DVDizzy Forum

According to this article, initially Over the Moon wasn't going to be a musical. It seems it was Glen Keane who decided to add songs to the story.

Of the soundtrack, director Glen Keane says, "Over the Moon wasn't originally intended to be a musical - but in the creative process we discovered the emotions of the characters ran so deep that there were often times where words simply weren't enough. Singing felt like the purest way to capture our characters' journeys! Our songwriters Chris Curtis, Marjorie Duffield and Helen Park absolutely nailed the intention and spirit of Over the Moon, and I know our screenwriter Audrey Wells felt the same way. Steven Price's gorgeous and uplifting score really made the film soar. We are lucky to have had the chance to collaborate with these talented musicians."

"Over the Moon has been such a deeply personal journey for the three of us," adds songwriters Christopher Curtis, Marjorie Duffield and Helen Park. "We each connected with the themes of healing, a longing to be seen and felt a real connection to Audrey's magical words. We are so thankful that Glen had a vision to make the film a musical, and that we had the chance to work in such close collaboration with him and the whole team on a project we hope will touch the hearts and souls of anyone who sees it."

And here are some details about the songs from a couple of film reviews (mild spoilers):

Similarly, Over the Moon doesn't find its footing in terms of its musical numbers until the third song, "Rocket to the Moon," in which Ang shows off the full breadth of her singing ability. It's a show-stopping number that not only kickstarts the real story of the film but launches Over the Moon into the upper echelons of animated musicals. It helps that this song is followed by two certified bops, "Ultraluminary," sung by Soo's Chang'e, and "Hey Boy," in which Soo sings opposite Chiu's Chin. The latter acts of the movie are anchored by more emotional songs, in which Soo and Ang both shine - and Ken Jeong offers a surprisingly stirring performance singing "Wonderful" as the green moon creature Gobi - giving Over the Moon a much-needed range in its soundtrack. Altogether, the voice cast of Over the Moon is exceptionally strong, and their singing talents are showcased well in the film's musical numbers.

Source: https://screenrant.com/over-moon-2020-movie-reviews/

Meanwhile the soundtrack is best appreciated not for individual numbers—no single song attains Disney classic status—but rather as the sum of its parts. There is a clear emotional arc to these varied numbers that when experienced as a whole is remarkable. The movie’s first few tracks draw their inspiration from traditional Chinese music, with later numbers layering on the K-pop influence, and then ultimately stripping the songs back down to their purest essence, matching Chang’e’s various phases.

That said, the songs do peak via the goddess’ popstar persona, with the most memorable numbers including her epic introductory performance of “Ultraluminary” and “Hey Boy,” a fun ping-pong/rap battle between Chang’e and Chin. While the team of Christopher Curtis, Marjorie Duffield, and Helen Park worked together on all of the songs, no doubt it was Park’s influence that made these particular numbers soar. (She was behind the 2017 Off-Broadway musical KPOP, in which Ang starred.) Composer Steven Price’s alternately playful and stirring score ties it all together wonderfully.

Source: https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/over-t ... w-netflix/

Disney's Divinity wrote:The protagonist looks so much better there than anything we've seen from the finished product. The limitations of 3D, but we're stuck with it as our only medium for 99% of animated films now... *sigh*

Agreed. It's a real shame. While the modelers did a good job translating the designs in CG, there's still something missing. There's an inherent appeal and warmth in drawings and 2D animation that can't be replicated by any other medium.

Here's another of Keane's drawings of Fei Fei.


Source: https://www.animationmagazine.net/strea ... -the-moon/

D82 wrote:Glen Keane implies in that last article that he was given the choice to make the movie in 2D, but I highly doubt it.

I don't buy it either. Before Pearl Studio decided to outsource the animation to Sony Imageworks, the plan was to make it in-house like Abominable. Pearl Studio doesn't have the pipeline to produce 2D animation. They were set up as a CG studio from the start back when they were called Oriental DreamWorks. They wouldn't have been able to do it in a medium other than CG.

D82 wrote:What you said about the limitations of 3D is true, however in my opinion he still managed to give this movie his style and make it look better than other CG films.

I agree; it does look better than your average CG film.

D82 wrote:Over the Moon looks quite Disney to me as well, despite being from another studio.

I find that some elements are very Disney-esque, but others are more DreamWorks or Illumination-like.

D82 wrote:And I liked that Glen wanted Jin Kim on his team. His influence is also noticeable in the designs.

Me too. They make a great team. They both have the same artistic sensibilities, but where Glen's drawings are more loose and visceral, Jin's are more polished and tied-down.

unprincess wrote:Does that mean Chinese/Korean/Japanese kids like the same lowbrow cringe comedy that American/Western kids like?

Pretty much. There's a lot of Chinese animation out there that's really dumbed-down and tasteless. Not everything is a a serious action-adventure epic. Chinese media for kids aren't that different from Western ones, I'd say. The tone and the low-brow humor is pretty similar. Where they differ are the types of stories they use (usually derived from myths, folklore, and religion) as well as specific culture practices they reference.

D28 wrote:Well, many of the people who worked on the film aren't Chinese, and I suppose they had to make the film appealing to the rest of the world too for it to be successful. In my opinion, that's why it looks quite westernized. But I think it will also be respectful to Chinese culture at the same time, like Pearl Studio's last film, Abominable, seemed to be.

Yes, they wanted something Westernized that would appeal to the rest of the world, but also something Chinese people could relate to and are familiar with. I'm not sure they succeeded in doing both equally well. The film still feels like an American product in Chinese packaging.

D82 wrote:Yes, I think it's the lack of shadows and details what I'm not sure if I like. I guess the buildings and characters of the moon don't have shadows because they're made of light, so it probably makes sense they look like that, but to me the style of Lunaria seems a bit at odds with the style of the rest of the film. And yes, I expected something a bit more traditional.

For me, it's not just that. The entire concept of the movie is lacking. They should have just made it a period epic about the myth of Chang'e. That would have been much more appealing and satisfying to me.

I also have trouble suspending my disbelief for certain elements of the story. Because the film has a contemporary setting and the world we are first introduced to is so grounded in reality, I find it hard to believe that a girl her age can still believe there are people on the moon. It's even harder to believe she was able to built a functioning rocketship on her own. The moon people existing doesn't bother me since it's an "other world", but unbelievable things happening in the real world that are presented as normal and go unquestioned puts me off. While I don't have a problem with other magical realism stories, the execution and tone of this one feels off, somehow. This makes me expect that this whole adventure will end up being a dream in the end.

D82 wrote:Once again, the latest lyric video from Over the Moon doesn't contain the entire song. Here's the full version of "Ultraluminary", which has 30 seconds more at the beginning.

I don't understand why they keep cutting the songs for their lyric videos. It's silly and pointless. Anyway, I like the song. It's catchy. The lyrics aren't that great though. I didn't like that they used the filler "eh" to match the music's meter instead of coming up with lyrics that sync up. Saying "I'm the light every night in your world–eh", makes her sound Canadian! There's also a grammatical error. She says "you revel to the glory of my beauty" when it should be "you revel in the glory of my beauty" instead.

D82 wrote:I had been wondering whether all those beings were already there on the moon or if she had created them. But yes, judging by the music video, it seems it's the latter. That's yet another similarity the Moon Goddess has with Elsa; that she can create life. She's also isolated from the rest of the world and has created herself a palace.

I hadn't noticed the similarities to Elsa. That's interesting.

That's what I'm getting from the trailers too.

The story is engaging and ambitious in scope, but also strangely paced and a little scattershot. Chang’e as diva, embittered by years of lovelessness: this is a bold subversion of the old legend. But rather than explore this ambiguous figure, the film relegates her to the sidelines as Fei Fei and friends are tasked with finding a gift that will help the goddess reunite with Hou Yi. Cue a big change of pace, as the team split up and embark on frenetic adventures.

The moon scenes are well staged and edited; we never feel lost in the topsy-turvy environments. But in narrative terms, they’re anarchic. The team are aided and hindered in their missions by ad-hoc characters and magic powers, which make for some zany set pieces (including a low-gravity ping-pong game and a ride with mercenary chickens) but don’t cohere into a clear vision for this celestial world. Nor does all this action leave much room for character development, which is mostly condensed into a handful of sweet, forgettable musical numbers.

Source: https://www.cartoonbrew.com/reviews-2/o ... 97393.html

I agree that it does look better than the average 3D film and most of Disney's and PIXAR's films. Frozen and its sequel are the only 3D films of Disney's revivial where I liked the way the characters looked the majority of the time; and the scenery / backgrounds in Frozen, Big Hero 6, and Moana are gorgeous, too. As for the drawings of the protagonist being aesthetically superior for me, I think where 3D often loses the battle is something about the cheeks and jawline. 3D often makes the characters look like they're made of dough.

I'm most excited to hear "Rocket to the Moon." You know, I wonder if the film will ever get released on physical media and if the soundtrack will be released physically either (I imagine it will at least be released digitally).

Hand-drawn and CGI does have a different look, but what animation is concerned, I think CGI looks just as smooth and fluid as more traditional animation these days if done right (there is always some low budget CGI out there that makes the animation look stiff), as seen in the latest video. I just hope Glen Keane is a good teacher, so the techniques and skills can be passed on to new generations of animatiors (he should do some teaching at CalArts).

She says "when we arrived on the moon". I assume she is referring to her rabbit?

D82 wrote:Once again, the latest lyric video from Over the Moon doesn't contain the entire song. Here's the full version of "Ultraluminary", which has 30 seconds more at the beginning.

Some of those extra seconds actually sounds Chinese.

D82 wrote:That's yet another similarity the Moon Goddess has with Elsa; that she can create life. She's also isolated from the rest of the world and has created herself a palace.

Off topic, but Dr. Manhattan also creates a great home for himself when he goes to Mars (the comic book version of his palace is superior to the film version in my opinion).

Ozymandias: But you'd regained interest in human life?

Dr. Manhattan: Yes, I have. I think, perhaps, I'll create some. Goodbye Adrian.

Sotiris wrote:There's an inherent appeal and warmth in drawings and 2D animation that can't be replicated by any other medium.

I completely agree. You summed it up perfectly. I would like to frame that quote and hang it on the wall.

Sotiris wrote:I find that some elements are very Disney-esque, but others are more DreamWorks or Illumination-like.

I was thinking mainly of the character designs and animation, but it's true that the film also has other influences.

Sotiris wrote:

D82 wrote:And I liked that Glen wanted Jin Kim on his team. His influence is also noticeable in the designs.

Me too. They make a great team. They both have the same artistic sensibilities, but where Glen's drawings are more loose and visceral, Jin's are more polished and tied-down.

I agree. That's also a perfect description of their respective styles.

Sotiris wrote:I also have trouble suspending my disbelief for certain elements of the story. Because the film has a contemporary setting and the world we are first introduced to is so grounded in reality, I find it hard to believe that a girl her age can still believe there are people on the moon. It's even harder to believe she was able to built a functioning rocketship on her own. The moon people existing doesn't bother me since it's an "other world", but unbelievable things happening in the real world that are presented as normal and go unquestioned puts me off. While I don't have a problem with other magical realism stories, the execution and tone of this one feels off, somehow.

I feel the same way, but I'll wait to see the movie to form an opinion of that. Maybe they'll make these things seem believable there.

Sotiris wrote:I don't understand why they keep cutting the songs for their lyric videos. It's silly and pointless. Anyway, I like the song. It's catchy. The lyrics aren't that great though. I didn't like that they used the filler "eh" to match the music's meter instead of coming up with lyrics that sync up. Saying "I'm the light every night in your world–eh", makes her sound Canadian! There's also a grammatical error. She says "you revel to the glory of my beauty" when it should be "you revel in the glory of my beauty" instead.

That "eh" also sounded weird to me, but as I'm not a native English speaker, I didn't know how common it is to say that. The way "me" is pronounced in the line "I hear they say that the Milky Way can't help but envy me" also sounds strange to me, but maybe it's correct. Regarding the grammatical error, I think it's only a typo of the lyric video. I think she sings "revel in".

Disney's Divinity wrote:I'm most excited to hear "Rocket to the Moon." You know, I wonder if the film will ever get released on physical media and if the soundtrack will be released physically either (I imagine it will at least be released digitally).

According to this website, the soundtrack will be released on October 23, so there will be a release, but I guess it'll be just a digital one.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Hand-drawn and CGI does have a different look, but what animation is concerned, I think CGI looks just as smooth and fluid as more traditional animation these days if done right (there is always some low budget CGI out there that makes the animation look stiff), as seen in the latest video.

It's true that CG animation has improved a lot in recent years, but in my opinion, there are still things that can't be replicated in 3D.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:She says "when we arrived on the moon". I assume she is referring to her rabbit?

I guess so.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Some of those extra seconds actually sounds Chinese.

Yes, it's true. I think Chang'e starts singing in a more traditional way because they want Fei Fei (and the public) to think she's the traditional Goddess she had imagined at first, so that the surprise when they reveal she isn't is bigger.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Off topic, but Dr. Manhattan also creates a great home for himself when he goes to Mars (the comic book version of his palace is superior to the film version in my opinion).

I haven't read the comics. I've seen the film, but I don't remember that moment very well. It's interesting that something similar happens there as well.


EDIT: I wanted to correct a couple of things I said wrong.

First, you're right, Sotiris. Chang'e does sing "you revel to the glory of my beauty" in the lyric video. It's not just the lyrics as I said. The first time the chorus is sung she says "revel in", but the second time she says "revel to". However, in the full version of the song she sings "revel in" both times, so at least that error is not on the actual soundtrack. It's strange they didn't notice the mistake in the lyric video and they even wrote the lyrics wrong. It's also curious they didn't use the same recording for the lyric video than for the soundtrack, at least not all the time.

And second, I was also wrong about the soundtrack release, Disney's Divinity; there'll be a physical release as well. I didn't think of searching on Amazon before. Here's the link to buy the CD there: https://www.amazon.com/Various/dp/B08JF5CYVZ/ref=sr_1_4

D82 wrote:

unprincess wrote:(Netflix has yet to release Klaus on dvd though so who knows if that will ever happen.)

I don't know anything about Netflix movies on DVD, but maybe they haven't released Klaus on DVD yet because it's a Christmas movie, and Christmas movies sometimes don't get released on home video until the following holiday season.

unprincess wrote:Im confused though, isnt the studio that made this Chinese so all the Asian stuff is partly to appeal to them? Does that mean Chinese/Korean/Japanese kids like the same lowbrow cringe comedy that American/Western kids like? Or do the Asian releases have different dialogue/scripts?

Well, many of the people who worked on the film aren't Chinese, and I suppose they had to make the film appealing to the rest of the world too for it to be successful. In my opinion, that's why it looks quite westernized. But I think it will also be respectful to Chinese culture at the same time, like Pearl Studio's last film, Abominable, seemed to be.

well Im really hoping Netflix releases Klaus on dvd/blu-ray this year, but I haven't heard anything about them doing so so far. I didn't know Pearl Studios released Adominable, I thought it was a Dreamworks film.

Interviews with Glen Keane and Cathy Ang (the voice of Fei Fei) and some news related to Over the Moon:

Pearl Studio's 'Over the Moon' to hit theaters in China
http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/20201 ... 7dca8.html

Netflix Plans to Release Six Animated Movies A YEAR
https://collider.com/netflix-animated-m ... -sarandos/

unprincess wrote:I didn't know Pearl Studios released Adominable, I thought it was a Dreamworks film.

Yes, it's a DreamWorks film, but it was made in collaboration with Pearl Studio. As Sotiris mentioned, Pearl Studio was founded by DreamWorks and was called Oriental DreamWorks at first. Now it's an independent company, but it seems both studios still have a good relationship.

Didn't notice the Youtube videos before now.

The assumption about the first part of the music is probably correct. One can imagine that she has a traditional dress and all when the starts singing, like she has been stuck in time all those years on the moon, and suddenly she is revealed as something modern while her clothes changing.
The problem with that twist is that the videos already released from Netflix gives it away, so those who have seen them already knows what to expect.

The finished product of CG animation consists of movements, rendering and design. I was referring to the movements, which looks just as fluid as hand-drawn animation these days. That's one of the major things that separate it from live action. Anyone who have seen "animation" where they have just rotoscoped some real actors knows who slow and limited their movements seems in comparison.
One big problem is that with computer animation, one can be an artist without being an animator, and an animator without being an artist. Someone creates a digital character for the animator, which then moves it. In the old days you had to be both and more. as many in here are aware of; Glen Keane and probably others old school animators use that approach when they draw character animation by hand, and then superimpose it over the digital 3D character.

As it was mentioned in a youtube video; 3D computer animation is different from hand-drawn in (at least) one important way; it requires "invisible animation". When you draw by hand, you only draw what we'll see on the screen. When you make 3D animation, the whole body of a character is actually three dimensional, even if we only see a 2D version of it. So one has to always keep in mind what characters and objects will behave on a whole other level than when it's all done on paper.
(What limited animation is concerned, known from Flintstones and other shows, does it even still exist, of have it been completely replaced by so-called 2D vector-based animation?)

D82 wrote: And second, I was also wrong about the soundtrack release, Disney's Divinity; there'll be a physical release as well. I didn't think of searching on Amazon before. Here's the link to buy the CD there: https://www.amazon.com/Various/dp/B08JF5CYVZ/ref=sr_1_4

Yay! I would've bought it anyway if digital was the only option, but I always prefer to have a physical release, so I'm glad. Thank you for posting.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:The assumption about the first part of the music is probably correct. One can imagine that she has a traditional dress and all when the starts singing, like she has been stuck in time all those years on the moon, and suddenly she is revealed as something modern while her clothes changing.
The problem with that twist is that the videos already released from Netflix gives it away, so those who have seen them already knows what to expect.

Yes, but it's still interesting to see the protagonist's reaction. For the people who don't know anything about the movie, though, it will be quite a surprise. At least it was to me when I watched the trailer. I didn't expect she would be like that at all.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:The finished product of CG animation consists of movements, rendering and design. I was referring to the movements, which looks just as fluid as hand-drawn animation these days. That's one of the major things that separate it from live action. Anyone who have seen "animation" where they have just rotoscoped some real actors knows who slow and limited their movements seems in comparison.

I agree that the movements in CG look much more fluid now than before. Also, at first 3D films tried to look as realistic as possible and now there are different styles and approaches, which is also a big advance in my opinion. By the way, maybe it seems I hate CG animation, but I don't. I just wish it hadn't pretty much replaced traditional animation.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:One big problem is that with computer animation, one can be an artist without being an animator, and an animator without being an artist. Someone creates a digital character for the animator, which then moves it. In the old days you had to be both and more. as many in here are aware of; Glen Keane and probably others old school animators use that approach when they draw character animation by hand, and then superimpose it over the digital 3D character.

As it was mentioned in a youtube video; 3D computer animation is different from hand-drawn in (at least) one important way; it requires "invisible animation". When you draw by hand, you only draw what we'll see on the screen. When you make 3D animation, the whole body of a character is actually three dimensional, even if we only see a 2D version of it. So one has to always keep in mind what characters and objects will behave on a whole other level than when it's all done on paper.

I hadn't thought about some of these things before. It's interesting to learn how each medium works.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Yay! I would've bought it anyway if digital was the only option, but I always prefer to have a physical release, so I'm glad. Thank you for posting.

You're welcome. I always prefer a physical release too. If I like the rest of the songs, maybe I'll also buy the CD.

Of course, I just think the studios are often giving away a little too much in trailers these days.

A test for how fluid the animation is would be to make it as a black silhouette and then see if anyone could tell if it was CGI or hand-drawn. Or using cel shading.
And now they also have John Kahrs who made Paperman on the team. Apparently the new style didn't work that good in colors, but maybe Netflix will allow them to experiment. (Just look at Klaus, where instead of making CGI characters looking more hand-drawn, they made hand-drawn look more 3D: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlU49dJhfcw )

Disney's Divinity wrote:I hadn't thought about some of these things before. It's interesting to learn how each medium works.

John Lasseter mentioned in an old interview or article from his early days at Pixar which I read a few years ago, where he says how 3D characters really are 3D. In the beginning he made the mistake of just moving a character's arm is if it was still in just two dimensions, and it ended up with the arm actually coming out from the character's chest, which would of course never have happened in traditional hand-drawn. I have tried to find the article/interview again, but without any luck so far.

Found instead this video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZbrdCAsYqU ), where the different types are described, and the CGI part mentioned some of what Lasseter talked about. The video also mentions 2D vector-based animation, which as mentioned sounds like a digital version of the old limited animation used by Hanna-Barbera's TV-animation and others.

More interviews with Glen Keane and the cast of Over the Moon: https://www.heyuguys.com/over-the-moon-interviews/

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Of course, I just think the studios are often giving away a little too much in trailers these days.

Yeah, that's true. Well, at least there have been only two trailers for Over the Moon. Had they released a third one, there wouldn't be anything else left to discover when the film was released.

Thanks for the videos you posted. I hadn't seen them and I found both really interesting. It's great that they're experimenting with new 2D techniques. The animation in Klaus reminds me a bit of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where they also tried to make the characters more three-dimensional adding lights and shadows on them, though of course, this is much more advanced. And though I knew the basic concepts about the different types of animation, there were several details I didn't know and also some forms of stop motion I hadn't heard about before, like cut-out or silhouette animation.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Of course, I just think the studios are often giving away a little too much in trailers these days.

I guess nothing has changed over the years. The trailers from the 90s also gave away much.

Aladdin theatrical trailer
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HrmBXgiwDU

In a new interview, Glen Keane says he tried to make the designs different from Disney. In my opinion, he wasn't completely successful, but I don't mind it at all.

The director also used the reverse mentoring process for a fresh perspective. While drawing different designs for Over The Moon‘s characters, Keane said that it felt “very Disney” and he knew it had to be different somehow.

Likening it to music that you can’t get out of your head, Keane sought the help of people who could “play another melody” for him. Through Facebook, he found a fanart of Ariel from artist Brittany Myers. The art style captivated him and they hired her.

“Brittany came on and I was trying to draw like her, and I worked with another guy– Jin Kim, who I’d worked with at Disney, and together we had this wonderful little team that I learned and grew from.” Glen Keane said.

And it seems the ending will be open to interpretation as some of us feared, and it won't be made clear whether the adventures the protagonist has on the Moon were real or not.


I've also noticed there are a lot of products from the movie on Amazon. Has Netflix released so much merchandise for other films before?

DisneyBluLife wrote:I guess nothing has changed over the years. The trailers from the 90s also gave away much.

Aladdin theatrical trailer
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HrmBXgiwDU

You're right, that trailer gave away a bit too much. They even revealed that Jafar discovers Aladdin has the lamp and that's at least from the second act of the movie. However, back then movies didn't have so many trailers as now, did they?

The main difference between Klaus and Roger Rabbit is that the latter used only analog tools to make the animation look more three-dimensional in some of their scenes. I remember seeing how they made Jessica Rabbit, including the sparkling in her dress. Unfortunately it's been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember much.

Mentioned before, but they moved to digital too early (or remained in the same place for too long). When CAPS and similar tools took over, they still haven't pushed traditional animation as long as it could come. Would have loved to see them perfect it so much with non-digital tools that they came to a point when it was no longer possible to add more, and then make a handful of such films where they used everything available for them. Then they could switch to digital.

Yes, cut-out and silhouette animation are amongst the earliest forms of animation, and Walt Disney himself actually started with cut-out animation. The video mentions Lotte Reiniger's Adventures of Prince Achmed, the oldest animated movie still in existence and made from silhouette animation. One of the animators who worked on the movie was Berthold Bartosch, and if he had had anything to say, maybe we would also have talked about soap animation:

https://soma.sbcc.edu/users/davega/xNON ... hmedPK.pdf

In his last conversation with animator Claire Parker, he talked about another animation technique he had used those many years ago on Prince Achmed: “During my years of work I have learned many things. Soap, it is quite extraordinary, with soap one can do everything.”

And I don't mind that studios experiments with different animation designs, like Keane wanting to try something looking less Disney, as long as they don't take any shortcuts.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Mentioned before, but they moved to digital too early (or remained in the same place for too long). When CAPS and similar tools took over, they still haven't pushed traditional animation as long as it could come. Would have loved to see them perfect it so much with non-digital tools that they came to a point when it was no longer possible to add more, and then make a handful of such films where they used everything available for them. Then they could switch to digital.

I would say we don't know if they really could do more in analog animation beyond Roger Rabbit. Or maybe they could even go on forever, infinitely improving analog animation.

We know that the APT-process, as discussed elsewhere, was still not perfect. And how much of what was used in Roger Rabbit, which was mostly live action with animation, was used in an animated feature? Disney only made one cel animated movie after this.

Don Bluth left Disney because of frustration. He remembered what they did on Sleeping Beauty, and how Disney after that stopped investing in technology, with the exception of the Xerox process. Already posted here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=32765 When he made The Secret of NIMH, it included a multiplane camera that was easier to use and control.

Developing and building the cameras took a full a year and a half. And, he wanted his film to offer something new. For that, he and his team turned to special effects and lighting, something Disney had stopped experimenting with after Fantasia. Bluth was not quite ambitious enough to try underwater sequences, but he did want to make things glow and explode.

Bluth added split exposures to create more shadowy and translucent effects. The result: arguably the greatest advancements in animation since the development of the xerography process for One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961). Bluth had accomplished his goal of restoring innovation to animation.

They also used stop-motion in Fantasia, and physical car models in One Hundred and One Dalmatians, but purists may prefer that everything is done by hand.

Maybe Keane's next movie will be hand-drawn:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle ... 64819.html

Hand-drawn animation is at the very core of what Keane has always done, he uses it in this film, and he says if he had to pick one animation form to work on for the rest of his life hand-drawing would be it. But on taking on this project, he says he quickly realised that creating two very different looking worlds - those on earth and on the moon, known as Lunaria - would best come to life through the use of computer-generated animation.

“The reason I chose CG was because of two things. One was the subtlety of performance and the acting was going to be dealing with real internal acting. That means the most subtle, tiny little gestures. If I could control every one of those things, then I could do it in hand-drawn. But when you're dealing with a team that we had of 120 animators, you have to do something that is a much more robust system for controlling that subtlety.

“The second was, how could we deliver what Wizard of Oz did from black and white to Technicolor? What was going to be the equivalent of that? And we realised, just like the Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon cover with the prism and the white light, hitting exploding into rainbow light, it's got to be light.

“Working with Celine de Remo, my production designer, who's just a genius about reflected light on the earth and showing source light in Lunaria coming from the inside out. And that's really what made me choose to be doing this film in CG because it's going to be animating light. Nothing's better than actual computer generated images for that.”

When he decides to do a new feature for Netflix or another studio, with a single look and style through the whole movie, then we could expect hand-drawn. Just curious what the plot and setting will be.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:The main difference between Klaus and Roger Rabbit is that the latter used only analog tools to make the animation look more three-dimensional in some of their scenes. I remember seeing how they made Jessica Rabbit, including the sparkling in her dress. Unfortunately it's been a while since I saw it, so I don't remember much.

Yes, that's the main difference. Could this be what you remember seeing? I think it's the same documentary I also watched.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Mentioned before, but they moved to digital too early (or remained in the same place for too long). When CAPS and similar tools took over, they still haven't pushed traditional animation as long as it could come. Would have loved to see them perfect it so much with non-digital tools that they came to a point when it was no longer possible to add more, and then make a handful of such films where they used everything available for them. Then they could switch to digital.

That's true; if CGI hadn't become popular so soon, they could've continued to experiment more with traditional animation. Now, things like the animation effects in Who Framed Roger Rabbit are easier to make with computers, so they don't use analog tools anymore. It's a shame, because it doesn't look the same when they use digital tools.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Yes, cut-out and silhouette animation are amongst the earliest forms of animation, and Walt Disney himself actually started with cut-out animation. The video mentions Lotte Reiniger's Adventures of Prince Achmed, the oldest animated movie still in existence and made from silhouette animation.

I must've read about that and forgotten about it, because I know I've read about the earliest days of animation and the first feature-length animated films before Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Thanks for the info and for the link. I've read part of the text and it's quite interesting. It's remarkable that that film was all done with cut-outs and that it was directed by a woman, when even today there aren't many female directors in animation. I'll have to watch it.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Maybe Keane's next movie will be hand-drawn:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle ... 64819.html

Hand-drawn animation is at the very core of what Keane has always done, he uses it in this film, and he says if he had to pick one animation form to work on for the rest of his life hand-drawing would be it. But on taking on this project, he says he quickly realised that creating two very different looking worlds - those on earth and on the moon, known as Lunaria - would best come to life through the use of computer-generated animation.

“The reason I chose CG was because of two things. One was the subtlety of performance and the acting was going to be dealing with real internal acting. That means the most subtle, tiny little gestures. If I could control every one of those things, then I could do it in hand-drawn. But when you're dealing with a team that we had of 120 animators, you have to do something that is a much more robust system for controlling that subtlety.

“The second was, how could we deliver what Wizard of Oz did from black and white to Technicolor? What was going to be the equivalent of that? And we realised, just like the Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon cover with the prism and the white light, hitting exploding into rainbow light, it's got to be light.

“Working with Celine de Remo, my production designer, who's just a genius about reflected light on the earth and showing source light in Lunaria coming from the inside out. And that's really what made me choose to be doing this film in CG because it's going to be animating light. Nothing's better than actual computer generated images for that.”

Well, if he was really given the option of making Over the Moon in hand-drawn animation, then I guess it's possible that he chooses his next film to be traditionally animated. We'll see. I'd love if that was the case.

By the way, I've noticed that on the Amazon link I shared yesterday there's this description of the city of Lunaria:

Years ago Jade Rabbit, the alchemist, made the magical city of Lunaria for Chang'e, the moon goddess. At its center is Chang'e's palace, surrounded by beautiful lantern-like structures where Lunarians live.

So, it seems it's the rabbit who creates the city, though using Chang'e's tears, as she says in the song. Apparently, that's also inspired by Chinese culture:

In Chinese folklore, the rabbit often is portrayed as a companion of the Moon goddess Chang'e, constantly pounding the elixir of life for her.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rabbit

A clip from Over the Moon has been released.