I spent a good part of the afternoon at the Disney Company's hat building, where there's more production happening ...
Wreck-It Ralph is well underway, with 100 staffers (if my informants have their numbers right) now working on the picture. A Chris Buck feature and King of the Elves are also moving briskly along.
Animators practicing the hand-drawn version of the craft are now doing test footage of characters in 2-D versions, although the characters will ultimately be rendered and executed as C.G. when the films are in production. An animator related:
"This is a way for directors to see how the characters move and act before the c.g. versions are built. We can get footage out faster for test purposes. ..."
I got to look at some tests. It will be interesting to see the same characters in their computer graphic mode.
And there is early work on a possible hand-drawn feature taking place, although staff said it's too early to say if it will ultimately get made or not. The most recent example of the craft gets released this weekend.
... "Winnie the Pooh" is the Walt Disney Animation Studios' first journey into the Hundred Acre Wood in more than three decades.
... "We are going to take down 'Harry Potter,' no question," said [producer Peter] Del Vecho ...
I'm sure it will be a horse race over the weekend.
Posts
40 comments:
The 2D tests are extremely informative and inspirational for the CG crew. Glen did some similar tests for Tangled. I think its very valuable and collaboratibe.
Roughing a scene with drawings is faster and allows more immediate creative freedom to work out the acting .
Animator Jason Ryan is a big advocate of roughing out scenes with drawings first (he draws on a Cintiq using Digicel Flipbook), then importing the image sequence into Maya and using the drawings as a guide to posing the CG rig. Jason has an online animation tutoring program , iAnimate , where he demonstrates how effective this method is.
Hand-drawn animation can also be used in a similar way with Stop-Motion puppets , by animating the scene first on paper , then posing the puppet to match the hand-drawn animation. (example: the short film "The Big Story" , where a fully animated pencil test version was done first : The Big Story Pencil Test rough pass
The Big Story - Final Stop-Mo version
.
... "We are going to take down 'Harry Potter,' no question," said [producer Peter] Del Vecho ...
Well, at least Peter has managed to hold on to a gallows sense of humor about it ... hey, let's hear it for the brilliant Disney Marketing Dept. for sabotaging another animated film !
And when Pooh flops (as it already did in Europe with no significant promotion) we can all join in chanting these self-evident truths:
"2D is dead . 2D doesn't make money at the box-office. Audiences don't want to see 2D anymore. 2D is dead." ... ad nauseum ad infinitum.
(It really seems as if someone wants the hand-drawn movies to fail. Why? Why waste the time and money to make it in the first place if you just dump it into theaters with no real promotion and going up against the biggest movie franchise of the summer ? This must be enormously frustrating for the talented team who worked on Winnie the Pooh.)
A Chris Buck feature
Fandom seems to believe the feature is "The Snow Queen" and it's CGI.
My understanding of why they made the Pooh film in the first place was for legal/copyright purposes.
If it makes a little money I'm sure they won't cry, but this wasn't intended to ever be a big picture. With their current mentality, if they really wanted it to be a hit they would've gone with CG. Instead they went cheap and painless. I'm surprised they didn't farm it out to Korea.
The Snow Queen is dead. Even still, it's done better at selling merchandise than Tangled.
My understanding of why they made the Pooh film in the first place was for legal/copyright purposes.
This makes no sense. Copyrights aren't lost if you don't exploit a property (trademarks are different, but you don't need to make a film to protect your trademarks). It seems more likely it was done for marketing purposes, to keep the Pooh merchandise more relevant.
That's not true-- as evidenced by so many superhero reboots (especially Spiderman). It's also why Disney keeps so many various versions of Mickey alive.
Pooh was made because "x" number of certain rights would revert back to the original owners if Disney didn't make a film from the stories of some sort. It's a strategic business move, like everything in Hollywood.
My understanding of why they made the Pooh film in the first place was for legal/copyright purposes.
A fine understanding, but wrong.
Mr. Mattinson, who pitched it and helped develop it, told me that the company was interested in a new title that would sell well in DVD and Blu Ray.
Apparently the original theatrical featurettes sell like gangbusters, but the tv-produced stuff does not. So Diz Co. wanted a new theatrical feature to put on the little silver disks.
^
Ok , so then what you're saying is that basically the theatrical release is just going through the motions so they can dub it the next "Disney Classic" when they release it on DVD/bluray , but not as something which is perceived as being merely a "cheap direct-to-video" property ? If it was theatrically released it's considered better than anything done as a direct-to-video. Ok. And the original theatrical Pooh films continue to sell like gangbusters on DVD, so 2D Animation is still actually profitable for the company , right ? Ok. Got it.
Therefore the fact that it will do very well indeed on DVD/Bluray , and will turn a tidy profit (but not at the theatrical box-office) means that it won't be used to bludgeon 2D Animation as another example of how "2D is dead" ?
The only people who beat the "2D is dead" drum are outside the walls if Disney Animation. If it hadnt been for the Mort copyright holdup, they'd be well on their way in production to the follow-up of Pooh.
The Snow Queen is dead.
Dont be silly.
2D isn't dead it just resting (and pining for the fjords).
The reason for making Winnie the Pooh is not just to sell more DVDs and Blu-Rays (though that is a good reason). It is to make Winnie the Pooh relevant again. To try and bring him out of the toddler age group and make him accessible to all ages. To sell more merchandise to the general audience, not just infant blankets, mobiles, and onesies.
2D isn't dead it just resting (and pining for the fjords)
One of their greatest sketches!!
The budget for Pooh was roughly only $25 million. Pretty small amount of money to keep a product of your alive and it sells clothing etc so Disney sees it as a great investment. Also, it kept people employed and shows some signs that Disney is still in the 2d game. May not be the 2d game we all think they should be but for now it is what we got. 2d could be so much more but at least Disney is still putting forth an effort.
My guess is if it is the "right"s issue then Burney might not know about it or even want to discuss it anymore than the makers of the reboots of Spider-man or the X-Men will discuss that type of crass decision making.
Disney has shown in the past that if all they were after were DVD sales they could have easily polished up several old TV episodes, strung them together and called it a feature and their DVD buying families would have bought those and not blinked.
Just the fact that they've been having problems with the Milne family recently and the fact they aren't trying very hard to make the film a hit tends to make me believe this is a legal issue.
AND I definitely don't buy the fact that this is their attempt at saving 2D. If Disney and JL were REALLY serious about saving 2D they would get JL's story geniuses from Pixar to create the next film since he obviously respects them more than the people down south.
If he did that then I would believe he wants to save 2D - even if I don't agree with him about who the story geniuses are.
Oh shaddap you blowhard. As if you know what JL is thinking.
Could please someone confirm whether Chris Buck will be directing the revived CGI 'Snow Queen' or not? I thought he was working on another CGI film with Mike Giaimo.
What happened to Burny Mattinson's pitch about a 'Mickey Mouse' feature? Did it get rejected or has it been greenlit for further development?
Jim Cummings said in an interview that Disney was pondering to make some Ray (from TPatF) shorts.
Is this true? I guess when the film 'underperformed' they changed their minds, huh?
How come Chris Buck's feature is moving along when Dean Wellins' feature has been much longer in development?
And there is early work on a possible hand-drawn feature taking place, although staff said it's too early to say if it will ultimately get made or not.
Steve, is this the Clements & Musker's hand-drawn feature or someone else's?
I'm intrigued about the Don Hall project. There's no chaance in it being hand-drawn, right?
Could please someone confirm whether Chris Buck will be directing the revived CGI 'Snow Queen' or not?
Confidentiality means something.
All these people coming in here and demanding answers really crack me up.
You'll find out when you find out.
Confidentiality means something.
Damn straight.
Confidentiality means something.
Does that really constitute confidential information? I guess things have changed since when I used to work for Disney.
My guess is if it is the "right"s issue then Burney might not know about it or even want to discuss it anymore than the makers of the reboots of Spider-man or the X-Men will discuss that type of crass decision making.
It's so amazing how vehement some people are, despite not having the slightest clue how the world works. Dude, there is a huge difference between a copyright issue, a trademark issue, and an issue over a contractual option. You seem to think they're all the same thing. You couldn't be more wrong.
You might want to give yahweh some credit...I think you don't have a clue about the world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/30/winnie-the-pooh-disney-law-suit
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oB4htwlH9VUJ:www.recong2.com/journal/winnie_the_pooh_copyright_suit_goes_against_disney_a_a_milne_granddaughters+disney+copyright+winnie+the+pooh&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=0
maybe you should Google a little before you start assuming others are 'vehement'
@there is no yahweh said
It doesn't sound to me like he was saying he knew what JL was "thinking" but was viewing his actions as pretty difinitive
Why should Disney make a movie about Mickey Mouse when it can buy crappy characters like the Muppets and give THEM movies?
Looks like someone hit a nerve.....over thirty comments.
Disney,Disney,Disney........never fails.
What a popular subject.
You might want to give yahweh some credit...I think you don't have a clue about the world:
You really, REALLY, don't know what you're talking about. The statement was made that the Pooh movie was made primarily because it was necessary in some way for Disney to keep or extend the copyright on the property. The articles you cited have NOTHING to do with Disney making a new Pooh movie.
The battle between Disney and Slesinger Inc. was over past royalties, and who held the copyright. Disney won the case. The current movie being made is entirely separate. If Disney had not made the new movie, their legal standing regarding their rights to the Pooh franchise would be exactly the same. They did not need to make the movie for legal or copyright reasons. They needed to make the movie to keep the merchandise relevant, and because the Pooh movies are evergreen sellers on DVD to grandparents who want to buy stuff for the grandkids.
anon @ 11:15:00 - you're pretty funny when people don't agree with you. You have one tiny little thought and no oine can make you see beyond that scope. Now if you're through with you tantrum I think the anon @ 9:59 was trying to poke a hole in your argument that yahweh was confused about copyrights, etc. From my reading of those articles it seems to indicate that you aren't clear on what you're talking about. But go ahead and continue stamping your little foot on the ground. We can all wait you out.
If you feel better in assuming the film is nothing more than a big unnecessary commercial for Pooh products then go ahead. I personally agree with the statement that if that's all they were interested in then they could have saved a lot of money then going this way. I don't imagine that buyers of Pooh merchandise were dying for a new Pooh film to remind them top buy Pooh.
If you're right and this is a big expensive commercial then after Cars2 being essentially the same thing that does speak too well of JL's artistic aspirations does it.
You have one tiny little thought
No, I have a lot of thoughts. I generally don't engage my mouth, or my keyboard, unless I'm clear on the accuracy of those thoughts.
From my reading of those articles it seems to indicate that you aren't clear on what you're talking about.
Care to elaborate? Care to show me where those articles indicated that Disney needed to make a film about Pooh to continue to hold the copyright?
I don't imagine that buyers of Pooh merchandise were dying for a new Pooh film to remind them top buy Pooh.
This just shows how little you know about how Disney operates. For example, a major motivation for 'The Frog Princess' was to create a new, racially diverse 'princess' for the massively successful 'princess franchise' of merchandising. Ditto the Tinkerbell movies, who drive interest in the billion-dollar 'fairy franchise.'
If you're right and this is a big expensive commercial then after Cars2 being essentially the same thing that does speak too well of JL's artistic aspirations does it.
Many might agree with your conclusion. The more generous would say that JL is willing to be a merchant when he needs to be, and that this helps support the riskier, more diverse projects.
"I'm intrigued about the Don Hall project. There's no chaance in it being hand-drawn, right?"
No, it's CG.
A nice list of what's coming next is over at Blue Sky Disney, although they don't give names of the last few, they seem to be correct in what is coming and who is directing them.
I still don't understand why it was put up against Potter. Yeah, Potter is dark and PG-13 and all but parents won't care and neither will kids. If they really wanted to counter program they should have tried to put it up against Hangover 2 or Bad Teacher. Unfortunatly Cars and Kung-Fu Panda already took those slots. Maybe they could have held onto it until Cowboys and Aliens, Conan, or Apes in August?
Come to think of it, why did they put it out in the summer at all? They already had Cars 2 coming out, and Captain America, and Thor (Well, sort of). I'm not sure where they could have put it, maybe a three day break or right around when school starts as a 'when you get back from school we'll go and see Pooh' deal.
I really hope we're dead wrong and marketing, somehow, knows what they're doing.
I like it when people argue on the internet about Winnie The Pooh. It's hilarious.
A nice list of what's coming next is over at Blue Sky Disney, although they don't give names of the last few, they seem to be correct in what is coming and who is directing them.
So, is Chris Buck really directing the CG Snow Queen? But it doesn't add up. When the hand-drawn Snow Queen got shelved, Chris Buck went to work on another CGI film. Did that project fell through and then he got the CG Snow Queen gig?
Yes. That film got scrapped because two other studios are making similar films, Tangled made fairy tales hot again, and a CG Snow Queen will look awesome
Yes. That film got scrapped because two other studios are making similar films.
Are you referring to "Jack and the Beanstalk"?
Post a Comment