|
Author
|
Topic: Yessssss!!! "Happy Feet" Wins!!!
|
|
|
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352
|
posted
Am I wrong or didn't they mo-cap the dancing stuff in "Happy Feet"?
What's the point of animation having an Oscar category if the animation Isn't actually animated?
If I'm wrong -- then I apologize.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
animator-boy
IE # 54
Member # 442
|
posted
Mr Fun- it seems that if what is on screen is not real...and is moving..then it is considered animation... like how Walking Life or Scanner Darkly is considered animation eventhough its drawings over live action..... kinda nutty...
--------------------
www.raymation.net
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pixel Pusher
Member
Member # 1558
|
posted
It may have been mo-cap but it's the images
that make it an animated feature right?
If the whole thing was motion capture it doesn't
matter.
motion capture does not = a bad movie
just as
keyframe does not = a good movie
I guess the people who voted over all liked the
story better than the other two.
BTW I thought Cars and Monster House were great
movies on their own.
IP: Logged
|
|
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186
|
posted
I'd also like to voice my disappointment. What a weird year it's been for animation. Tapdancing penguins? Really?!?
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Shaw!
IE # 132
Member # 172
|
posted
It didn't matter if HAPPY FEET was traditionally animated, mocap or stop-motion with little pieces of uncooked macaroni...
The so-called "story" was the picture's BIG problem, in my opinion, certainly not award quality.
All the same, congratulations to the winners.
Aloha,
Scott!
IP: Logged
|
|
Eric Hedman
IE # 84
Member # 2453
|
posted
Animated, means animated.
If you use life to make it and replay it, it is puppetry.
It's better that Happy Feet wins than Monster House because Happy Feet has a big hunk of animation in it.
It's insipid...but entertaining.
It's not Cars...its animals.
Cars is better animation. But the Academy has spoken.
How far away is Monster House in it's tone and aesthetic from The Goonies?
--------------------
http://www.radiodismuke.com
20's-30's music
Come see my Second Life Stuff
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Chilispoon/128/80/39
IP: Logged
|
|
Semaj
Member
Member # 3131
|
posted
Two words: Ripped off! ![[rasberry]](graemlins/rasberry.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352
|
posted
This is a trip!
I've been having arguments with colleagues on the phone during the show over this movie. One guy hates it -- and one loves it.
I don't know. I miss the old days when artists drew on paper. Boy, am I getting old.
IP: Logged
|
|
Ganklin
IE # 14
Member # 1864
|
posted
i don't know why people get upset over the idea of tapdancing penguins. i mean, the whole idea of animation is to show something that can't be done in live action which "happy feet" does. plus, i don't hear anyone crying about the dancing penguins in marry poppins...
as for mo-cap: i'm not a fan. i think it looks wiggly. weight is generally thrown out the window. however, my understanding of mo-cap is that there are a "cleaning" process with all captured data in order to keep things in line. is there enough frame to frame manipulation to call it animation? i guess so. the same could be said of extensive roto in drawn. its a mixed bag.
--------------------
http://fsummers.blogspot.com/
www.shamoozal.com
IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352
|
posted
Well, the performance in "Mary Poppins" was at least created on paper by an incredible animator, Frank Thomas.
As one who labored on the film umpteen years ago, we only used rotos as reference. We sometimes had to "connect" our animation to the live-action performers. One hell of a lot of difference from tweaking motion capture. We had to create the damn stuff on paper with a pencil.
Then again, I'm from another era. Perhaps "Happy Feet" is brilliant.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886
|
posted
I agree with Steve G. I loved 'Cars' it really hit home with me. Haven't seen 'Happy Feet' yet but those I know who have just praised it up and down.
Mo Cap isn't my cup of tea either so I assume the movie had something more to it than Mo Cap.
I understand Mr. Fun's position too. It's good to see him fired up on an issue because he can talk the talk like no one else. He's seen and done it all.
I'm glad to see CG getting used better. Chicken Little and Nemo just grabbed me. Showed me that artists can really get some great characterization going on.
I saw tonight's Oscars and seeing Mater in the audience and then his look when they lost just got me.
CG's come a long way and I'm sure it'll get better as the artists get better with it.
It's just a new medium for artists to express themselves.
--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com
IP: Logged
|
|
droosan
IE # 4
Member # 2225
|
posted
Congratulations are due to Animal Logic, as well as a team of artists at Rhythm & Hues ..! ![[cheers]](graemlins/cheers.gif)
There were nearly a dozen animated features from last year which weren't even nominated .. so the Pixar & Sony features could have done worse .. ![[Yes]](graemlins/yes.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Inkan
IE # 77
Member # 1089
|
posted
Hmm. This is the first time since the 2002 Oscars ( Pixar lost that Oscar, too. We should've seen this as a bad omen. ![[flirt]](graemlins/flirt.gif) ) that they've used a gimmick for the BAF Oscar. Specifically the same gimmick of the cartoon characters sitting in the audience during the announcement. I thought the animation was a bit stiff, I'm afraid. Also, it's cliche and a little tacky to have the characters who lost act like poor sports; having them be polite would've been more interesting. And the "Monster House" kids could've at least worn something better than their normal clothes. At least Mumbles was dressed for the occasion. ![[funny]](graemlins/funny.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan P.
IE # 248
Member # 893
|
posted
Congrats to Animal Logic!
Happy Feet was my favorite animated film from last year and I'm damn glad it won. And I've never been a fan of motion capture. At least they tried things on that film, and experimented a bit. It's wacky and strange but it works.
I'm sorry to say that Cars was a bit boring and although the animation was top-notch and better than HF, it didn't do much for me. It did not deserve to win an Oscar. Too formulaic and predictable.
IP: Logged
|
|
robster16
IE # 160
Member # 620
|
posted
Cars should have won. MUCH better story! This is seriously weird!!!
IP: Logged
|
|
Floyd Bishop
IE # 183
Member # 2322
|
posted
quote:
As one who labored on the film umpteen years ago, we only used rotos as reference.
Motion capture, at least in the case of "Happy Feet", was used in a similar way. The data they collected was used as a jumping off point for the animation, and a lot of the performance stuff was animated without motion capture.
--------------------
Floyd Bishop
IP: Logged
|
|
alimator
Member
Member # 3329
|
posted
This is like the New Zealand Rugby team winning the footabll world cup. They'd be running all over the pitch ramming the other teams with the ball in their hands while everyone else was constrained by the rules of freaking football. Of course I don't mean that Animal Logic were at an advantage due to motion capture. It's just that they were playing a whole other game than animation. It was just another effects job. Ah, who cares?! Cars was fun enough, but I'm not sorry it lost. It was below par for Pixar. I feel like a heretic but Over the Hedge was the animated film I enjoyed the most last year. I'm just worried that George Miller will take this award as validation and an incentive to make another one of these 'things'. Am I the only one who thought it was like an animated Moulin Rouge?
IP: Logged
|
|
ApeLad
IE # 231
Member # 3186
|
posted
Congratulations to everyone involved and the nominees too.
...and thanks to whomever it was that sent the anonymous email. Perhaps someday I will see the error of my opinion. But probably not.
(Does anyone else ever get disgruntled emailed responses rather than posted ones? C'mon folks, that's the whole purpose of these boards.)
IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Wilson
IE # 139
Member # 1520
|
posted
Odd selection, but to be honest, I was expecting Monster House to win. Cars didn't deserve to win. It was formulaic, lethargic, and narcissistic, in my opinion. I'm still confused as to why Ice Age 2 or Flushed Away were completely ignored by the academy. Very weird.
To the people that are angry: If not winning the Oscar makes Pixar hungrier to make an even better film, that's good for everyone. I'm sure Ratattooie will prove that and bring home a trophy next year.
IP: Logged
|
|
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280
|
posted
quote:
(Does anyone else ever get disgruntled emailed responses rather than posted ones? C'mon folks, that's the whole purpose of these boards.)
Yep. JATG got one, and so did someone else...Fooksie, I think.
I once got an anonymous email jab in early 2001, but it had nothing to do with this forum. Cowards exist everywhere.
-+-
I still haven't seen Happy Feet. A VFX friend of mine raved about the CG quality, though, so I plan to check it out someday.
--------------------
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
rhinthell
Member
Member # 3357
|
posted
I agree with Dan P. This film WAS animated and it had a good story. It was different than the pack this past year. And apparently the people at the Oscars were glad to see a movie that didn't follow the same old formula that animated movies have been following for well on 10 years now.
Sure there was mocap in it, but to the best of my knowledge that was just the dancing. I would agree that Cars was better animated. If the category were changed to be best animation in an animated film, I'd gladly say Cars deserves it. But Cars was so formulaic I found it kind of painful to watch. It was just another John Lassetter film, right down to the awkward love interest story. This was fine the first couple of times, but watching this movie I was saddened to realize that Lassetter really does have a formula.
Happy Feet was not an amazing film but it's so different, I was completely floored the first time I saw it. And I do think it's a very good movie. It takes risks. Not all the risks succeed but it was so refreshing to see an animated movie ignoring the restrictions of its medium.
IP: Logged
|
|
athena
IE # 128
Member # 1633
|
posted
Having seen both "Happy Feet" and "Cars", personally I think the better movie went home with the Oscar last night. You can make arguments up and down as to which had the better *animation* in it, but as a movie--the complete package--"Happy Feet" had my vote from the beginning.
--------------------
Keyframe :: www.keyframeonline.com
IP: Logged
|
|
EustaceScrubb
IE # 37
Member # 862
|
posted
I haven't seen Happy Feet yet , so I don't have anything to say about it's worthiness as a film one way or the other, but I'm curious whether the majority of the film consists of mo-capped performances or just the big production numbers of the penguins dancing ? Was the entire movie shot in live action and then turned into people-in-penguin-suits, or was a lot of it actually animated in addition to the mo-capped dancing scenes ?
Is there anyone reading this board who worked on "Happy Feet" who could give us an accurate understanding of the ratio of key-framed animation to mo-capped stuff ? How much of the mo-cap was worked over by animators to make it work plausibly in the film? In principle, I would have to say that basing an animated performance on motion-captured frames is not all that different than the use of rotoscoping in classic hand-drawn films, as long as it's done with some taste and artistic discretion it can be a useful tool ; I don't think anyone would want to argue that films like Peter Pan or Sleeping Beauty were "tainted" or not "real animation" because of the presence of certain characters or scenes that were based on live action reference footage (though in the best cases were substantially re-drawn and re-timed by the animators , not just literally traced over).
IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Fun
IE # 63
Member # 352
|
posted
Alimator mentioned "Happy Feet" playing a "different game." That's a valid point. However, they played it well. Also, calling the film an animated "Moulin Rouge" was an interesting thought.
It does make one wonder if live-action will further encroach on animation turf? What live-action film maker will take on an animated project next? And, with Brad Bird considering a live-action movie, perhaps the distinction of being an animation or live-action director will become a thing of the past.
In any case, "Happy Feet" probably deserved its win. It's just that this business will probably never be the same. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
toonedbob
IE # 45
Member # 422
|
posted
Mr. Fun, you echoed something my colleagues and I have talked about. The live action director invading our "turf". Guy Ritchie, Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarrantino have all expressed interest in directing an animated feature.
Happy Feet winning may be a signal to many in Hollywood, "If you can't get an Oscar in live action, then why not do an animated flick, there's less competition and lower standards!"
All in all it was a toss up for me for this year's animated Oscar. I don't think any of the nominees were more deserving than the others nor those that didn't get nominated as Matt pointed out with Flushed Away and Ice Age 2 or, for that matter, Over the Hedge. In my opinion Open Season was in the same league as the rest.
Let's hope that some of us will produce more innovative stories and animation to let these Johnny Come Latelies know that we do animation better, because it is our passiion and our medium.
IP: Logged
|
|
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886
|
posted
Just over 10 years ago when Toy Story came out we all knew that as a hit film and toy line it would be a matter of time before everyone and their third cousin twice removed would be pumping out CG movies in a formulaic mode.
Now we're so buried in CG movies I can't tell the difference anymore and they've lost their unique edge. Just because it's CG doesn't mean it's good nor a guaranteed moneymaker at the box office. This past year has seen several flops and several hits. Now that the reality to the investors has sunk in that CG isn't a guarantee to profit they'll have to rethink their strategy. Maybe, just maybe they'll realize no matter how high end the technique, it's still good ol' fashioned story, storytelling that wins the day.
Just how many CG flicks came out within the past 12 months? I've lost count. Only saw Cars and Over The Hedge.
--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com
IP: Logged
|
|
knowledge
IE # 258
Member # 462
|
posted
I enjoyed Cars more than the other 2 nominees, and personally found Hoodwinked to be more 'entertaining' than Happy Feet. That is not meant as a put down, as I enjoyed Happy Feet, it is just that Hoodwinked was a very fresh and clever film!
IP: Logged
|
|
EustaceScrubb
IE # 37
Member # 862
|
posted
This concern has been voiced before (most eloquently by Brad Bird), but it seems to me that the whole idea of segregating animated films into a separate category of "Best Animated Film" is problematic. It treats animation as a peculiar "genre", which I think Brad Bird has correctly pointed out is a crock. Animation can be used to make a genre film : animated Western, animated Horror Film, animated Musical, animated Science Fiction, etc. but it's not a genre simply because it's animated.
IMO, no reason "The Incredibles" shouldn't have won for Best Picture the year it won in the Best Animated Picture category. Now it seems like the Academy is blurring the lines in such a way that from this time on the door is left open for certain films which use highly processed footage that is not obviously regular-looking live action to be considered as "animated" , but actual animation doesn't get the same consideration in being eligible for the main Best Picture category ? It's not a two-way street. (the year "Beauty & The Beast received a nomination in the Best Picture category , wasn't there a bit of backlash from some Academy members ? They didn't like the fact that a mere cartoon would be considered on the same playing field as a "real" , i.e. live action, movie .)
Of course, I suppose the consolation prize of having a separate (but equal?) Best Animated Picture category is better than being totally ignored , but is it enabling the fallacy that animated films are a separate genre ?
IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis Woodyard
IE # 81
Member # 2314
|
posted
My congratulations to the Happy Feet creatives, and to those of the other films.
But, really I don't put much stock in any of the entertainment awards stuff. Rarely does any of my favorite animated movies, live-action movies, music, etc. won awards or end up on someone else's "Best of..." list. Reducing creative efforts to a hyped "horse race", just leaves me cold.
I have a eclectic taste, as I'm sure many of you do, I can find artistic merit in some of the oddest things depending on my mood. I rather spend the time enjoying stuff than picking "THE WINNER".
There are no absolutes in art or life. So, just enjoy it all.
Dragonfly View - Blog
--------------------
The Gods that smiled when you were born are Laughing now - My Favorite Fortune Cookie Saying
IP: Logged
|
|
Eric Hedman
IE # 84
Member # 2453
|
posted
Ya know, this year when I got my screeners I left Happy Feet on, but I barely watched it, and was entertained. Then I turned on Flushed Away, and watched it intently....and turned it off after 20 minutes.
Happy Feet is a combo of March of the Penguins, Moulin Rouge, Nemo, and Gold Diggers of 1933. Oh yeah...and Bugs Life. It puts Elvis and Marilyn Monroe into the role of lovers and parents of Frodo.
All with a survey of Pop Hits from the 50's 60's 70's and 80's....With porn star jokes for the prurient parents and Latin Machismo Jokes for the rest of us.
It kinda reminds me of Xanadu.
Al in all, like I said. It was movie light but entertaining.
I just couldn't get into Roddy.
I find myself not liking know-it-all fops...in the real world they tend to not be there when you need them or worse. But when I went back and watched...Flushed away had amazingly good animation and craft to it.
So in the Oscars we had:
An EcoFriendly kids film
A NASCAR film
and
A Goonies-esque Halloween film populated by zombies.
I have watched CARS more than a dozen times now.
So you can tell which one I liked better. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm glad that Dead Mans Chest won for Effects, but wish that Night at the Museum would have been nominated.
--------------------
http://www.radiodismuke.com
20's-30's music
Come see my Second Life Stuff
http://slurl.com/secondlife/Chilispoon/128/80/39
IP: Logged
|
|
Chris Roman
IE # 223
Member # 551
|
posted
My apologies to those who worked on Happy Feet and put perhaps their hearts and souls into their work...it was one of if not the worst movie I have ever seen.
First off, didn't anyone who saw Happy Feet also see March of the Penguins!? Doesn't it rub anyone the wrong way that the first half of Happy Feet was basically lifted shots from that documentary?
The story was ALL OVER THE place. Was it about an outsider finding redemption? As a main character he had ZERO GROWTH! He stuck to his way of doing things and everything came out right in the end.
The 'environmental message'? Don't overfish. Wow.
How about that animation of all those humans at the end, huh? Didn't they look amazing? Considering it was all REAL PEOPLE!
Did George Miller see a double feature of Happy Feet and Moulin Rouge?
The characters...Elvis? Marylin Monroe? Biggie Smalls? What, when you die as a singer you're reincarnated as a penguin?
The animation - what WASN'T mo-cap was poorly animated. They moved too MUCH like real penguins. Where's the art? Where's the artist taking the movement beyond the 'realistic' and making it more? The mo-cap itself was bad - whatever magical tap dancing was done was too hard to see on the damn small feet of the penguin.
I'd love to discuss this at length with the several people who've posted here that loved Happy Feet, because I just don't see how people can hold it up as a great story, or great animation, or great anything. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, right?
IP: Logged
|
|
Dan P.
IE # 248
Member # 893
|
posted
Seems to me like you'd rather watch a conventional film Chris. Happy Feet just isn't for you then.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bill
IE # 166 ASIFA
Member # 1527
|
posted
Chris I agree with you about the animation of the feet. It should have been exaggerated to show off the dancing better. Grim Natwick once said that when animating Snow White dancing, they could use maybe frame 1 and frame 101 of the live reference or it would be too static.
My opinion is that Cars was a better animated film. It deserved to win the Annie Award. But I have to admit Happy Feet was maybe more entertaining so maybe it deserved an Oscar. Different standards of excellence. Then again, I enjoyed Over the Hedge more than any of the others, so what do I know?
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
