Showing posts with label Chuck Jones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chuck Jones. Show all posts

Monday, May 8, 2017

THE LEGO MOVIE: Creative Imitation of a Brickfilm (Video Essay)

There are many reasons why you should watch THE LEGO MOVIE (Lord/Miller, 2014) at least once (and I am certainly not talking about the worn-out "special one" fantasy formulas). 
Some things that I keep being fascinated by are A) the film makers' total commitment to make their computer generated blockbuster look like a real brickfilm, and B) how they adapt techniques and stylistic devices of hand drawn cartoons into three dimensions in order to compensate for a conceptual lack of motion blur. And C) there is an annoyingly jolly unicorn-kitten called, well, Unikitty.

So without further ado, my latest animation analysis video essay:
(works best in full screen)
Note: All the video, images and sounds in this animation analysis are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are displayed for educational purposes only with no commercial intent.
This video essay was first published (and is also available) with German voice-over narration for "film bulletin" here: filmbulletin.ch/full/artikel/2017-5-2_brickfilm-meets-tex-avery/

Introducing the Animation Rules

THE LEGO MOVIE does a really great job in establishing not only its setting but also its basic animation style and premise. After a classic pre-credits scene introducing the main villain, the super weapon and the prophesy about an average Joe becoming the great saviour, we enter the main story on an extreme close-up on Emmet's eyes. Emmet is said average Joe, of course.

Here, we clearly see that Emmet's face is two-dimensionally animated and basically flat on the yellow surface of a typical minifigure head piece. In the next shot, we see a close-up of Emmet's rigid hand that tries to turn off the alarm clock which shows us right away how in this film the materiality of plastic LEGO pieces will not be digitally bent. After that, most of us will - subconsciously, at least - assume that this is a concept the film adheres to. Especially after we see that Emmet's flexibility is restricted by the available joints in his body parts...
...which work exactly like the trademark LEGO instruction manual demonstrates.
During Emmet's morning exercises, he jumps a few times:
And now we come to an observation that did not make it into the video analysis: the interesting thing here is how the briskness of the jumping motion is achieved by abstaining from inbetweens during the up and down movements. As you can see from the timecode of the GIF below, the character just goes from anticipation to the up-position and after a few cushion frames back to the down position with a "falling" inbetween.
You can also see that despite this being a computer animated film the film makers tried to animate the characters on twos whenever possible like in a real stop motion film. Most often, the characters are even animated on twos during camera movements which are naturally animated on ones:

2 poses held for 2 frames each.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Dec 8 - skin color [Updated]

Looks like this is going to be the last post of the series. I still haven't received three answers to the Dec 5 question, so I'm ending the series with this post I've already prepared. Thanks for participating anyway.

What's the skin color of this happy Chuck Jones baby?
modified image (baby desaturated)
Color suggestions for baby skin tone
 Update: the answer is C...
...because this baby should have been delivered to Mars. The antennae and ear form didn't make that a very human looking baby, indeed.



Monday, November 1, 2010

Smears

Recently I've spent more time studying cartoon animation than color design. At work we talked about scenes that were worth showing frame-by-frame to animation newcomers/students. Naturally I thought of "smears" because they go unnoticed to most untrained viewers.

Then the other day I accidentally stumbled upon this Bugs Bunny scene from Hare Trigger (1945,  noteworthy mainly because it features Yosemite Sam's first appearance) that inspired my blogging about the subject of "smears":

Drawings 4 and 8 are the "smears", versions of elongated inbetweens that are usually only shown for one frame even if the rest of the animation is on 2s. 
Basically they compensate for the lack of motion blur in hand drawn animation.

Frankly, I was surprised to see such outrageous drawings in a Freleng cartoon, but to be honest, I've never looked too close at the animation in his films anyway. [UPDATE 2013: I should have given credit long ago: this shot was animated by the great Virgil Ross who - as Thad explains in the comments - was never given the recognition he deserved, neither by Clampett nor be Freleng.]

When I think of smears, Bob Clampett and Rod Scribner come to mind as well as Chuck Jones' famous Dover Boys (1942).

The character slides from pose 1 to pose 2 with the leading body parts consecutively being elongated which makes for overlapping drawings and prevents strobing (first left leg, then head, then right leg).



 Smears often go unnoticed because they are immediately followed 
by normally timed or even slow animation like reaching inside the coat (above).

Here's an extreme smear. The key element is that 
volumes are not kept consistent.

As a sidenote: in case you thought this rather odd combination of complimentary colors was only used for bad guys, look at these frames from Clampett's Book Revue (1946):

The following framegrabs from To Duck Or Not To Duck (1943) demonstrate how Jones and his animators used this technique in a Daffy Duck cartoon as well. It's early Jones, so Daffy is still loony and playful.
The concept here is basically horizontal elongation.

The Dover Boys style pose-to-pose-inbetweening following an imaginary arc is visible in the frames below:

The following scene contains three different concepts: 
1. Elongation: we see not only elongation but also multiplication (eyes), which has become a staple of Jones cartoons:
The hand (the visual focus) is already "normal" while the face 
is still smeared. The ears provide nice overlap.

2. But not all fast movements are done in smears. Some motion blur is simulated with good old dry brush strokes following the arc of the movement in the character's colors:

 There's some nice anticipation on Daffy and 
counteraction on the legs in frames 5 and 6.

3. Finally there's elongation of a different kind: the dogs' materiality changes for a split second into a rubbery carpet without any strength.


For comparison: Bob Clampett didn't hide these "off-model" drawings only during fast motions, he made a style of using them for the acting as can be seen in Book Revue (1946):

NTSC-pull-down issues prevented me from capturing all frames, but the remaining ones surely show Clampett's attempt of exaggerating almost every motion. Just look at Daffy's arms and hands.

Chuck Jones on the other hand took his pose-to-pose style even further and got more or less rid of real smears as his style evolved. The poses are held longer while the transitional inbetweens are practically non-existent any more (The Scarlet Pumpernickel, 1950):
There's only a bit of dry brushing left.

A motion that would have been smeared earlier is now not even really inbetweened (Drip-Along Daffy, 1951)
The arms just go down from frame 6 to 7 with only the overlapping secondary motion 
on the pants giving a sense of movement.



Daffy is not seen zipping off to the left. It's just the secondary action 
and a bit of dry brushing that implies his sudden exit.

This is practically the same exit action like the famous one by the witch Hazel. Only that her hair pins are replaced by bullets here. It's noteworthy that all the animation in these later Jones cartoons indeed seems to be on 2s, like Ken Harris told Richard Williams. Noteworthy, because this is clearly not the case in earlier Looney Tunes. Here the effects (the vanishing smoke) are on 1s, by the way.

Finally, the multiplication smear is used for strong expression changes rather than transitions of far away poses:
Daffy in My Little Duckaroo (1954).