Claymation is dead! Long live.....CGI?
01-31-06, 06:43 AM
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Claymation is dead! Long live.....CGI?
Fans of Aardman, home of Wallace and Gromit, might want to fortify themselves with a bit of cheese before swallowing this news.
Digits are out. Digital is in.
The very hands-on British animation studio behind such stop-motion films as 2000's Chicken Run and last year's The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is relying on computers to bring to life its fall comedy, Flushed Away.
Aardman's latest co-production with DreamWorks, due Nov. 3, employs high-tech tools rather than clay models to construct an underground city of rats below London's streets.
Hugh Jackman, the voice of snooty lead rodent Roderick St. James, has been an Aardman addict since 1994, when he and his brother saw the Oscar-winning short The Wrong Trousers. "We were crying tears of laughter. I've since bought everything they've done."
Although several Aardman-ites had to pull up stakes and move into DreamWorks' facility in Glendale, Calif., the British humor remains intact as Roddy is pushed into a toilet, lands in a teeming metropolis and is pursued by a gang of ruffians.
"Each of my recording sessions ended in hysterics," says Jackson, whose vocal collaborators include Kate Winslet as spirited scavenger Rita, Ian McKellen as slimy mobster Toad, and Andy Serkis and Bill Nighy as hench vermin Spike and Whitey.
Jackson is especially tickled that the plot involves World Cup soccer. As he puts it, "England is in the finals, so, yes, this is a fantasy, and I say that as an Australian."
A early look at FlushedAway's world beneath the loo is on the Were-Rabbit DVD ($30), which arrives Feb. 7. "We did not want to become this shiny, colorful thing like CGI movies are," co-director Sam Fell says. "We scruffed up the film and added wonky imperfections."
Flushed Away's characters have been fully "Aardman-ized," he assures. "They have wide smiles, round edges and spherical eyes close together."
One creature is destined to upstage the rest: Le Frog, a hit amphibian spoken by French actor Jean Reno. Wasn't he insulted to play, well, a frog?
"At first we thought we should have a British comic do it because there is a tradition of the Brits ripping into the French," Fell says. "But a newer idea was to have a French actor do it. It's fantastic to hear this deep, rich voice coming out of this tough little frog."
Sounds absolutely ribbit-ing.
Digits are out. Digital is in.
The very hands-on British animation studio behind such stop-motion films as 2000's Chicken Run and last year's The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is relying on computers to bring to life its fall comedy, Flushed Away.
Aardman's latest co-production with DreamWorks, due Nov. 3, employs high-tech tools rather than clay models to construct an underground city of rats below London's streets.
Hugh Jackman, the voice of snooty lead rodent Roderick St. James, has been an Aardman addict since 1994, when he and his brother saw the Oscar-winning short The Wrong Trousers. "We were crying tears of laughter. I've since bought everything they've done."
Although several Aardman-ites had to pull up stakes and move into DreamWorks' facility in Glendale, Calif., the British humor remains intact as Roddy is pushed into a toilet, lands in a teeming metropolis and is pursued by a gang of ruffians.
"Each of my recording sessions ended in hysterics," says Jackson, whose vocal collaborators include Kate Winslet as spirited scavenger Rita, Ian McKellen as slimy mobster Toad, and Andy Serkis and Bill Nighy as hench vermin Spike and Whitey.
Jackson is especially tickled that the plot involves World Cup soccer. As he puts it, "England is in the finals, so, yes, this is a fantasy, and I say that as an Australian."
A early look at FlushedAway's world beneath the loo is on the Were-Rabbit DVD ($30), which arrives Feb. 7. "We did not want to become this shiny, colorful thing like CGI movies are," co-director Sam Fell says. "We scruffed up the film and added wonky imperfections."
Flushed Away's characters have been fully "Aardman-ized," he assures. "They have wide smiles, round edges and spherical eyes close together."
One creature is destined to upstage the rest: Le Frog, a hit amphibian spoken by French actor Jean Reno. Wasn't he insulted to play, well, a frog?
"At first we thought we should have a British comic do it because there is a tradition of the Brits ripping into the French," Fell says. "But a newer idea was to have a French actor do it. It's fantastic to hear this deep, rich voice coming out of this tough little frog."
Sounds absolutely ribbit-ing.
This is disappointing news. I understand it takes years to do what they did with Wallace & Gromit, but this just isn't the same.
Although the pictures make it look like Aardman work, I want to see how they move.
01-31-06, 07:43 AM
#2
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Chew
This is disappointing news. I understand it takes years to do what they did with Wallace & Gromit, but this just isn't the same.
Overall though, I wouldn't worry too much. This film isn't directed by Peter Lord or Nick Park, but some new guys. I doubt Aardman will drop stop-motion all together. It seems more like an experiment done by some upstarts in the company.
Now, if we can just get Pixar to dabble in traditional cel or stop-motion animation now that they're over at Disney.
01-31-06, 08:48 AM
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear Wes Anderson is using claymation for his next feature, Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox.
I hope CGI is a trend that will fade out in a few years, I don't like to see one form dominating
I hope CGI is a trend that will fade out in a few years, I don't like to see one form dominating
01-31-06, 09:26 AM
#6
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the Oscar nominations today... all 3 of the nominated films are NOT CG flicks... Corpse Bride and Wallace are stop motion, Howl's is traditional 2-d animation...hopefully this will spark a "renaissance"...
MATT
MATT
01-31-06, 09:34 AM
#7
Moderator
Originally Posted by mdc3000
Look at the Oscar nominations today... all 3 of the nominated films are NOT CG flicks... Corpse Bride and Wallace are stop motion, Howl's is traditional 2-d animation...hopefully this will spark a "renaissance"...
MATT
MATT
01-31-06, 10:03 AM
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by mdc3000
Look at the Oscar nominations today... all 3 of the nominated films are NOT CG flicks... Corpse Bride and Wallace are stop motion, Howl's is traditional 2-d animation...hopefully this will spark a "renaissance"...
MATT
MATT
01-31-06, 10:17 AM
#10
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I was just wondering during Christmas why no one makes stop-motion Christmas specials anymore. There was actually a CGI Rudolph special that made me (and my 8-year-old) yearn for the days of "old school" animation. Rudolph just wasn't meant to be computer generated.
01-31-06, 10:20 AM
#11
Moderator
Originally Posted by rennervision
I was just wondering during Christmas why no one makes stop-motion Christmas specials anymore. There was actually a CGI Rudolph special that made me (and my 8-year-old) yearn for the days of "old school" animation. Rudolph just wasn't meant to be computer generated.
01-31-06, 11:46 AM
#13
Moderator
Originally Posted by Jay G.
Well, it takes years to do a CGI film as well. Really, it's the story and the characters that are more important to me rather than which animation method was used to make the film.
01-31-06, 02:34 PM
#14
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I find it ironic that everyone was telling Disney that the type of animation didn't matter. It was the story that mattered. Now people are saying it's the style of animation that matters. Why? Because of this illogical hatred of CG. Go figure.
However, Giles makes a good point.
However, Giles makes a good point.
01-31-06, 09:51 PM
#15
Yeah, the worst of Pixar is still 10x better than any of that Wallace & Gromit crap. I don't understand the love for stop motion animation. I used to have fun with my parents' video camera making stop motion movies with my Ninja Turtles but this Hollywood where they can afford to make the movie look real.
01-31-06, 10:05 PM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
Maybe we should worry more about creative movies being made, and movies being made in the appropriate format, rather than split into armed camps over these silly CGI v. stop motion v. cel animation.
The Incredibles simply would not have worked in any other format than CGI. Wallace and Gromit are the heart of stop motion animation, and a traditional storyteller like Miyazaki simply is not going to be able to express himself otherwise. All three have strengths (and weaknesses). Why not just enjoy good movies and leave it at that?
The Incredibles simply would not have worked in any other format than CGI. Wallace and Gromit are the heart of stop motion animation, and a traditional storyteller like Miyazaki simply is not going to be able to express himself otherwise. All three have strengths (and weaknesses). Why not just enjoy good movies and leave it at that?
01-31-06, 10:07 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by devilshalo
I wonder if the fire had anything to do with the change?
01-31-06, 10:25 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
Yeah, the worst of Pixar is still 10x better than any of that Wallace & Gromit crap. I don't understand the love for stop motion animation. I used to have fun with my parents' video camera making stop motion movies with my Ninja Turtles but this Hollywood where they can afford to make the movie look real.
We don't need to hear the "story/characters are what make the film" platitude, we're talking about what medium is best for bringing that story to life. In the case of wallace and gromit, making them smoothly animated and shiny takes away the charm that made them original to begin with.
I think this whole argument is not about the strengths and weaknesses of any format, but studios seeing CGI films as an automatic cash-in with the potential of sacrificing important artistic decisions.
01-31-06, 10:46 PM
#19
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt
Yeah, the worst of Pixar is still 10x better than any of that Wallace & Gromit crap. I don't understand the love for stop motion animation. I used to have fun with my parents' video camera making stop motion movies with my Ninja Turtles but this Hollywood where they can afford to make the movie look real.
That was funny. Poppy, I love your jokes.
In all seriousness, anyone else thinking about the shutout of CG from the Oscars? Sure, Wallace & Gromit had some cg, but still...
02-01-06, 12:40 AM
#20
DVD Talk Legend
I would prefer W&G to stay clay, but I have no problem with other forms of animation. Of course story and characters come first, but certain animation fits for obvious reasons. How would an anime look as claymation?
02-01-06, 04:18 AM
#22
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,782
Received 2,044 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Clay, CGI, 2-D....if a GREAT STORY isn't there it doesn't matter one damn bit.
02-01-06, 04:18 AM
#23
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,782
Received 2,044 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Originally Posted by zombiezilla
Any Ray Harryhausen work is far more fun to watch than (nearly) any CGI.
02-01-06, 04:35 AM
#24
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,782
Received 2,044 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Originally Posted by DVD King
We don't need to hear the "story/characters are what make the film" platitude, we're talking about what medium is best for bringing that story to life. In the case of wallace and gromit, making them smoothly animated and shiny takes away the charm that made them original to begin with.
I think this whole argument is not about the strengths and weaknesses of any format, but studios seeing CGI films as an automatic cash-in with the potential of sacrificing important artistic decisions.
Art fart...let us not forget that Hollywood is a buisness.
