The Animated Scene: Classical Hand-drawn Special Effects Animation — Facing Extinction?

This month in the Animated Scene, Joseph Gilland looks at the facing extinction of hand-drawn special effects animation.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld | Columns: AniScene

A really big chunk of my animation career has been spent animating “special effects” in the old school meaning of the term. Hand-drawing things — water, smoke, fire, explosions, bubbles and pixie dust galore for over two decades. Learning was through trial and error and a great deal of drawing and study the classical way effects should be handled to ensure they were beautifully designed and elegantly animated with convincing physics. It is not an art form for dabblers. Animating hand-drawn effects well requires and an absolutely insane amount of labor, and the pencil mileage can get downright scary! There are no shortcuts to doing it well, no easy outs, especially if a director wants big scale special effects in his film, which most usually do.

Back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, working for Don Bluth in Los Angeles and in Ireland, special effects were thrown liberally at almost every single scene in a feature film. Don and his animation director/partner Gary Goldman just loved special effects. If a character was wearing glasses, or a medallion around his or her neck, they would have to have a glistening hi-light every time the character moved (à la The Secret of NIMH). If a character was holding a bottle or mug, or glass, or bucket, chances are it would have to be half-full of some sort of liquid, and slopping over the edges with every move, and of course the liquid should have hi-lights on it as well a transparency, and beneath the surface bubbles.

On the character animation side of things, the Roger Rabbit “look” which had become all the rage, required that every single scene in a feature film be lavishly lit with hi-lights, tones and shadows. Preferable with long cast shadows falling over complex background shapes over which they would have to conform to. This gut-wrenchingly unpleasant and repetitive task fell on the shoulders of the effects animators, who had spent their careers learning how to animate the magical elements, only to be relegated to the dull task of simply lighting character scenes.

In the back hallways of the effects department working on The Lion King the show was called the “Tone King” as every single character in every single scene was called upon to have tonal sculpting, added via painstakingly hand-drawn mattes, whether the shot called for dramatic lighting or not. It was an opulent look that Joe Public apparently demanded since seeing the characters so cleverly integrated with the live-action characters in Roger Rabbit. Not only was it a fairly big drag to draw this stuff, but every scene also became twice as time consuming, and, therefore, twice as costly to produce.

Another really difficult aspect of animating special effects was the handling what we call “props.” This could cover almost any object you could possibly conceive of, but the best way to define the objects that would be considered props to be handled by the effects department, was basically “anything that no other department wanted to do, or knew how to handle.”

While the character animators might handle a gun prop while it was being held by their character, if the character throws it, or drops it, or it gets blown up, chances are that the character animator would drop it like a hot potato and it would end up being drawn by the special effects crew. Doors or windows opening, vehicles, trees blowing in the wind, flower petals on a breeze, wagons, carts, lawnmowers, bicycles, axe grinders, snow shovels, water skis, ski boats, Spanish galleons — you name it — the effects department had to draw it. That was until the marvels of modern technology freed us, and we were quite suddenly given tools that enabled us to handle most of these “rigid body elements” using CGI techniques. Phew! What a relief.

But the path was riddled with roadblocks. Integrating 2D and 3D elements to make them look like they are drawn by the same artist, and painted with the same brush, is not an easy task. Conventional software was set up to do one thing or the other. To make the two techniques really integrate seamlessly took finesse and stroking. It was often difficult and prickly, rife with unexpected challenges and collaboration between artists and technical experts cut from a completely different cloth brought a whole new managerial twist to the traditional animation studio.

Take for instance the CGI clock tower workings of Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective. While it was quite marvelously well done, it did stand out, and the wheel and gears and cogs looked somehow “different” than all the other elements on the screen. But it did work, and it was hugely exciting. To have done scenes like this entirely by hand was unthinkable! We were entering in to a whole new dimension of animated possibilities. As the years went by and the traditional artists got more comfortable with the highly technical tools, and the technicians got used to the strange and temperamental artist folk they were expected to work with.

So here we are, a couple of decades later, and we’ve all survived the enormous upheavals of the animation industry. At least, I’m assuming you have if you are reading this. We’re all still here, animating our little butts off, whether on a light table or a PC, a toon’s a toon. We’re all stuck on this psychedelic cartoon trip together!







Comments


Very interresting article about the ongoing topic of the 2D Animation and 3D Animation world (or worlds?); to this, we could also mention "Classical Character Hand-drawn Animation - facing extinction?" Having been in this business since 1977 ( 10 years in TV Animation - 10 years in Feature Animation - 5 years in 3D Animation - 4 years as Animation consultant and lecturer around the world ), like many colleagues, I went through the agony and ecstasy of the many faces of Animation. No need to mention the pur delight of the Animation Medium per say ; when Animation is well done, it becomes a bliss ; I am sure that the Milt Khal, the Chuck Jones, the Paul Grimault or the Miasaky were not in this for the money, but out of shere passion for this wonderful Art form. So was I while animating Roger Rabbit and Jessica, Bernard and Bianca or other Bugs Bunny ( not the same kind of trip animating JarJar Binks mind you ). But if 3D Animation as an established and secure futur ( until something else comes along )let's not forget that the best of 2D Animation was always three dimensional by nature ; computers have greatly enhanced the capabilities of the artists reach. They can be wonderful yet frustrating toys. I pulled out so much hair wile working at ILM ; gone were the sensuous delights of flipping your scene on the disc, adding a touch here and there ; the shere pleasure of drawing in motion ; some people could never understand why the 2D people went through this crazy approach of drawing millions of sheets of animation, one after the other ; to those people it made so much more sense just to create Banks of attitudes, expressions and angles, and make a coktail in the shaker ; re-use, re-use, re-use became the name of the game ; the beauty of Classical 2D Animation was that no 2 frames were the same, if at all similar ; but this is slightly another subject ; having supervised recently some episode of "MICKEY CLUB HOUSE" in 3D at DQ Entertainment in India ( and having taught the Indian Animators the delicacy of Classical Animation while screening for them endlessly the best gems of Disney cartoons from the 1938 - 1953 ) I am well placed to report how complicated and UN-natural it was trying to contort and distort those poor Mickey Donald Goofy characters in 3D ; it is the most complicated, unnatural way of animating as compared with tradiitional hand-drawn technics ; no you can't do this position because of penetrations ; here you have to ask the modelers to create a patch because of penetrations ; no you can't do this, no you can't do that ; it is as close of 2D Classical Technics as Traffic Air Control is of body massage ; B.O.R.I.N.G. !!!!! I hated so much to witness the excruciating procedure of this 3D revamping of our beloved characters ; and for what results ??? so I know, 3D is the thing today ; it's hype ! it's modern ! it's so much more sophysticated than those silly doodles of the past; not so fast! if we have almost succeeded in brain washing the new generations of kids that everything hand-drawn is old fashioned ( what a stupidity by the way ; is Mona Lisa old fashioned ? ) ( or that the only hand-drawn Animation of today has to be ugly and poor taste, just for the sake of being different ) it is definitely a lie to suggest that the pervasive 3D technics are superior in any way ; not even space and light can agree on this ; just look at Roger Rabbit ; to me 3D Cartoon Animation equals = all look alike boring generic appearance ( I put aside anything that is supposed to be totaly real like Jurrassic Park dinosaurs for instance / I am talking about more cartoony characters = jimmy Neutron type ); and what is the thinking behind having such a realistic water in Nemo ??? do we need to see all the particles in suspension ?; is that a National Geographic documentary ??? what is this obssession with rendering every string of hair in fur in a cartoony style ??? what is this obssession with hyper realism in cartoon 3D ??? are we going to see the skin details and imperfections of any human being in MICKEY ??? is Goofy going to harbor one day the early signs of Caposi Sarcoma ? the photorealism is obsessive and crazy ! of course those guys in Management are bluffed by all these gimmicks (what do they know?) ; it reminds me of a meeting with jeffrey Katzemberg on Beauty & the beast 1989 ; Mel SHaw was showing his beautiful pastels for story development ; here comes a pastel of the Beast'Castle in the morning mist through blured foregrounds ; Katzemberg then says : well, not bad, but we, at Disney can afford to have every level on focus ; and all the people present saluted like one man : Yes Sir ! ; to katzemberg it was not a matter of is it artistic or not, it was just a matter of : let' show the world we can afford it ; Photorealism is good when you get out of the Theatre, going back to your car ; not for escaping into a dream like experience ; at least not for me ; were are the beautiful sceneries of the Bambis, Lady and the Tramp, Peter Pan gone ??? the suggestion of the brush ( that doesn't show every detail ) ( just like Mr Hitckock said = suggesting will always be more powerful than showing the full thing ; the public's imagination does the rest, at a much wider scale. So isn't it time that we put aside that stupid generic look of 3D ( once again they all look alike ); and what is the flesh tone texture of a jimmy neutron made of by the way ??? is that candy ? Plastic ? what is it ? or what is it supposed to be ??? when I watch a 3D cartoon film, I feel I am spending 90 minutes at Toy's R Us ; I don't go watch them anymore because I don't fancy spending that amount of time in a Toy Store anyway ; instead I put on an old tape ( or DVD) of Disney's Robin Hood ( not the best one I know ) but those drawings were darn well designed and they move beautifully still today. Jacques Muller ( animator on Roger Rabbit / Star Wars etc...)
Jacques Muller (not verified) | Sun, 06/04/2006 - 00:00 | Permalink
Thanks for a great article! My start in digital animation was 1988. Back in those days, digital tools could only colorize or embellish hand drawn effects, so if I wanted rain or lighting, I drew it and then digitally colored it. Only in the mid 1990s did digital effects began to appear. While my managers dismissed them as "S__t", my animation director saw the potential and let me experiment. Our goal was the digitally effects had to be animated (yes, many effects have controls and features that can be keyframed, retimed, or otherwise animated), and contribute mode and emotion to the scenes they were in. So we mixed and matched for years and, given reasonable time, could come up with good results. The point is, while the tool changed, the drive to achieve a particular effect contributing mood or interaction with a character remained. Unfortunately, our time-driven industry forces most producers and directors to treat effects as something to "embellish" a scene, rather than fully integrate with its "mood" or "emotional feel". Software programmers under similar constraints often cannot give their tools controls or features an animator needs to embellish "life" and "character" to an effect. The emphasis on flat, unlit Vector looks also restricts what can be done with effects. But take heart! The tools get better and faster every year, and more and more artists are exploring what they can do, and how they can interact with the characters!
Kurt Wiley (not verified) | Tue, 03/21/2006 - 01:00 | Permalink
Well done, Joe! I recall the day at Bluth when you put the bug in my ear to get into effects animation, and it opened the doors to an awesome career run of working with some of the best in the business at Bluth, Rich, Disney, Renegade, and DreamWorks for the past 15 years. Where it goes from here is anyone's guess, but it's cool that you've shed some light on this fine art that's been so great to be a part of. My college students have always enjoyed learning about it too. Ty
Ty Elliott (not verified) | Tue, 03/21/2006 - 01:00 | Permalink
Hand drawn effects animation was facing extinction more than 10 years ago - I visited ILM then and saw the drawn effects dept empty & on the verge of closure as they ramped up for "Jurassic Park" - sad really.. I designed graphic effects on films like "Highlander" (but didn't animate on it...), and it was very much in the vein of work from classic films like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and even "Forbidden Planet" - they have a unique look which you struggle to achieve when using digital techniques...
ravi swami (not verified) | Mon, 03/20/2006 - 01:00 | Permalink
Rightious, Joe! I will never forget the day you taught me how to animate smoke going up on that sunny Annecy afternoon. Depending on how far the animator can go, I suppose, he could have fire either be like a drag and drop 3d effect or he can turn it into greater eye candy just by spending more time on it, drawing or sculpting on a 3d program. Even before 3d or drawing comes into the picture, a little bit of physics can strengthen the imagination and give a freedom to go completely away from said physics and make the effect the animator's fire his own. But before saying it can happen, there are lots of other factors in the way like father time and his gang of deadline thugs. The temptation to drag and drop such effects is greater than ever, but there will always be psychoes going above and beyond and back to basics.
Lev Polyakov (not verified) | Sun, 03/19/2006 - 01:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.