"On another note, stripped of their powers Incredibles are no different than Roger and Anita in 101 Dalmations"- This may, you know, be part of the problem- Roger and Anita are an average couple (quite a bit of screen time is spent establishing just this point) and the story very much hinges on this. But the Incredibles are extraordinary people, who lived extraordinary lives for many years and then have had to live with the stress of pretending to be ordinary for 15 years- all this would have shaped them and it seems unlikely that the resulting personalities would actually be just like the folks next door. It seems to me that if you bother to establish all this background information (which the film does) that it should then count for something more than it seems to in the film. It becomes a matter of really allowing cause and effect to reverberate through your material- everything you establish in your story matters.

Interesting points, D. - First there is the question of clarity in performance versus ambiguity- probably best framed as a potential for opening up options rather than a matter of “either/or”. Landreth feels that ambiguity is a necessary element in believable performance and to create that he challenged certain givens which he perceived in a lot of mainstream animation. Those givens (which are designed for clarity) are such concepts as not letting expression conflict with dialogue and capturing that expression with both the body and the face. These, of course, are the concepts that make the acting broad. So are these concepts a matter of style or are they part of the foundation of classical animation? I’m very interested in your opinion on this. As for ”…On another note, stripped of their powers Incredibles are no different than Roger and Anita in 101 Dalmations..” well that’s a good challenge- we could start by asking what we know about the characters in each of these films and then ask further what difference their characteristics make to the way the story plays out. 101 Dalmatians offers a very interesting case if you consider the way the personalities of Roger, Anita, Cruella and Pongo intersect. My impression of the The Incredibles, so far, is that the interconnection of personality and story is not so deep- that the characteristics generate gags and business but not essential story or thematic material. Your thoughts?

"I should also point out that there are two separate issues here. One is a general point about an approach to animation and the effect of carrying 2D principles directly into CG. 2D principles are partly direct principles of motion and partly interpretations to accommodate the specific properties of 2D. It’s the interpretations that lean towards a broad style of acting." Yes there are two issues I agree . The 2D principles are not necessarily principles to "accommodate" 2D though . They were gleaned from observing live action and based on how to abstract real motion for better effect so they are not an accomodation . They have and could use the same timing as live eg - rotoscope looking. To say it "leans " towards a broad style is just a little stereotyping in my opinion but if we were to go by volume of production you have a case . Styles are not the principles , but they can use them. Make sense ? And thats where I think the seperate issue lies. A films style . Detailing close up observations of an individuals movements is a style. Abstracting and compressing extreme motion exponetially is a style. Both can use the same 2D principles , just to different degrees. On another note stripped of their powers Incredibles are no different than Roger and Anita in 101 Dalmations . What Brad does really well is to extract the family interactions of everyday normal life . He did it in Family Dog and in Iron Giant . Perhaps you are looking to inject more personal quirks and or desires into them to make them more eccentric. Again to me it might come off differently but I am interested in hearing how you would do it.

I have mentioned in my previous post that mocap fails to achieve believability as seen in The Polar Express and Final Fantasy. Well, in certain senses, it is quite true that such technique is very complex. Even with several animators on one character, they feel stiff, zombie-like and facially unimpressive. Overexposing such technological stuff usually blinds the directors' creative power and his promise to the audience, leading to major disappointments and bankruptcy. We are all accustomed to one thing: SFX. Many spend too much time perfecting the look and designs of the movie without looking deeper into the actual story and characters. Have we forgotten the importance of the good old 'storytelling technique' since the Ice Age? Nowadays, all things sparks without substance. However, I have seemed to overlook other accomplishments, especially in relations to Weta's realistic approach to one of The Lord of the Rings' key characters, Gollum. Compared to many characters in the first two movies mentioned above, the many expressions of Gollum is very believable and realistic. Despite the fact that he's fully CGI, Gollum still manage to convince the audience that he's for real and really dealing with his schizophrenic characteristic without being distracted as an unreal 'deco'. When he shows signs of happiness, sadness, anger or mischief, Gollum really conveys them like all of us (including any good cartoon characters) do. During the entire production, Peter Jackson has chosen many of the wisest moves to adapt the books into movies without relying too much on fancy SFX and unnecessary takes. He too has to make sure that every CG character shares the same level of believability as the environment, the mood and the substance of the books as real inhabitants of Middle-earth, not distracting brats. That's why his movies work extremely well. What are the secrets or recipe of success, you may ask? Updated software from Pixar? The complexity of body postures, fleshes, and other imitated body organs? I've seen lots of that but that doesn't guarantee anything. Bending the laws and principles of other CGI commonly done via Maya with newer high-tech stuff? I can't tell. However, the main keys in creating 'real' characters, in my opinion, are exaggeration, right color tones and flexible (not static, bone-wagging like) body movements. How Weta manages to create such believability is still quite a mystery to me but I have seen some parts of the creation of Gollum in the LOTR extended editions on DVDs, all done through bits of trial and errors, special research and even an amalgamation of Andy Serkis' great performances, motion capture and animation. I also think that most filmmakers, including great masters Hironobu Sakaguchi and Robert Zemeckis, should refer to Weta's capability to create characters with real emotions and interaction with CGI/live actors and environments without falling to the 'zombie' category for the second time.

To D. Brewster: No, I was saying that labeling a minority opinion (in this case, my opinion about The Incredibles) as “bitter” felt like a wish to suppress to debate- an observation, not an accusation. I should also point out that there are two separate issues here. One is a general point about an approach to animation and the effect of carrying 2D principles directly into CG. 2D principles are partly direct principles of motion and partly interpretations to accommodate the specific properties of 2D. It’s the interpretations that lean towards a broad style of acting. It would be very interesting to see the results of a reinterpreted classical approach in either 2D or 3D. We have tended to treat the 12 principles as orthodoxy. Landreth’s approach just makes it clear that there is more than one path. The other issue is about the connection between story and characterization and how this plays out in The Incredibles, specifically. Yes, you are right- the Incredibles are not a standard family but here we have to look at the individual personalities: what happens when you take away each family member’s superpower- what else are you left with? It seems to me, not very much and that narrowed the writing options. A rethink could have produced a more coherent version of the same story- one that might have been more strongly tied to the great theme that you point out- the difficulty of exceptional people being forced into living unexceptional lives. The whole question of what makes a character into an effective story engine is an interesting one- 101 Dalmatians has one and so does Toy Story. In each case, there is one character without whom there would simply be no story- they embody the conflict and the story flows from there. Not only that, but the nature of their conflict has a clarity that allows for deep logic in the storytelling. It’s in this department that I feel The Incredibles has, not a fatal flaw, but a weakness. Unfortunately, this is too big a topic for this forum but I am looking forward to examining The Incredibles’ story structure in more detail, at a later date

Well Ellen , then I am glad that it is not bitterness and just a desire for 3D to be all things immediately. Are you really making the accusation that by my suggesting your article was stereotyping 2D principles ( "formula , stagey , posey " ) as an attempt to suppress debate ? 2D principles are principles of motion and not of a directors choice of content. Subtle motion falls well within those those confines so to me that attack offers no solution to increasing subtlety . Ok , so you say: "The Incredibles are the standard mom, dad, teenager and kid- and standard characters generate limited performances no matter where you place them." My view to that is no, they are not a standard family. They are people with exceptional abilities forced into trying to live a standard family life style. The stereotype. The entire premise is just that, superhero's trying to be normal people and failing . To play it differently would make it an entirely different film. You seem to believe that it is possible to alter that but I'm not as sure that could be done. That said I look forward to the forthcoming article on 3D character animation.

To D Brewster- Dear me- “Bitter”? Hardly. These are exciting times we live in and I’m inerested to see how this new technology will shake out. I hope there will ultimately be more than one approach. Bird’s and Pixar’s approach is better than what came before- I quite like the animation but it is limited in terms of 3D’s full capacity- and since Pixar is the current standard setter for the industry, whatever they do must be looked at closely and commented on honestly for both strengths and weaknesses. The Incredibles has a great starting premise- my criticism is that it falls short in characterization- the Incredibles are the standard mom, dad, teenager and kid- and standard characters generate limited performances no matter where you place them. Fuller characterization would have produced richer storytelling and gotten way more out of the premise, I promise you. Labelling criticism as bitterness feels like a wish to suppress debate. But think how far 2Danimation craft came back because people dared to set standards. Let’s not be afraid to do the same thing for story or CG. An article that offers another animator’s opinion about how 3D is doing in terms of character animation is already in the works.

-Rush of Anger- Look, I can appreciate the differences between films but apparently this article is trying to invalidate the success of the Incredibles. Words like "formula , stagey , posey " creep into these conversations and I'm afraid it really comes off like bitterness. Instead of celebrating films built on different premises it becomes a trashing of 2D principles , when clearly their being used on Pixars latest film has taken them finally past the barrier they have been struggling over in most of their films. Animating humans. You should do a similar article only talk to some of 2D/3D animators who believe that the lack of understanding of those principles in 3D has held the art-form back. Brad Bird is a terrifically specific director who had every intention of giving these 3D characters the same flexibility and acting potential as 2D characters. Something it has TOTALLY LACKED to this point with human characters . And he has succeeded in every way shape and form. The structure of the Incredibles is NOT formula to any degree. No one has ever combined a family of superhero's trying to stay emotionally together while being told not to be themselves. It is brilliant , taking our present comic mythology and applying it to real family politics. It is such full of wonderful work I can not understand the need for trying to demean it's basis. This is a new age 3D and for every one of us change is inevitable and painful. Every one of us. Whether your film is a personal exploration involving an up close detail like Ryan or a film that is working to reach a larger audience with more physical action like The Incredibles I hope that in future we compare less and celebrate more. The wars that are coming have nothing to do with films that are so solidly based and artistic. The wars that await are going to be with a glut of easily produced 3D films that glut the market and make great films like these harder to see.

To Gareth re: the glowing adulation- Well, I take that as a challenge- I have my problems with "Ryan" but I haven’t seen anything else that achieves that level of performance- can you offer titles I may have overlooked? To both Glen and Anon- Mocap may yet be a threat to animation but so far, technology is just a fancy pencil- it’s only as good as the artist who wields it. As for 2D, it does have its own magic and I am quite curious about whether it is also being unnecessarily restricted by the 12 classical principles- I hope to explore that issue in the near future.

Nice to see the spotlight on moving animation forward. Maybe a bit too much 'glowing adulation' for Chris. I must watch his film again, as it did not feel as groundbreaking as the author preports.