorated with Glen Keane's drawings for Tangled's lead characters. As I look at the CG versions on various computer screens, I can see Glen's input and influence on all of them.
Everybody I talked to think the picture is shaping up nicely. The schedule is tight, but sometimes that's a good thing. (Worked well for How to Train Your Dragon, so it could concentrate minds in a good way here.)
Posts
31 comments:
There is not now, nor will ever be, a movie called "Tangled":
I will not answer this movie to its slave name. :)
oh get over it.. movies go through name changes all the time. and the mouse house is not impervious to this happening.
Of course. And, they instantly become box office bonanzas.
"Everybody I talked to think the picture is shaping up nicely."
Thats the opinion that I care least about as it has little or no bearing on reality.
Would a comment such as "I'm getting paid to work on a picture that is going to suck" have any more bearing on your reality?
I think it will surprise a lot a of people. Especially the haters. The animation looks astounding.
"Of course. And, they instantly become box office bonanzas."
Because that's all that matters.
Who's hating? Rapunzel is a darn good movie with a silly new title contrived by those "really smart guys" in film marketing.
By "those really smart guys in film marketing" were you referring to Ed Catmull, who pushed for the change, or Byron Howard, Nathan Greno and Roy Conli who made the final decision on choosing the name?
I got three words for you:
New
Groove.
Byron and Nathan went along grudgingly.
This was John, Ed, and Roy's decision.
I got three words for you:
Emperors
New
Groove.
(Okay, was anybody else expecting him to do the Danny DeVito bit from "Hercules" and stop at two?) ;)
By that, take it you mean a movie that WASN'T shaping up nicely in production, and had to be changed in title to match its change in format.
R*p*n*z*l had its title changed because of marketing fear and ONLY because of marketing fear, and nobody's work deserves that.
I wasn't meaning anything. There are a lot of smart people working on it and in the longrun, it shall make good money. Despite what anyone says, whether on the inside, or the outside-looking -in.
Oh man, its been a long time since we heard from Glen Keane. I wonder how he likes his new position as Animation Director? (which I think is a position thats perfect for him.)
Is this where we sign up for the golf? Oh, wait...sorry, never mind.
"Upstairs, Tangled's animators are moving briskly along with footage.
... "I'm doing five or six feet a week ..."
Five feet a week is "brisk" ?
And the picture is due to be finished WHEN exactly ?
(yikes)
Are you an animation boss? You obviously havent seen a studio animation production footage sheet.
Out of a whole crew, many animators are lucky to make a foot or so in a week. 5 feet is much better. However, as I am only speaking of hand-drawn 2D, I dont know the average output of CG. But I'm sure it isn't that much different.
No studio can allow only 'a foot or so' a week. Even with the height of 2D in the 90's the goal was to do 3 feet and now its close to double that.
Out of a whole crew, many animators are lucky to make a foot or so in a week. 5 feet is much better. However, as I am only speaking of hand-drawn 2D, I dont know the average output of CG. But I'm sure it isn't that much different.
You must be a student, or not in the industry, if you think 1 foot a week is "average," especially in 2D. You'd be fired for being so slow. 3-5 feet/week is pretty industry standard, if not more.
I'm a student (not the guy that posted above) and I have to ask after reading that... you are talking a "foot" as in 16 frames of animation, correct? If so, that means only a few seconds of animation a week, right? Obviously I'm not in the industry, but I would have guessed/assumed that things moved faster than that, so that's surprising to me. Or do I have terms confused?
Thanks in advance
Yes, a foot is 16 frames. For feature animation, animators are generally expected to do about 5 feet of animation per week--or in other words, about 3 seconds. Some do more, some a little less. Keep in mind, that's 3 seconds of your very best work, with high quality standards being expected by the directors, supervisors, and your peers. Your work-in-progress is shown in 'dailies' every few days in front of all the other animators, so there is pressure to always do your absolute best work...or everyone will think you're "slipping." Tongues will start to wag.
Some animators, like Mark Henn at Disney, can do 20 or 30 feet (or more) a week. That's very rare. Some can average 10 feet a week. Most can consistently average 4 to 5 feet a week. If a shot is particularly complex, it's sometimes okay to do 3 feet a week.
A few signposts:
Frank Thomas told me the requirement for shorts (circa late thirties) was ten feet a week.
Ward Kimball told me he did thirty feet a week on "Dumbo."
Ollie Johnston was doing eight feet of animation per week when I was at Diz during "Fox and the Hound."
A directing animator on "Pooh" said the studio wanted 15 feet a week.
Understand that "footage" can mean different things: If animators are drawing clean and "on model" (as they did for "101 Dalmations") they are going to go slooower.
If you're a directing animator on "Dumbo" (and on a tight budget), you're going way faster and having the assistants and inkers clean up your very rough drawings. Out of economic necessity.
(And understand this is a former story person giving you info he's gleaned from animators.)
Yes, and I SAW the reports posted every week on the cubicle wall of animators reported footage, and the average was low low low. I could only imagine the pressure they must have felt every week to eek out mere frames to that golden mark of the next foot. Too bad I didn't grab some of those reports. I didnt have to be concerned of what I was witnessing, I had my own worrys with the drawing count report. But nonetheless, most of the animators were low low low, with your top tier of animators putting out the most footage, and some within the range of what Steve just said. However, those were the few producers of celluloid yardage, the rest were low low low. And thats what you get when the rare situation occurs when management does something unusual like post footage reports and drawing counts: Witnesses and Impressions. Uncomfortable feelings, stress and competitive attitudes. Lieing and cheating and fudging about what you are really producing. Disgust and astonishment of what somebody else is really claiming. Not a pretty picture of the picture, is it? Did someone say I must be a student? Haw!
Anonymous 10:06 is absolutely right.
Doing 5 feet of animation a week may seem low or easy, but when the quality bar is set to maximum, and daily director changes are added (and supervisor notes), that 5 feet can be a daunting, daunting task.
And in CG, it isnt JUST rough animation thats required (scribbled out on threes and twos) but polished, clean, perfect animation on ones (including all the nit-picky details). And thats also done with extremely slow rigs (depending on the studio). And its done without the "benefit" of being able to cheat poses and contact and perspective like you can in 2D. Sure, Im no draftsman (guilty) but ask any 2D to CG converts: CG animation is hard.
Thanks for the input everyone. That definitely makes sense with the high quality standards and other pressures. And it makes me feel at least a little better about the pace I'm able to move at now, as a student. Thanks!
BUT, as a student, you should be working faster so you make more mistakes so you learn more...
:)
Touche! I'll keep that in mind for the next few years.
Also, don't forget that 2D footage is usually character footage, where CG is usually shot footage. So even if you have 3+ characters in a shot, you need to accommodate to still average 5 feet a week.
Is there a particular reason why audiences are being shut in the dark? Because shouldn't we have some footage of actual characters by now?
I've heard the rumor that the animation is astounding, and the teaser looks nice (as brief as it is) but I need to see for myself... Will the characters still retain the 2-d "squash and stretch"? Will it still look organic and painterly? Or is Glen Keane's influence only limited to the design?
Post a Comment