I saw the preview for Flushed Away this weekend and was disconcerted by it. OK, heartsick. Apparently they took the characteristics of an Aardman claymation figure (big mouths with lots o’ teeth, partially closed big hands flailing in dismay, close-set eyes) and made them into CGI characters. I know Nick Park had to be in on this but it makes me sad he would sell out. Last I heard he believed there was a market for his claymation and he wasn’t interested in computer-animated stuff. Could Spielberg The-Root-of-all-Evil and company have made an offer he couldn’t refuse?
Why couldn’t they just stick to their own thing and not turn to his charming figures? Why did he allow this?
Aardman is still doing the claymation stuff. Right now the studio is focusing on the american version of Creature Comforts. It might be as simple as wanting to do more projects and including CGI is a way that they won’t have to spend years working on one film at a time.
As I recall, Flushed Away is actually being made with Aardman, not just ripped off from them, and the reason they’re using CGI is that some of the set pieces would be prohibitively expensive to physically build and animate.
It is a co-production between Aardman and Dreamworks. One of the two directors has worked on Dreamworks 2D stuff as well as storyboarding for the last two Aardman features.
My guess would be Dreamworks is providing 3D expertise and infrastructure. Just look at the amount of water used. It’s a pain in the ass working with stop-motion with water. They could have done stop-motion in front of a blue screen, but that would complicate things, too.
And Aardman has to be thinking quite a bot about this consideration since their studios burned down, taking nearly all past props, sets and figures with it.
C’mon folks. CGI is not the enemy, as Pixar’s unbroken string of fantastic films will testify. The enemy is the notion on the part of the film studios that eye-candy serves as an adequate substitute for good writing, directing, character development, etc. If Aardman approaches Flushed Away with the same attention to excellent storytelling as they have demonstrated with their stop-motion work, I see no reason why the movie can’t be every bit as good.
Most of Dreamworks’ in-house animations have been pretty crappy (IMHO), but they’ve been the ones who gave Aardman the opportunity to release Chicken Run and Wallace & Grommit: The Curse of the Wererabbit. I’m not too concerned that they’ll screw up Aardman’s artistry.
IIRC, there was even a bit of CGI used in Curse of the Wererabbit to animate a couple of scenes which would have been very challenging/impossible to do with clay.
I know I’m all over the place on this. I don’t necessarily think that CGI is evil, but part of what bugs me about the CGI figures in Flushed Away is that they only look the way they do because it’s how they would look were they done in clay. If they’re not being done in clay, why stick to the aesthetics that clay compels? Then is becomes doing CGI instead of clay because it is quicker.
garygnu got it right- the reason Aardman is animating Flushed Away in CGI is because of the large amount of water that appears in the film. It’s amazing that they’re able to keep the signature Aardman look in another field of animation.
I’m looking forward to Flushed Away. The first thing my wife and I thought of when we saw the preview for the first time (at Over the Hedge, I think) is that it looked just like Wallace & Gromit. Chicken Run was underwhelming, IMO, bu Wererabbit was great. I hope FA is more Gromitty less chickeny.
CARS broke that string like a rear axel on a buick. CARS was bad.
When you essetially remake a largely forgotten Michael J Fox movie, that isn’t homage…it’s just stealing.
I think they look that way, in both clay and in CGI, because that’s how they look in Aardman’s head when he writes and designs his films. He’s got a very clear, signature style, and at this point, it’s that style that brings in the audiences as much as the content of the films themselves. It’d be dumb to go with an entirely different look just because he’s working in a different medium.
While you are somewhat right about signature style and such (although Morph looks nothing like Wallace, BTW), you do make what I like to think of as the “Jethro Tull” mistake - there is no person called “Aardman” at Aardman Animations .
I am very excited about this movie. It’s not going to be a Wallace & Gromit, but you know the characters will be fully fleshed out.
When is the release date, she asked excitedly.
I know Nick Park had to be in on this but it makes me sad he would sell out. Last I heard he believed there was a market for his claymation and he wasn’t interested in computer-animated stuff. Could Spielberg The-Root-of-all-Evil and company have made an offer he couldn’t refuse?