Jessica Rabbit Come to Life

[Disney Duster]

When I was little I liked Jessica Rabbit, but it was probably for her design and what she gave off, what she was like. And her sparkly dress.

Now see her come to life.

This is AMAZING and VERY, VERY GOOD:
http://pixeloo.blogspot.com/2008/04/jes ... ooned.html

I really think that really is what Jessica Rabbit would look like if she was made of real skin and hair in the real lit shadowed world, you get the idea. So it's her, no changed proportions or anything, the real her.

I think it's a bang-up job, the only thing bad that could be said are the tiniest nitpicks like her eybrow or she looks to much like Angelina Jolie. Only a little tweaking would be needed to fix things like that. Probably all it would need is little fixes to make it closer to the picture, in sixe and placement and such.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

That's what I like about the modern tools these days; you can make incredible stuff with it. This is just an image, but a modern studio could probably make a whole movie this way. If it was a movie with Jessica Rabbit, I think the texture and surface would have to look less photorealistic and more painterly, or her design would have to look more real and less cartoony. I wouldn't mind if the next animated character that is choosen is the girl from the short Rapunzel footage. Or Glago from Glago's Guest.

I'm just curious if it is possible to make an animated movie where the skin, hair and clothes and so on is just as real as in the Jessica Rabbit picture, with a design that is realistic enough, and still being animated (not using performance capture). And I think it is possible, according to Peter Jackson, who will make Tintin, you will be able to see even the pores in the skin in the upcoming movie, if he and Spielberg gets the budget they require.
Some may say that you could might as will shoot it as live action instead of animation if it is supposed to look that real. But to be able to reach new limits, you need to prove you can master every challenge. And there is a big difference in how live action actors moves and walks in a movie, and how animated characters moves. And there are other possibilites as well, like full control over every frame. More important, there are also still some things which is not possible in live action, even if the effects have improved a lot over the years. Walt Disney himself said that what he liked with animation, was that everything was possible.

[Disney Duster]

I agree with so much of what you said, mainly about animation being the one place where anything is possible.

The thing is, this was done a lot by taking real photos and bending them into the picture, or so I believe, I didn't watch the video of how he made it, perhaps you want to?

So it's not all made from scratch, I believe, and that's what they would have to do. Make the whole character from scratch.

But if they made a virtual CGI model that matched this exact picture, moved, animated that model, then it would be so great. I would have more fun watching that than a live-action film, I think.

And no, I don't thnk her toon design, proportions should be changed. That's what would make the film so much more interesting than a live-action film. And believe it or not, some people look like toons in real life, or at least very very much like them, so even though toons don't look very much like most real people, their looks are still possible in real life.

[The_Iceflash]

Interesting..

[pap64]

Oh man, this guy is INFAMOUS for his realistic take on Mario.

I have to say, though, his Jessica Rabbit is really good and not as creepy as his Homer, Stewie or Mario.

[Escapay]

Oh man, this guy is INFAMOUS for his realistic take on Mario.

Wait, so he created Captain Lou Albano in the late 80s?!? Wow, and all this time I thought he was a real person.

As for Miss Jessica, it's quite good, and an interesting concept ("untooning" toon characters). And like Rumpel said, it would be really interesting if an entire movie was made t his way.

albert

[pap64]

Oh man, this guy is INFAMOUS for his realistic take on Mario.

Wait, so he created Captain Lou Albano in the late 80s?!? Wow, and all this time I thought he was a real person.

As for Miss Jessica, it's quite good, and an interesting concept ("untooning" toon characters). And like Rumpel said, it would be really interesting if an entire movie was made t his way.

albert

Believe it or not, Captain Lou Albano is actually easier on the eyes .

As for untooning movies, its been done. They were called "Scooby-Doo" and "Garfield". Neither were warmly received .

[Escapay]

Believe it or not, Captain Lou Albano is actually easier on the eyes .

True!

As for untooning movies, its been done. They were called "Scooby-Doo" and "Garfield". Neither were warmly received .

Well I mean "creating" as in from scratch or from reference photos, not necessarily hiring one actor to play a role.

And I liked the live-action Scooby-Doo, stupid as it was.

albert

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Yes, I saw the video on how it was made. But in a studio, they would just create the character in 3D, with the correct topology and all, and use a program to recreate the texture or real skin by simply copy it from somewhere. That's what Renderman does, I think. The idea is very old in computer animation, and has been used for a while.

Even if you think Jessica looks pefect as she is, there is no doubt that Mario or Homer would have to look more realistic if they should appear in a more photorealistic CGI movie.

And if they don't want the characters to look too realistic, one could first make a ten second sequence of the actual movie on the computer, and then recreate the scene as stop motion, using replacemant animation and 3D printing. Then it would be easy to experiment with what kind of skin which worked best, covering the face and other parts of the body with artifical skin of the kind they use on creatures like Gremlins, the ones from Del Toro's films, or the silicone skin used in Corpse Bride. If they then succeeds in replicating everything again on the computer, then nobody has to complain about the plastic look any longer.
But there is probably a much easier and faster way than this, I used it as an illustration on something I personally wouldn't mind they were aiming for. Not that I think it should be a goal to replicate stop motion stuff, it is the realism in stop motion I'm referring to (because it actually is real; the sets, the puppets and so on), not the style. Computer animation is not there yet, even if I hope they will get there soon.

[Elladorine]

I dunno. I mean, the pic is well-made, but to imagine an entire movie done in this style? No thanks. When we have the exaggerated proportions of a toon mixed in with the hyper-realism it starts to creep me out. I don't want to see every pore, blood vessel, and tear duct.

[BlueDevilSF]

Before she really plumped up, I always thought Wynnona Judd looked like Jessica Rabbit...

[Super Aurora]

Old news. Plus that's nothing compared to this

[JaneMccoy]

That's really interesting and cool how he was able to "un-toon" Jessica Rabbit...but at the same time the pic looks a little weird. I understand her features are exaggerated; I just think it looks creepy. Hmmm...for some reason she reminds me of that lady robot thing that the martians sent into the White House in the movie Mars Attacks.

A totally CGI animated movie that looks realistic...whoa, that would be interesting to see. Although, if it does happen I don't know if I'd watch more than one movie that was like that. Mainly cause I like the fact that part of the attraction and aura of animation is the sort of fantasy world it transfers you into.

[Kyle]

in a studio, they would just create the character in 3D, with the correct topology and all, and use a program to recreate the texture or real skin by simply copy it from somewhere. That's what Renderman does, I think. The idea is very old in computer animation, and has been used for a while.

your right, that is how they would do it if they wanted to, but I can think of another way that would be more accurate to this mock up. it could actually be applied to the existing animation already done for who framed roger rabbit. they could use the original animation, and overlay on top of that a wire mesh with all the texture information on it. it wouldnt be a full model, it could even be made of vector shapes, and they could use that over each frame. this would make the animation retain the fluidity of hand drawn animation with the demension of the photo realistic features. I think this is basically what they did for the carpet in Aladdin, but this would have to be more advanced to look right.

I wouldnt do this though, as it falls too far into the uncanny valley. (if you dont know what that is, look it up)

[Lazario]

Old news. Plus that's nothing compared to this

I agree. That's very lifelike.

As for the picture from the first post - her eyelid is HUGE.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I heard that Eisner once planned to release all the old Disney classics (like Pinocchio and Snow White) as 3D movies, even if I don't know if the rumors are correct or if he in that case was serious.

The thing about using 2D overlay on top of 3D figures, or the other way around, is as I understand how Disney these days is actually making CGI movies.

And yes, I have heard about the Uncanny Valley. But it is not a law or even a phenomena, it is just a claim or opinion that persons who looks too real to look fake, and at the same time too fake to look real, will cause negative reactions among those who sees it. I guess it is individual how people will respond. And I thought it was used on human looking robots, not animated characters.

Either way, I agree that a remake of Roger Rabbit in this way would have to go through some changes (and by doing so, ruining the film's main concept). As I have already mentioned somewhere above, such a movie where Jessica is much more complex and detailed, would either have to use non-photorealistic rendering, or look less cartoony.
And to repeat myself even more; Glago in Glago's Guest looks far less cartoony than Jessica, and making this cartoon look far more realistic wouldn't be too weird.

If the animation style is realistic enough, using more or less photorealistic rendering could turn out to be a great idea on an animated movie. I have always felt that the transition from for instance comics or cartoons into live action features hasn't always been too successful, because they havn't been able to capture the same atmosphere which is known from the original sources. Not surprising, since comics and live action movies are two different mediums, meaning it is impossible not to make any changes. But comics like Judge Dredd, DC's Legion of Super-Heroes or Doctor Strange, could probably be made as photorealistic animated features, and at the same time looking real good and keeping more of what made then into what they are in the first place. Or perhaps a comic where the look was a bit more cartoony would be a better place to start.
A photorealistic movie featuring Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, on the other hand, could be interesting, even if most of the audience would find to be pretty odd.

[JiminyCrick91]

I agree. That's very lifelike.

Wel.... yes. Heidi Klum is real and alive so it likely that she would be life like. That's from a issue of GQ where she was pictured as many different sex symbols from years past.

I heard that Eisner once planned to release all the old Disney classics (like Pinocchio and Snow White) as 3D movies, even if I don't know if the rumors are correct or if he in that case was serious.

The thing about using 2D overlay on top of 3D figures, or the other way around, is as I understand how Disney these days is actually making CGI movies.

I believe I heard that but they weren't reanimating in CG just doing a restoration process of the existing film to pop it out.....like what they did for Nightmare Before Christmas a couple years back.


On the subject of the main pic I like it yet some don't seem to get the point of these pictures. They make the character look more realistic yet not taking away some of the more exaggerated bits (thus making Jess look a tad odd yet still alluring or Mario simply gruesomely haggard).


-Sky

[Disney Duster]

SuperAurora it wasn't old news to me and so many people here in this thread and countles others who have had a look but not commented. That was who I was posting this for, anyone who hadn't seen it...

Yes, I think some people aren't getting it. She the same design, just photorealistic. So her eyelid is huge because it was that way in the original toon design.

As for the uncanny valley, that has everything to do with my recent freak out and depression about robots becoming too much like humans and us thinking of ourselves as less than we are and being less happy, less everything...but anyway, if we kept the original toon designs, and just did photrealism, then that keep off some of the freaking out at something that looks and acts too human because...it's tooness would reveal it not to be "human".

Then again, certain realistic human characters in Disney films, especially from the fairy tale ones, might be too human for comfort...or just look so darn cool, or we can't even tell it's not real actors because they're so realsitically designed and rendered.

Someone already thought the above picture of Heidi Klum as Jessica Rabbit was just a CGI image!

[blackcauldron85]

I heard that Eisner once planned to release all the old Disney classics (like Pinocchio and Snow White) as 3D movies, even if I don't know if the rumors are correct or if he in that case was serious.

I remember reading about that.

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=15338

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... 9a40e62235

http://forums.dvdtoons.com/showthread.php?t=1627

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/forum/vie ... ef6c7f71b1

[Lazario]

I agree. That's very lifelike.

Wel.... yes. Heidi Klum is real and alive so it likely that she would be life like. That's from a issue of GQ where she was pictured as many different sex symbols from years past.

Kinda full of herself, idn't she?

Honestly, I didn't who that was. Nice to know someone around here reads glamour-magazines. Or, was this in one of those Maxim-ish porny mags?