Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Talking about the art of ANTZ & A BUG'S LIFE

Disney v. Dreamworks by Lawyer Boy	Sep 3rd, 1998 07:23:54 AM
I was really excited with the prospect of DreamWorks, but have become more and more disappointed as time goes on. Not only do I think that the big hitters aren't giving their best stuff to it, I think that this recent "bug war" is evidence of acting like a second rate production company. There have been some studios that can and have given Disney a run for their money lately, but to produce what everyone knows is going to be a second rate film merely to try and spread the audience and ride Disney's coat tails makes DreamWorks look like a hack knock off operation. Not that it's the first time this has happened in the industry, a la asteroid flicks, flood movies, natural disasters...it seems everyhting comes in two's or three's anymore. I wish the studios would grow up and give the audience some credit. -------------sign me, -------------Lawyer Boy
Celebrity voices by Corryn	Sep 3rd, 1998 07:27:50 AM
I feel that a lot of animated and even computerized (Dragonheart) characters lose out if the voice belongs to a well known celebrity. I feel it is even worse when that is the selling point of the film.
They're not the same... by fig	Sep 3rd, 1998 07:33:42 AM
Just because they have the same subject and they're both the same medium (CG) doesn't make them identical films. Antz is a more mature film written by Woody Allen, the humor is going to be more satirical than visual, and the story has to do with Allen's character leaving the idea of being a worker and becoming an induvidual. A Bug's Life is aimed at a younger audience but will surely have the intelligent humor that Toy Story had. The story deals with a group of insects looking for a solution to being bullied by grasshoppers. Give 'em both a shot before dismissing them. I've been leaning toward A Bug's Life for a little while now, but you can bet I'll be there opening night for both of them. Good story Harry, this is the kinda stuff I love to see...
My beef with bug trailer by Justin	Sep 3rd, 1998 08:25:22 AM
The problem I had with both trailers was that they both had a very dark look to them, and not as in dark tone, dark subject matter, which I like. But rather, just dark and bland, as if they were trying to hide bad CG or something. A cartoon about bugs should be filled with fantastic colors. Hopefully, these were just bad early prints? Also, if you ask me, Antz also looked pretty chintzy scriptwize.
Wait a second... by jalapeno	Sep 3rd, 1998 08:29:38 AM
So...You haven't seen either film either? As much as i like to see a well written, gramatically correct review, i think it's important to include some CONTENT as well. All the ground covered here was done multiple times in the Talk Back sessions for the ABL, and Antz stills from a while back. Why is this review any more than a page long talkback from another person who has seen only the previews. Truly, unless you have seen BOTH pictures, i don't see how you could really have grounds to like one movie more than another based on the animation. The previews themselves are short, and sometimes trailers show seens that don't even get into the movie! As for casting, and motion picture company legacy, don't count anyone out, because Dreamworks is a killer company, and just because Disney is oldschool, and has been successful in the past, remember, they are ONLY seed money for Pixar, this is not a Sleeping Beauty, or Lion King. I am relatively partial to Antz, only because i was there for the screening in portland, and i can tell you that the characters were great to see come alive. Plus, Antz is more adult humor. It is definatly oriented for Woody's audience. I'd really like to hear from someone who as ACTUALLY SEEN A Bug's Life, and get a spoiler/descriptive. Because the film everyone is rooting for, no one has seen. jalapeno.
cgi by ralph	Sep 3rd, 1998 09:46:00 AM
FYI, pixar stuff is all polygonal, with some modelling done in Alias (nurbs). But it's animated as nurbs. And PDI's stuff (antz) is all proprietary software, there would be no soft water effects or anything else from off-the-shelf cg software. just want to clarify. If antz cg reminds you of software effects you have seen, tell me from what shelf I can buy that software. Especially for lighting.
Good point... by fig	Sep 3rd, 1998 10:16:34 AM
First off, my bad on the Woody Allen writer comment, I had read that he was involved with the story of the film. I'll also say that the IMDb is historically kinda inaccurate since anyone can submit info for a film, but if I was wrong I apologize. Ralph has a good point, I had forgotten that PDI does use proprietary software which makes "seeing the software" kinda irrelevant. "Seeing the software" is also generally a result of poor lighting or surfacing, something I've never seen in PDI's work before. To Jalapeno, the reason I'm looking forward to A Bug's Life more is because of the quality of the animation that I've seen so far. All I've had the chance to see are the trailers for each (didn't get to SIGGRAPH this year unfortunately) but that's given me a lot to go on. From that few minutes of animation I can clearly see how strong Pixar's animation is, which is what my opinion is based on, not the story. Not to knock PDI, because they've done some very nice work on Antz, but I don't see the strong principles of traditional animation as much as I do in Pixar's work. Like I've said before, I can't wait to see either of them, but my Hollywood Stock Exchange dollars are invested in A Bug's Life :)
Pixar not Disney, which is good. by Al	Sep 3rd, 1998 10:24:25 AM
Let me say first off that as far as I have heard, everything down to the renderer is Antz own, although its up against renderman which for all intents and purposes cannot be topped. Anyway, I dont think these 2 movies actually planned on competing against each other. John Lasseter once wrote that computers are still best at animating "hard, shiny objects" which lends itself to toys (already done of course) insects, and aliens. That is why I think we have two ant movies coming out. I think visually, ABL is way ahead of antz, which looks way to gloomy and dark. Not dark in a way like good dark, but dark in a way that they thought "Hey we dont have to model so much stuff if its dark." I think its safe to say that the PDI animation isnt near Pixars, maybe they will pull it out though. I am a big Woody Allen fan and they would have done good by getting him to write it, that is where I think they missed the boat. Lastly keep in mind that Disney jumped onto Pixar after realizing that TS would easily redifine what animation is, without annoying songs and alphamale stories. What I hope is that disney changes their animation and doesnt force pixar into becoming them.
I'VE SEEN ALL OF ANTZ & PRINCE/EGYPT by dreamer	Sep 3rd, 1998 10:58:22 AM
Animation is my life. I think it is the most powerful and beautiful form of film art or entertainment, and I treasure it with all my heart and soul. I believe in the artists and executives who are committed to pushing the envelope on animated film, and I bear no aligances to any particular studio. That said, be careful, be ready, be sad. It would appear that Jeffrey Katzenberg is intent on telling and re-telling the story of either "The Lion King" or Jeffrey's escape from Disney (some folks at DreamWorks say he thinks these are one in the same.) The result is not happy, not inovative and it obvious with each new DreamWorks animated project. (With the possible exception of "El Dorado" although that is quickly becoming the story of how Jeffrey saved Disney from destruction - though the directors are fighting to prevent this mistake. The third picture "Horses" looks like a visual feast, but the story boards tell nothing more than a prodigal "horse" story that has no heart, no real conflict, and a lead character you just don't care about. They just "lured" away a very tired Max Howard - former President of Warner's feature animation - to produce the film, but even Max, an old Disney hand, may not be able to save it.) "AntZ" was not ready for release, the software can and will do spectacular things, but a serious critical (read financial) need to show clout and impact on Disney at the box office forced the picture to an all too early completion. The character designs are already distracting and awkward, and now they're just painful to watch after a while. And what good animation shines though ends up being overwhelmed by vocal characterizations. Someone earlier "talked back" about stars, and this is exactly the motivation of all vocal casting at DreamWorks..if it isn't a star name, then F them, they want stars, big names, box office heavy hitters. The head of casting is in a difficult position, in that she makes wonderful suggestions, with an eye to character, and the producers - at JK's urging - chase only the star names. Often times the scratch track (the dialogue track recorded early in production to accompany story reels) is far superior to the final track in a number of performances. But back on track with the films themselves. The script for "AntZ" is often witty and funny, but just for wit's sake. It ends up predictable and trys far too hard to be appealing to "mature" audiences. It ends up so lost in a mire of domestic angst a'la'Allen without anything genuinely touching or honestly funny to tie it together on a deeper emotional level. And "Prince of Egypt" is like watching a jack-hammer operator cut the Hope diamond. Beautiful to look at, but a dream shattered in the end by a heavy hand. Most of the animation is magnificent - noteably the work lead by Duncan Marjoribanks and James Baxter, but there is a lot of strobing in early scenes, some very awkward and unapealing character design (some just downright ugly)and some sloppy animation of characters like Miriam and Ramses. This was a chillingingly powerful and jaw-dropping film when it was just on story-reels. The majority of the boards and visual development art are on a level with the golden age of Disney. The chariot race and Moses's nightmare are the only things that survived the transition. The chariot race is so well paced, so well cut, and so "technically" amazing that some of the clumsy perspectives can be forgiven. In fact, it is the best action sequence in modern animated film. Moses's nightmare is spine-chilling, and inovative, and the effects animation on the red-sea is indeed spectacular and mysterious. But in the end, the picture is weighed down by a lack of humor. Not "ha ha" humor, but moments that allow us to get closer to the characters, feel some hope, fear for them, cry for them. It is so dark, so serious, and so reverent in the second and third acts that unless the audience is all adult, kids and kids at heart will be squirming, kicking and running up the ailes long before they can be wowed by the majesty of the Exodus. We never get close enough to characters to care about them. There are some obvious and tacky touches that give away a certain egotism which is a work here. The court magicians - who use tricks and gimics in comparison to Moses's God given power to perform "real" miracles - look suspiciously like Peter Schnieder and Tom Schumacher (Pres. & VP of Disney Feature Animation) and eveyone at DreamWorks knows it, whispers about it, and then goes on hoping this detail will go unnoticed. (Watch the profiles, look at some of the posing.) It's sad, because the result is that these two foils, who could have been developed into interesting and more menacing heavies. Instead they are one dimensional and flat. But oh, how magnificent is most of the "acting" of Moses. And the film has a depth of field unseen in any animated film before now. The score is powerful and moving, but it ends up sounding like it's trying to elevate a very tired and passionless story that takes itself far too seriously to be accessable to 90% of audiences. In the end they might as well have placed an animated Michael Eisner on the other side of the sea crying out "Jeeeeeeeeffreeeey!" as have poor Ramses crying out for a Moses without a soul. Jeffrey can have a magnificent studio, with much of the best talent in the industry. But can he ever let someone else write and direct? Is he too controling and obsessed with being better than the Mouse House, or is he just a micro-mogul? We Dream, we Work, we hope. And ultimately audiences will decide. My money is on DreamWorks television animation where Steven Spielberg has the control and things like "Toonsylvania" are being produced. If they can continue to put the "machine" to work on prime-time, then SKG may take the prize and show us something new. I'll see "Tarzan" in a few weeks, and let you know how that looks. TTFN
Script by Jeffery	Sep 3rd, 1998 11:53:38 AM
"Antz" was NOT written by Woody Allen. He only wrote his part.
cgi, correction by ralph	Sep 3rd, 1998 12:00:19 PM
I have been informed that I don't really know how Pixar's geometry works and none of it is polygonal. So I apologize for the misinformation.
HUH???? by Effy D	Sep 3rd, 1998 02:40:21 PM
Toonsylvania, Tiny Toons, Animaniacs, Invasion America, Balto, We're Back, American Tail 1 & 2. Animationwise, that's not exactly what I call a track record. Spielberg's too impatient for the animation process, and it shows. The less his hands are on POE, the better.
My Favorite Things by Linda	Sep 3rd, 1998 02:45:34 PM
My favorite scene in "Roger Rabbit" is the scene of the shoe being dipped in the killer liquid. But the witches in "Hercules" were AWful. They reminded me of the ones from "The Black Cauldron."
Response by Lawyer Boy	Sep 3rd, 1998 03:39:46 PM
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to bash DreamWorks, I just think they've made a less than good move with Antz and it makes them look like cheap copycats. I guess we'll see it play out with the public, but I think everyone's tired of two 'fers. You'll have to forgive me if I seemed to hold Disney in some sort of reverence too. The comments about some of Disney's recent offerings are right on, I didn't even bother seeing Hercules and I gagged on Pochantas. In my mind Disney will remain it's classics, many which still haven't been outdone by anybody (including them) to this very day.
Problems with Antz by Krazy	Sep 3rd, 1998 04:08:15 PM
I saw the antz trailer, and though the size of the quicktime window I was looking into couldn;t display the textures too well. And believe me, the animation was terrible. Never have I sawn such terrible animation before. I thought it was very stiff and lifeless. At least Disney has some background in animation. Bug's life does have better animation. Who cares about textures? Joe Shmo wants to be entertained and the animators at PDI should have a sense of HUMANITY in there work. No matter how big and fat those processing computers are. I bet most of Dreamwork's films are gonna flop. I'd wait for CHICKEN RUN, folks, that looks a whole lot better.
Highest Form of Flatter? by chris	Sep 3rd, 1998 04:40:26 PM
First we had Dreamwork's "Deep Impact" vs Disney's "Armageddon". Now we've got Dreamwork's "Antz" vs Disney's "A Bug's Life". Who's ripping off who? Release dates don't tell the story of who's idea it was originally. Chris
to Knowledge and Effy by Flynn	Sep 3rd, 1998 06:11:25 PM
The animation in An American Tail is better than anything Disney has ever ever done. Knowledge, you said that Antz is nothing but big-name talent, but at the box office, Woody hasn't had a box office hit in a while. Neither has Judge Dredd/Assassins/Daylight/Speci alist/Demolition Man Stallone. Or Diabolique/Sphere/Last Dance/Specialist Stone. Antz is a much better-looking movie and, since Disney is making A Bug's Life, the story will be far superior.
pixars software by me	Sep 3rd, 1998 07:51:07 PM
actually Pixars work uses a polygonal mesh that is converted into nurbs through the adaptive subdivision technology then back into polygons for rendering
is Harry getting paid off by Disney or something??????? by me	Sep 3rd, 1998 08:10:30 PM
I'm starting to wonder about this guy (Harry's) credibility. Not too long ago he was blabbing how incredible Antz was and now a complete turn around. I guess Disney did something drastic. They know the power and influence of this site. I'm losing faith in you Harry. You need to reassure us that these are your true unbiased opinions not the tool of some Disney marketeer. Swear an oath to Cecil B. De Milne that you aren't another one of Disney's pretty puppets. Swear that you haven't sold your soul to be incarnated at the eigth dwarf in a CG remake.... (you'd be the dwarf "yummy" who steals a bunch of trinkets to take home to show your pals) Seriously, we need your reassurance here buddy. I've seen all the trailers and images and strongly feel ANTZ will be the big winner both by script and aesthetics. PDI is really breaking new ground. As for the SW comment... PDI doesn't use Softimage...
Wow Dreamer by Gremlin	Sep 4th, 1998 01:54:10 AM
Wow! Dreamer,maybe you should be writing for Ain't it Cool, your insights blew the original post completely out of the water. I look forward to hearing more from you. Keep it up--hey but don't get fired:)
Antz & Bugs Life by david	Sep 4th, 1998 03:15:18 AM
I just read your review of the trailers. I am a computer animator and I have also have seen both trailers and some of the preproduction character designs from ANTZ back in 1996. The only reson you are wondering how ANTZ was done is because you've never seen this kind of CG style. PDI did use proprietary software but I'm not gonna get into the Computerese here. The original character designs were more toward the Bugslife style, but I am happy to see that Dreamworks is taking some chances. Disney would never try a style like Antz until someone else proves it can work. Don't get me wrong I loved Toy Story and I'm sure I'll love Bugs life. The disney films are just aimed more at the younger crowd where Dreamworks is venturing into the older market. P.S. There are plenty of these type of CG films on their way. Most of these will be Sci-Fi and more PG-13 in nature ie...the Final Fantasy movie by Square, Robots of Mars by Midland productions, Frankenstein by ILM, and Blue Planet-produced by John Woo.
Right on Prankster! by fig	Sep 4th, 1998 07:51:23 AM
I really enjoyed Herc too, the story was fun and I enjoyed the humor. I really didn't think Hunchback was bad either, a little darker than typical Disney fare and I thought it was visually really nice.For all you confused individuals out there Pixar IS NOT DISNEY. Pixar is an independent entity whose films are being produced through Disney, that's is. Pixar's storytelling is rivaled by no one, don't be bashing them for things Disney did. Truth, I'm not even gonna bother, if you think Pizar stuff looks like third grade work...um, yeah. And John, thanks for taking your time to post and let us know how much time we're wasting, I clearly see the error in our ways... :)
My only problem with bugs life by Brian Boru	Sep 4th, 1998 09:54:05 AM
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I don't like the sky blue OpenGL look of the ants. It looks as though they haven't been textured yet. When you get a large swarm of them, it looks remenisent of Clay-mation. This of course has nothing to do with the incredible animation and flocking code written for the movie. It's just my 2 cents on the choice of art direction for the look of the ants.
A Bugs Life Mall Tour by Andy	Sep 5th, 1998 08:36:42 PM
Has anyone been lucky enough to be at a mall when the "Bug's Life Mall Tour" was there? You should see this! The Disney Marketing machine is humming along at full speed - there are two stages, loads of artwork and video displays, plus a sort of playground where kids can romp. They basically take over the entire mall. There is a live singing and dancing Disney performance complete with actors and a video background (showing clips from the movie). I went because I am very excited to see this movie, plus I happen to be a shareholder in Pixar and I am hoping the stock will do well. I think comparing Antz and Bugs is a waste of time. It is an easy thing to do, just as everyone has with Armageddon and Deep Impact, etc. but I think BOTH movies can be succesful. Animation quality may be a factor, but I know 10 year olds who have seen trailers for both movies, and they say they want to see Bugs just because "it seems like a cooler movie." I think Pixar is creating a company that will be around for decades to come. A body of work that will be timeless. Go rent Toy Story again if you doubt that. As they told us at the Pixar shareholders meeting, it's all about the story. If you don't have a great story, it doesn't matter how good the technology is. Good luck to both movies!
Ted Elliot by Tyler	Sep 9th, 1998 12:45:36 AM
I suggest you stick to your rewrite of "Ensign Pulver" starring Ruth Buzzi and Ellen DeGeneres.
Antzzzzzzzzzzzzz... by Sandy K	Sep 10th, 1998 11:33:18 PM
OK--I saw a trailer for ANTZ last night. GEEZ--it looks ugly. It really looks rushed, which doesn't surprise me since the deadline was moved up. The movements are OK--but I don't call that animation. I think I'll wait for .49 cent night at Blockbuster Video. I'm sure I won't have long to wait.
Whaddya mean they're not competing? by tymor	Sep 11th, 1998 05:45:27 AM
Did nobody else notice that A Bug's Life was originally supposed to come out BEFORE Antz? Dreamworks moved up the release date of Ants by several weeks to ensure that it gets in theatres before A Bug's Life. SKG and Disney not competing for audience? What "Naivte Truck" did you fall off of?
Ugly Antz by nicole	Sep 15th, 1998 09:25:02 AM
I agree-- "Antz" is butt-ugly. Considering the SAME bad taste and bad designs for "Prince of Egypt," I'd have to say it WAS Jeffery Katzemburg. THANK GOD he's seen the light, and is letting "The Road to Eldorado" to be cartoony. The guy doing production design on that film is AMAZING.
German caterpillars and all. by Wolfpack	May 28th, 2006 10:47:54 AM

Talkbacks

Talking about the art of ANTZ & A BUG'S LIFE

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks