Animators on Movie
Posted on by

VFXWorld have a lengthy article on the UK computer graphics industry. The animation supervisor for Framestore CFC, who are providing character work for The Golden Compass – including all the polar bears, among them Iorek – said of the movie, “We discussed internally what we’d really like to work on before being awarded the project and agreed it was the bears because we saw them as the most challenging.” The characters will be “hyper realistic” and feature dialog sequences. “We have to create totally convincing interactions,” he added. Read more.

We can also clarify the involvement various companies have in His Dark Materials. Framestore-CFC have all of the bears. Cinesite have the secondary daemons, whilst Rythm and Hues have the main daemons. Cinesite are also doing a fair bit of set extension and miniature work.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.




16 Responses to Animators on Movie

  1. glittercloud says:

    sounds cool. I hope it's really good real effects. I hate it on cheap films or tv shows when they try to special effect a monster or something and it looks like it came off a Sims game

  2. Mockingbird says:

    Did anyone else think that the HP hippogriff was rubbish? All the HP graphics looked a little laughable, to me. I hope we're not to expect that kind of work…

  3. Willl says:

    I thought there was a pretty big leap in improvement from HP3's werewolf to HP4's hippogrif.

  4. hoobits says:

    I'm hesitant about all of these company's involvment. All of their work I've seen is mid-level at best. Rhythm and Hues work on Narnia with Aslan and the wolves etc. was decent but I hope they don't go the same route for the daemons. There was something strantge about their mannerisms, too human for me. But that was that film…
    Frankly the only reason it probably is mid-level is this: I don't like the idea of splitting up effects work on films like this, there is an in balance with the work, but I guess it is the only way to get things done on a scedule like this.

  5. Mockingbird says:

    I agree with hoobits, I was less than impressed with Narnia's animals, and continuity is critical. HDM deserves the kind of care WETA put into LoTR.

    Will, certainly, HP3 to HP4 was an improvement, but it was like going from a 65 to a 75. Still not good enough.

    I feel like they've done so well with the cast, I'd hate to see them trip up on graphics.

  6. freedomfighter says:

    I was hoping they would get Industrial Light & Magic, particularly after seeing what they did with Davy Jones' crew in Pirates Of The Caribbean 2.

  7. Skye says:

    I thought that the hippogriff was great, definitely an improvement over the werewolf, which I thought looked okay anyway (except it was almost exactly like the monsters in the first Scooby-Doo movie).

    I loved Aslan, but I did think that the wolves were made to be too unanimal-like.

    I do hope that they take good care of the daemons and bears… If they're not done well, whatever else they've accomplished will be for naught.

  8. Gabe says:

    hoobits, I'd be worried if they *weren't* dividing up the effects work. The only effects heavy movies which can manage to be done with only one effects studio are Star Wars and LotR, and that's because its the directors company, and can focus whatever it takes on that one movie. Every other movie always has multiple companies involved. The quality depends on their resources, which generally just comes down to how much they have to do (which is why it's a good thing to split the effects up). In fact, even when it's one company, the artists are split up into groups for specific shots (often only seconds in length), and know nothing of what the other groups are doing. Besides, the goal is to create realism, so if they are doing that then it shouldn't matter how many different companies are involved. The feel of the movie depends on the director, and effects are no different. The director goes over shots time and again and tweaks it until he's satisfied. Andrew Adamson comes from a cartoon style background (the Shrek movies) with no previous live action experience, so it's not entirely surprising to find Narnia's CGI suffering from a cartoon feel.

    And Harry Potter's Hippogriff is one of the best CGI characters I've seen. The fact that the CGI and animatronic Hippogriff blend together so seamlessly (even in the same shot, with half the character CGI, and the other half animatronic) is a testament to the quality of the work.

  9. hoobits says:

    Hmmm, points taken, Gabe. I'm jusr out and out complaining. More or less I agree with you. Realism is the most important piece to the puzzle. I just worry that in the end it will get lost to some extent. The last few years for effects work have just felt too sleek, too pristine for my tastes (the only exception being King Kong and maybe some of the set extension work in Jarhead)

  10. hoobits says:

    Correction: Landscape and plate/matte work for Jarhead really…

  11. FB says:

    I thought Kong himself was great pretty much all of the time, but there were lots of things in the movie that didn't look very good. The dinosaurs stampeed for example was not the same standard of the monkey. I guess that would be the too much to do catagory? I do hope it all looks real though, not like Narnia.

  12. Mockingbird says:

    Having nothing but an ignorant layman's understanding of current CGI capabilities, I perhaps expect too much. I also base most of my CGI character ideals on Gollum, which may be unfair considering WETA workshop practically invented new technologies to create him (I forget the name of their patented technology, but I know it exists). But cosidering how fast technology moves, I feel that a good fours years is enough for the rest of the industry to catch up to Gollum-like abilities. I still think the hippogriff was crap :tongue:.

  13. Mockingbird says:

    I'm sorry, I didn't realize 'c ra p' was an iguana word. If you have a deeper understanding of effects and technology, I'm sure you can better appreciate the work that goes into graphics like in HP/Narnia. But from an average audience member point of view, I'd rather not see people look at HDM and go 'that looks fake' like they did with Narnia and some parts of HP.

  14. Gabe says:

    Well, generally people with closer experience with CGI find it easier to pick out CGI than the average lay person, but my own gut reaction to Buckbeak was I actually forgot he was a CGI character and actually just thought of him as a character. Of course this also highlighted the not so stellar werewolf, and downright crap spider…these were woefully standard.

    An interesting thing about people’s perception of CGI is that people often pick it out simply because they know what they're seeing could only be done with CGI. They often don't pick out CGI parts that are of less unusual things (a lot of people noticed the talking animals in Narnia, but how many noticed the CGI tails on the real wolves?)…one reason is because since we have a reference point for it, we know that what we're seeing is true (whereas, if it's some magical beast, we have a much harder time knowing what is and isn't right), and the other reason is the CGI artists also have a better reference. It's also interesting how many times people mistake real things for CGI (I recall one person talking about the crappy CGI tigers in Gladiator). For example, a lot of fake scenery is not CGI at all (because it's a pain in the ass to create that way), but rather matte paintings and/or miniatures, but most people *know* it's CGI because they know it can't be real. So, there isn’t just one specific aspect people key into when they “spot” CGI, which is why I’m curious why you think Buckbeak was bad.

  15. Mockingbird says:

    I've thought long and hard about your question for about 30 seconds, Gabe, and I haven't a good answer for you. I try to immerse myself in the experience of cinema as if it were literature, so I don't often look out for CGI, and definitely not to criticize it. I thought of Gollum as a real character for the entire movie and only in the extended editions did I stop to think that he was a CGI character and what an immense amount of work must have gone into him.

    When I saw Buckbeak, I thought Jesus, this looks fake. I haven't seen the movie in a few years but when I think back there was nothing wrong with the creature, in terms of animation. Everything looked fluid, so I must conclude that it was Dan Radcliffe's awful acting against a blue screen that highlighted the fact that Buckbeak wasn't real. The hippogriff certainly doesn't deserve to be picked on when that terrible werewolf was around. The dragon was rather good too.

  16. His_wife54 says:

    It has already been shown to work. ,