Chicken Little & Beyond: Disney Rediscovers its Legacy Through 3D Animation

With Chicken Little, Disney fully embraces 3D animation for the first time. Bill Desowitz explores how the studio’s CG future is being defined by its traditional legacy.
Posted In | Magazines: AnimationWorld

Maya is an essential part of the pipeline (which also includes Houdini and Realflow for vfx and RenderMan), but they wrote codes to enhance character performance and added a new intuitive tool called Shelf Control that provides an outline of characters that can be viewed on screen and provides a direct link to the controls for specific autonomy.

“We had bottlenecks in the past with character set up, “ Goldberg continues, “where a lot of the problems stemmed from modelers needing to anticipate what face shapes an animator would need, and the animator would work back and forth with them and come up with a library of face shapes. We had found that test shots would look great and the production shot needs would go beyond what we tested for and we wound up with a big bottleneck needing more face shapes from the modelers.

“One of the main goals was to avoid that, so the first thing I did was to recognize the bottleneck. We took Eamonn Butler, our animation supervisor, and one of our premiere software engineers, Xinmin Zhao, and they came up with a suite of high level sculpting tools called Chicken Wire… [to bring more elasticity to the facial performance and help animators approximate the range they would normally have with traditional animation.”

Thus, Chicken Wire gave characters a very Disney feel with the use of deformers. “For example, from the corner of a nose down to the corner of a mouth is defined as a descriptive line, “ Goldberg adds. “If we were to take that descriptive line, which actually appears as a crease on a face, and combine that with other descriptive lines and place them on top of objects, this would allow animators to pick areas on those descriptive lines and move the face in a very intuitive way. So that they didn’t have to anticipate every little nuance that they would need and have a modeler build it. If you think of it as rigging a face, the animator can go on the fly and create shapes and facial poses that they need.”

Jason Ryan (Fantasia/2000 and Dinosaur), who supervised Chicken Little, adds, “What we’ve done is taken all of the great tools and techniques like squatch-and-stretch and smear frames — all that stuff that makes motion fluid — and brought them into the CG world. So it feels like we have the best of both worlds. Stuff we could never do in 2D like real detailed lighting and fabric and coloring and really making these characters dimensional. Now we’re dealing with an actual 3D form, so it’s very challenging to bring that to life. The suspension of disbelief is a lot harder in 3D because it feels like it’s real.

“The movement has to be spot on or the audience will sense that something is wrong. I was able to concentrate on the performance. There are no more assistants, breakdown artists, in-betweeners and cleanup artists. Now you’re putting all the bells and whistles on yourself. Rigging, modeling, look painters, texture painters, lighting & compositors. They provide new dimensional feel.”

For director Mark Dindall (The Emperor’s New Groove), his frame of reference was the Goofy shorts, “I showed a lot of Goofy cartoons and talked about that caricatured style of animation that I really like. That’s not something that you immediately think of doing as a CG-animated film. But that’s what I wanted to do. How do we figure this out? It’s really hard. If you stretch an arm too much, you don’t want the fur to separate and see the skin beneath. Some of our 2D animators didn’t know any better not to break the model to make something work, and people started to notice that there were ways of stretching the model so you only showed where it worked. So they came up with things like the stork pitcher. He winds up with this corkscrew pitch that was so amazing and unlike anything that CG animation had done up to date.”







Comments


fajNzUU (not verified) | Sun, 08/28/2011 - 18:22 | Permalink
You can hail CG Disney all you want, your choice. But I rather stick to the old hand-drawn cartoons that I now collect on VHS and DVD anymore, thank you. This includes old Disney Classic, D-2 from other American studios, and Japanese anime, where they still make 2-D features and televison to this day. CG may make cartoon characters more so super-uber-real detailed like Chicken Little's feathers, but 2-D as all about warmth, charm, art and graphic interpetation via the animators' whims and actistic vision, which you could never get from live-action nor the live-action-like CGI. So far, the only CGI to be close to 2-D was Dreamworks' "Madagascar" with it's almost toony design, humor and personalities. (Odd how Disney brags about "Rapunzel" going to be the first to have old-animation-like features when someone else already pioneered in that.) So far ther Dreamworks features and Pixar aren't bad but don't warm my heart and imagination like 2-D had. I don't feel like going to see Chicken Little frankly. From what I saw mostly in TV commericals, and one movie trailer once, and in some critic reviews, it didn't seem very entertaining to me. Which amazes me how this movie made money in the number one spot. It is very sadding to me that, even with Michael Eisner gone, Disney still continues to wander from the artistic and business ideas of its founder and no longer be the Disney studio people enjoyed. It is offically a dark, cold mega-cooperation that only wants money more than the nurturing and pioneering of movies. From now on I'll save my money and pay it for Studio Ghibli movies (which Disney distributes), old Disney Classic movies on VHS/DVD, and the upcomming Naria.
John S. (not verified) | Sat, 11/19/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink
Bravo! Very interesting reading regarding the making of the film, but I must say I was fairly impressed with the 3-D technology and how far its progressed over the past 30 years. After just having seen the film, I was entranced by the sharpness, clarity an "virtual" reality of two dimentional images becoming three dimensional images right in front of my eyes. It was amazing. Even the Disney 3-D logo before the film was shockingly "real". And the 3-D glasses they give you - comfortable fitting of the eyes (even if you wear glasses to begin wih) and no distortions whatsoever! Bravo Disney! The next step into enjoying the animated features - is to "feel" like oyu are in them!
Lorenzo Marchessi (not verified) | Fri, 11/11/2005 - 01:00 | Permalink
I enjoyed "Chicken Little" quite a bit. Congratulations to all those who worked on it. It is a film to be proud of to be sure. In response to the previous poster, I would argue that the film contains one of the most inventive characters I've seen on screen for some time. Fish out of Water was a strong character, and one with no dialogue, which is not the easiest thing to do. It was pretty interesting to read about some of the technology that went into the feathers and such. I would like to see articles like this more often on AWN.
Floyd Bishop (not verified) | Fri, 11/11/2005 - 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.