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."
Is he artificial too?
I think Pixar is far superior to Dreamworks when it comes to fully animated movies. Dreamworks seems to be much better at special effects and environmentals. I think the two might be better off merging than competing in different areas.
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.
slashdotted already, you know.. for a group of people that never RTFA we sure do a lot of damage.
Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
While others may agree or disagree with your analysis of the technical feats of Shrek and Shrek 2, if you're going to the movie just for the graphics, then you're really missing out.
The two movies are huge hits not because of their graphics (although it doesn't hurt) but because of their stories.
People in general value good stories much more than good graphics. The same can be applied to the gaming industry -- while games with amazing graphics may sell well initially, they will only last until the next eye candy comes out a few weeks later. Games with solid gameplay will continue to be played for years (see Counter Strike for an example).
Plus, they must have been doing something right with the graphics -- I've never heard an entire audience simultaneously sigh "Awwwww" because of a cartoon before (if you've seen the movie you know what I'm talking about).
Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
Google Cache of the article
If you can read this sig - the bitch fell off.
Animation is not necessarily at its greatest when it is the most like the real world. Yes, Pixar did quite well with the modeling hair in the wind, etc., but that doesn't necessarily make for a better animated movie. It has to be a good mix of realism and fantasy.
Dreamworks and Pixar have both done very well with their CG movies, but they both have different styles and both have their own animation engines. They deserve a pat on the back for all their hard work.
As an animation major (and a slashdotting girl) I enjoy almost all "cartoons" but I don't think the final product of CG should be ultimate realism. I like the direction Dreamworks and Pixar are taking - I call it "realism with style". If we wanted ultimate realism we could just film people, but it's the style, characters and the ability of the viewer to suspend belief that makes an animation special.
Dreamworks and Pixar have both done excellent animations - if they're trying to be competitive I think it's all the better for us - we get twice as many good films. All I can say is that both of these companies are much better at creating sequels than Disney is.
Just imagine if for once we all decided to RTFA. Nothing could stand in our path.
Evolution or ID?
Alrighty, I admit it -- I went to Shrek 2 for the story and experience...not because I wanted to gawk at purtty graphics. Isn't that what movies are about?
Let's face it, I saw Titanic, all the Jurassic Park movies, the Matrix sequels, and the Star Wars prequels for the effects. Not expecting a story...just give me the oohs and aahs and wows and I'll concede the plot. With Shrek, the animation was secondary to the writing. I mean even Banderas made for a good cat!
Just making a point that pretty isn't always the best thing to have. If nothing else, the moral and plot of both Shrek movies tells us that.
PDI/DreamWorks vs Pixar, Ford vs Chevy, Pepsi vs Coke. Come on guys, understand that these are companies that make products with the intention you will buy them. That "customer faithfulness" rings silly in my mind, given that after all, we are the consumers and in general have little interest on the well being of those companies.
For the record, the cg industry is a small one, and there's a lot of coming and going of people. I've been at PDI for more than seven years, and thus know tons of people working here who used to be at Pixar, and tons of people at Pixar who worked here and are my friends, and the same could be said about any of the other major cg companies. There's no inherent difference between the talent of people in one place or the other.
j
In a film, however, there's usually a director, an art director and a visual effects supervisor telling you to please move that splash a bit to the right, and make it happen three frames later. Oh, and sometimes there's also a story that those people are trying to tell, and your water sim is one of the tools they are using, so the *need* that kind of control.
Then there's rendering. Is there any foam? Splashes? Do things around the water get wet? Can you make that foam not *darker*, but *less bright* please? (this is a real comment I got during dailies in Shrek 2).
So, simulating water is easy. Simulating water making it do what you want, and rendering it so it looks the way you want it to look is extremely hard.
j
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!"
I went to the film to see the story. In the first few minutes I was amazed to see how much they've come along in the animation. The rain and water scenes where incredible. There was a bit of flash in there, where you can tell a toss of hair, etc was done just to play with animating it, but overall the animation was spectacular. Story wise, I found that it wasn't a good as the first movie, but entertaining enough with some good laughs along the way. What I think the discussion of Pixar vs. Dreamworks misses on is just looking at how much they both improve from film to film. In just a few years they've development new ways to animate the films that make the previous ones seem almost silly. For a techinical discussion, I think it would be more interesting to look at what they have done to improve the animation than whose is better. There is nothing like a good competition to keep this moving too. Shrek 2 shows that Dreamworks is keeping up and making sure to push Pixar. I wonder what we'll get to see when Shrek 3 or the next Pixar after incredibles comes out. Remember, this are animated movies. Realism isn't the goal, hell, Shrek stars an Ogre, a talking Donkey, Cat, and Gingerbread Man amoung others.