Slashdot Mirror
Shrek 2 How-To
mblase writes "Animation World Magazine has an article online about some of the technical hurdles Dreamworks Animation had to overcome in making "Shrek 2". With November's "The Incredibles" being Pixar's first movie to feature an all-human (er, superhuman) cast of characters, it's interesting to watch how these two studios push each other to the limits of computer animation."
I saw Shrek 2 last night and was shocked at the quality of animation. The textures, facial expressions, and especially lighting were all amazing. Certain scenes or shots were a little less impressive, but even in looking at the first five minutes (Shrek2.com} you can see the improvements they've made since the last one. It's also worth noting that there were huge improvements between Toy Story and Toy Story 2.
I personally thought that the facial expressions of the characters in Shrek and Shrek 2 were the best part of the movies. It gave it a character that most other animated films don't have (save for a few, most recently Finding Nemo).
Shrek 2 was an amazing movie, and as a college student I and the rest of the group of ~15 people that went thourougly enjoyed it. It was funny, had an interesting story, and held our interest for almost 2 hours.
I don't think your post is a troll, but I completely disagree with you.
They re-wrote an entire renderer? Granted, Shrek is still behind some of Pixar's work but i've got to ask... Why not use some of the other renderer tools out there?
Hmmm.
Have you even gone to see Shrek 2? It is amazing, especially compared to the first. My wife and I love to go to movie openings, so we decided this time to take our 2 year old to Shrek 2 opening. He loved it, sat and watched the whole thing.
Back to the animation, the atmosphere/environment in Shrek 2 is amazing. The hair, faces and movement of the characters is definately cutting edge. Please don't expect a sad sequel, Shrek 2 is much better than the first, in both animation and script.
With November's "The Incredibles" being Pixar's first movie to feature an all-human (er, superhuman) cast of characters, it's interesting to watch how these two studios push each other to the limits of computer animation."
It's too bad SquareSoft screwed up so badly with the Final Fantasy movie. I'd have liked to see them be the third big player in this field. Their visuals were absolutely stunning, but the plot left a lot to be desired.
Pixar and Dreamworks, as far as I know, haven't tried to do a non-cartoony movie, but even with knowing how good their teachnology and artists are, it would be quite hard to compare to the level of detail the FF movie had.
Am I alone in wanting a completely computer-generated movie that looks real instead of cartoony and actually has a good plot?
As CG gets more and more realistic, I think we'll start to see a different kind of movie star, one who can do excellent voice work instead of just looking daring/pretty/hunky/etc.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
Well, the graphics were almost right. My major complaint would be with the animation of the "happily-ever-after-enhanced" Shrek and Donkey. They actually looked more like animated characters than their original forms. As for the movie itself ... unfortunately you might be right about Oscars. Myself, I'll stick to the first movie, thank you very much.
Maybe thats true, but Shrek had many things that "Monsters Inc" and "Finding Nemo" didn't have. Such as a good script, and funny jokes.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I liked both Shrek movies for what they were... funny movies that relied on a lot of good sight gags.
Beyond that, Pixar is absolutely head and shoulders above DreamWorks in storyline, casting, (which is an underappreciated aspect of their films imo) and digital effects. Their movies are significantly more complete, better voiced, and more visually stunning than anything else, hands down.
Because we all know that a movie's ticket sales are a direct reflection of its quality.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
You're kidding, right? If you think for a second that these animators aren't exceptional at what they do, you've got another thing coming. How can you even start to compare the detail level in an animated movie to something that's supposed to be realistic?
The point is that these movies (Shrek, Shrek 2, Monsters Inc) are modeled with the INTENTION to be cartoonish. Too much realism takes away from the fantasy aspect of it. Remember, they are still animated films. It'll be the same problem when games get too realistic. You want that escape, you want it to clearly be a fantasy world so you can enjoy it.
If shrek looked like a disgusting slimy ogre, then he wouldn't be as lovable. You're missing the point.
I think the greatest thing Pixar/PDI does is that they have the right combination fo actors, story, dialogue, and plot. It's not so much the animation, as the animation truly brings these already excellent things to life. What they're doing differently is that they're taking a new approach to animated movies, and targeting people of all ages, not just kids, which is why they're making buttloads of money now.
It's probably too expensive at the moment. That Final Fantasy movie (though it sucked storywise) had unbelievably great graphics, some scenes were so good that I really could have mistaken them for live-action. "Flight of the Osiris" from the Animatrix DVD looks like the same style/renderer.
Definitely a taste of things to come for the movie business.
I haven't seen Shrek 2 yet, but the previews seemed lacking all-the-same. They just don't have fluid motion of clothing done yet!
The best clothing motion I have seen to date is in the cut-scenes for WarcraftIII. Unlike other things, it not only had complex folding, it had complex clothing and robes as well.
The clothing was the most dissapointing graphical aspect of Spirits Within.
Little Bricklets
I have to agree with the parent.
I just came back from watching the movie. I loved the original, and went into this sequel without a thought in my head other than "Cool!".
But I was less than impressed. It's not just that the detail was lacking at times. There were serious defects in animation. There are scenes where the donkey is all out of proportion (as in, his "width" (z-axis in profile view) would be wrong). Other creatures too. For example, when Shrek and co. enter the "far, far away" kingdom, the horses look terribly "two-dimensional" at times. You know, as though they were made of cardboard cut-outs.
Mind you, I wasn't even looking for these mistakes. The defects are just too apparent and make you do a double-take even while engrossed in the story.
To be fair, other parts of the movie are stellar. For instance, I thought the Queen especially was very well done and very life-like (within the realm of the animation).
And oh, while the latter half of the movie was thoroughly enjoyable (starting with the appearance of the Puss in Boots), I thought the first part was a bit lame and lacking in momentum.
Yes, the movie is doing very well in the box-office (and it has my vote too), but the overall animation is hardly superlative.
Yeah, I saw all of that. Nonetheless, the majority of the film took place in front of a blue haze.
Don't twist my words around to make it sound like I was insulting Pixar's work. But I believe entire forests and cities and castles globally illuminated and such can be just as much work if not more so than animating dust particles and refracting light through water.
Like I said, I know people spunk all over their screens at the mere mention of Pixar, but let's not bash Dreamworks just because we're fanboys. Shrek 2 looks fantastic.
No, I'm definitely not. Shrek is maybe comparable to the original Toy Story (which came out 6 years prior) in animation. I think people are drawn into Shrek by the gimmicky story and characters (Eddie Murphy doing an animal?) and overlook the animation.
Pixar and Dreamworks, as far as I know, haven't tried to do a non-cartoony movie, but even with knowing how good their teachnology and artists are, it would be quite hard to compare to the level of detail the FF movie had.
Look, it is CG. It is, for many years at this rate of technology, going to look like CG if you do the entire movie in it. You can either play with it or you can look like a clown trying to ignore it.
I think that the biggest problem with Final Fantasy was the fact that it did look animated. There was too much seriousness going on with animated characters. It just didn't sell as a human drama. It wasn't a human drama. It WAS A CG DRAMA. This is the difference between the best film you've ever seen, and being up front row with the worst play you've ever seen. The play is still more immersive.
The movie was, in a nut shell, as well thought out as one would making Shindler's List an animated movie... or telling Frank Zappa to keep it clean, straightforward, and don't go over anyone's head. Even Mizayaki doesn't try to give a 'most realistic looking people' project. And he does animation like a master.
Final Fantasy the movie failed because it played to all of the disadvantages, and none of the advantages of the medium. ART is never about, "toning it down."
"Let's impress people by how real we can make it."
NO! NO! NO! Bad idea! Comics and animated characters are loved for their elasticity and style. You just don't try to make a style that is "indistinguishable from normal." That is playing to all of the disadvantages, and none of the advantages of the medium. Good actors don't try to be "normal." They try to be extraordinary. All good art tries the same.
If they wanted drama, good acting, and suspense, they should stick with real actors.
If you want unreality... elasticity... uniqueness... style and art, then you go with an animated medium.
Final Fantasy was shortsighted. They thought the cutscenes in the game could be a movie. It is like saying, "let's remake the Godfather movies, but use CG instead of actors! Make it real serious! That'll show this CG is a serious medium!"
Having said that... what is the deal with Dreamworks ripping off ideas from Pixar?
I'm talking about Antz and the forthcoming Shark Tale. The Bug's Life/Antz controversy, as you may recall, caused quite a stir in the computer animation circles - I seem to recall someone at Pixar complaining about being the 'R&D dept. for PDI'. But now we have this other underwater movie, which seems an awful lot like it was inspired by Finding Nemo.. but with massive cash thrown at voice talent (check it out) and dumber-looking sharks.
'Bruce' and gang from Nemo were much more interesting visually than this goofy Dreamworks clown-shark if you ask me.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
While I admit FF had great graphics, the animation was horrible. The Pixar and Dreamworks stuff is way way way ahead animation wise. FF animation looked no better than the ingame characters in normal videogames with stiff faces, limited expressions, and non-fluid motion. FF seemed to me to be just fantastic textures on very basic animation.
Shrek was brilliant, and Shrek 2 is at least as good. Of course, opinions are like... well, I won't go into it. But you sound like the people complaining on IMDB boards that ROTK won best picture. Enough people liked it enough that it won... same thing with Shrek.
Frankly, and I work in the 3D department of a television production studio, I thought Shrek and Shrek 2 were amazingly well done.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Sully's hair in Monsters, Inc. consisted of 2,320,413 computer-animated hairs. I'm not sure what you're criticizing - that they had individual hairs, or that you could see them? It looked pretty convincing to me, but I'm not a 3D animation aficionado.
I have a theory that people are more accepting of animated characters the less photo-realistic they are. The more realistic you make the character, the more our brains try to pick up on the subtle flaws that make us think, "that's not right, he/she's lying."
Ever hear of The Sims, which is arguably the best-selling computer game ever? How about Roller Coaster Tycoon 2? Civ 3?
I suppose the answer to your question is no, I can't name a single widely successful game -- I could think of 3 off the top of my head.
Aside from that, my point was that games with good gameplay are still popular after many years (i.e. more than 3). Take, for instance, Tetris.
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
The clothing was the most dissapointing graphical aspect of Spirits Within.
Agreed. Ditto for the Matrix Reloaded, by the way. Check it out if you have it on DVD; it is painfully obvious to tell when Burly Brawl (Neo vs 100 Smiths) switches to "CGI mode" - your "suspension of disbelief" vanishes as, within a split second, every detail on Neo's robe and the reflections off everyone's sunglasses (guess thesun.exe just crashed) disappear and you get to watch in shock how what was a complex pattern turns into the plainest grey ever seen.
Uh, that and the rubber-made spinning Agent Smith anyways.
Sailors. Oh man!
Agreed, but that's clearly the intent. Pixar isn't aiming for photorealistic characters, only the environments (if at all). There's a big long discussion on why that's good for storytelling in a book by Scott McCloud which I won't bother linking to. I'm sure he's selling it from his website anyway, it's called "Understanding Comics" and it's worth reading if you enjoy sequential art of any kind.
Look for his dissertation on realistic versus iconic imagery.
::jafomatic
I see and, for the most part, agree with what you're saying. I will offer up the idea, though, that technology is typically a limiting factor in many creative endeavours; I think that's what the parent was getting at. I don't think he is suggesting that art created with older technology is dull in terms of its intrinsic quality, but rather that the vision might not be as fully realized as the artist would have liked, given the available technology limiting him.
Nonetheless, I think art should be critiqued in the context of the time from which it came. There's really nothing inherently wrong with things looking dated; on this we clearly agree. I think this is why many people object, for example, at how Mr. Lucas is redefining his former art to supposedly better capture his original artistic vision. I think they'd rather he leave it alone, in its original context (warts and all), and move on to newer, (hopefully) better things.
That's what I see, anyway.
Peace.
A few years ago, when I was peripherally involved with the effects industry, everybody was looking forward to the coming era of low-budget effects. "Reboot" and "Starship Troopers" (the TV show, not the movie) seemed to herald the beginning of a new era of feature films at TV production prices.
Didn't happen. The first problem was with live-action directors who didn't understand the inflexibility and costs of CG. As one art director with experience from the pre-computer era put it, "now you can make changes until you run out of money".
Then came the "no limits" problem - "Let's have a drive-through of ancient Rome". Speilberg started it with Jurassic Park, and now everybody expects it in every film. Minor directors plan shots DeMille would have envied. And somewhere, a modelling department has a hundred people busy for months, often for less than a minute of screen time.
The result has been $100M animation budgets. Even "Sky Captain", which was supposed to be a low-budget effects movie, is headed towards that figure. (The production team screwed up, and now ILM is bailing them out. ILM makes a sizable fraction of their money bailing out the botched productions of others.)
It's not about compute power. It's a labor cost issue. It still takes too many bodies to do this stuff.
Did anyone else notice the RE/MAX logo that's reflected in his eyes? It's just above the white and blue specular hilights. I wonder if there's a story behind that or if I'm just seeing things.