re: Croods trailer: I really didn't like it (a declaration I give with all the usual caveats about keeping an open mind, the misleading nature of early trailers, etc...but, still).
re: Croods drawings: looking at Sander's page, I definitely appreciated the beat-by-beat storytelling of his boards, and his personal "style" (mostly a certain snub-nosed type)(--and who am I, who can do neither, to cast aspersions?) The drawings are fun--lots of fun.
But these characters translated to the screen looked plain ugly to me--a weird & unsettling mix of cliche anim model blended with cliche cave-man type, and then sexy-girl thrown in. Sets had typical candy-land coloring, acting was overwrought and affected, posing completely theatrical and without any real organic connection to the setting....
Just rewatched trailer (saw it maybe four or five months ago?) and this reconfirmed all these impressions, plus some technical insufficiencies in the models (look at the close-up of the girl's hand as it slowly pushes off of the rock wall when she tries to leave her cave).
I don't know, but I kinda have the feeling the girl is a spunky, adventurous type who will drag her recalcitrant dad into a jaw-dropping adventure that, while harrowing at times, will ultimately bring them closer together.
But I could be wrong!
I'm just grumpy 'cuz it feels like we've seen this story many, many times before, and recently. So much looked derivative--and what didn't look derivative had that overly-sincere insincerity of the low-brow salesman...
Think of it this way--take same basic characters, but dial back the cloying in their models and wring out some of the knee-jerk animation candy-store coloring. Give this world its own look--and I don't mean just some art director's Cintiq dross of plush-toy palms and rainbow waterfalls--make it unique in some way--that means specific (it doesn't mean lay more primary colors and 3D effects on us). Pick something specific, like a leaf, and zero in on it...
Start trailer with a close-up--an almost iridescent, translucent tropical leaf--a leaf unlike anything we know today, but recognizable nonetheless--strange buzzing on the soundtrack--prehistoric insects? We see a single bug working his way across the leaf--we strain to get a better look--it's a weird thing, intriguing, otherworldly--maybe its got personality, but its not trying to be a person (ie, voiced by Matt Damon)--it's clear it's just a bug, and this shot is just about the world, not introducing a character--but before we can really get going with this bug, we hear breathing--close, as if it is our own--we are in someone else's POV. The leaf is pushed aside by an impatient hand...and a vast jungle spreads out across a valley. Maybe a few crazy creatures laze in the distance, but they are not in our face--the rainbow birds that do a 3D attack on the camera in the original trailer could here be drifting through the sky far away...
Now the breathing quickens, becomes stressed at the sight--maybe off-screen some grunts reacting to sight--they come from behind the breathing--must be others standing behind the person who pushed back the leaf. No recognizable words are spoken, but some kind of communication may be going on, and it sounds agitated--the hand that had been holding the leaf recoils, the leaf slaps back into place.
We cut to a reverse shot, from the other side of the leaf--see the eyes of the Crood family in the shadows, clearly stressed and unsure how to react to this new world...linger on the wide eyes and mystery of the shadows an instant, then maybe cut to our title over a black screen: "The Croods, March 2013"...
Then back to the reverse shot--there's agitation in the bunch now, conflict between lead eyes (we think it's a girl, can't be sure yet) and someone else--a rustling behind the leaf, maybe a little tussle, then the girl figure bolts away from group, maybe to escape conflict, maybe to satisfy an urge born of curiosity which the other is trying to restrain her from following--we get a fast camera pan to follow her--she's moving so fast we see very little--she skitters up a tree, pulling the camera with her, and we crane up and settle into an approximation of our last shot in the official trailer, camera backing out on an over-the-shoulder POV of the vast new jungle wonderland...the rest of her family slowly creeps into the bottom of frame, overcoming their fear...we never get a good look at the family head on, but we get that they are neanderthalian, and we are (hopefully) intrigued....
Make it all a little more intimate, a little more intense, a little more 2001 Space Odyssey...
Wow. Well, I can see all the points you are making. But I guess I'm instinctively much less discerning about these things, maybe from never having been an animator. I look at something like this and say, "Well, it looks cool, but will the story be intesting to adults as well?" My overall impression was that it seems aimed at a fairly young audience, the humor being kind of slapstick.
But Tom--you're exactly right to ask that question, "But will it be cool for adults?" And that's what my treatment was trying to do--send the message to potential viewers that yes, this film will be cool for adults.
9 comments:
Hey, that's fine an' all--but where's our original GOODSON drawing??
p.s. saw a trailer for the Croods and felt physically ill....
What, you didn't like it?
re: Croods trailer: I really didn't like it (a declaration I give with all the usual caveats about keeping an open mind, the misleading nature of early trailers, etc...but, still).
re: Croods drawings: looking at Sander's page, I definitely appreciated the beat-by-beat storytelling of his boards, and his personal "style" (mostly a certain snub-nosed type)(--and who am I, who can do neither, to cast aspersions?) The drawings are fun--lots of fun.
But these characters translated to the screen looked plain ugly to me--a weird & unsettling mix of cliche anim model blended with cliche cave-man type, and then sexy-girl thrown in. Sets had typical candy-land coloring, acting was overwrought and affected, posing completely theatrical and without any real organic connection to the setting....
Just rewatched trailer (saw it maybe four or five months ago?) and this reconfirmed all these impressions, plus some technical insufficiencies in the models (look at the close-up of the girl's hand as it slowly pushes off of the rock wall when she tries to leave her cave).
I don't know, but I kinda have the feeling the girl is a spunky, adventurous type who will drag her recalcitrant dad into a jaw-dropping adventure that, while harrowing at times, will ultimately bring them closer together.
But I could be wrong!
I'm just grumpy 'cuz it feels like we've seen this story many, many times before, and recently. So much looked derivative--and what didn't look derivative had that overly-sincere insincerity of the low-brow salesman...
I think it looks bad too. The drawings are great. The look of the film, bad.
Think of it this way--take same basic characters, but dial back the cloying in their models and wring out some of the knee-jerk animation candy-store coloring. Give this world its own look--and I don't mean just some art director's Cintiq dross of plush-toy palms and rainbow waterfalls--make it unique in some way--that means specific (it doesn't mean lay more primary colors and 3D effects on us). Pick something specific, like a leaf, and zero in on it...
Start trailer with a close-up--an almost iridescent, translucent tropical leaf--a leaf unlike anything we know today, but recognizable nonetheless--strange buzzing on the soundtrack--prehistoric insects? We see a single bug working his way across the leaf--we strain to get a better look--it's a weird thing, intriguing, otherworldly--maybe its got personality, but its not trying to be a person (ie, voiced by Matt Damon)--it's clear it's just a bug, and this shot is just about the world, not introducing a character--but before we can really get going with this bug, we hear breathing--close, as if it is our own--we are in someone else's POV. The leaf is pushed aside by an impatient hand...and a vast jungle spreads out across a valley. Maybe a few crazy creatures laze in the distance, but they are not in our face--the rainbow birds that do a 3D attack on the camera in the original trailer could here be drifting through the sky far away...
Now the breathing quickens, becomes stressed at the sight--maybe off-screen some grunts reacting to sight--they come from behind the breathing--must be others standing behind the person who pushed back the leaf. No recognizable words are spoken, but some kind of communication may be going on, and it sounds agitated--the hand that had been holding the leaf recoils, the leaf slaps back into place.
We cut to a reverse shot, from the other side of the leaf--see the eyes of the Crood family in the shadows, clearly stressed and unsure how to react to this new world...linger on the wide eyes and mystery of the shadows an instant, then maybe cut to our title over a black screen: "The Croods, March 2013"...
Then back to the reverse shot--there's agitation in the bunch now, conflict between lead eyes (we think it's a girl, can't be sure yet) and someone else--a rustling behind the leaf, maybe a little tussle, then the girl figure bolts away from group, maybe to escape conflict, maybe to satisfy an urge born of curiosity which the other is trying to restrain her from following--we get a fast camera pan to follow her--she's moving so fast we see very little--she skitters up a tree, pulling the camera with her, and we crane up and settle into an approximation of our last shot in the official trailer, camera backing out on an over-the-shoulder POV of the vast new jungle wonderland...the rest of her family slowly creeps into the bottom of frame, overcoming their fear...we never get a good look at the family head on, but we get that they are neanderthalian, and we are (hopefully) intrigued....
Make it all a little more intimate, a little more intense, a little more 2001 Space Odyssey...
Or something.
Wow. Well, I can see all the points you are making. But I guess I'm instinctively much less discerning about these things, maybe from never having been an animator. I look at something like this and say, "Well, it looks cool, but will the story be intesting to adults as well?" My overall impression was that it seems aimed at a fairly young audience, the humor being kind of slapstick.
Good re-treatment Marty. Ready for pitching.
Oh my gosh, you guys are kind...now I'm embarrassed by my late-night rantings...got carried away.
Must have been that calzone I had for dinner.
But Tom--you're exactly right to ask that question, "But will it be cool for adults?" And that's what my treatment was trying to do--send the message to potential viewers that yes, this film will be cool for adults.
Post a Comment