2016 Jungle Book
Voice acting
Sometimes can see an animation of what would be happening
Director observes and explains the scene
Blue screen
Pre-visualisation model for the actor
Jungle Book cartoon
Head animator, supervising animators
One storyman (Bill Pete)
Initially the film was starting to get too dark which Walt didn't like and Bill Pete left and Larry Clemmons took over who created it without reading the original book itself
All worked together and not the most organised -
Information about 2016 Jungle Book --
Technology
JB16 one of the most technologically advanced movies ever made’; as the director noted, ‘I found myself wrestling with the same things as Walt, who used cutting edge technology for his day, but with a different set of tools and technologies.’ (https://
www.awn.com/animationworld/jon-favreau-looks-backjungle-book
JB16 is the result of cutting edge CGI – the animals were created digitally post-production and the one actor in the film (playing Mowgli) acted against a blue screen.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-jungle-book-withoutcgi-2016-4/#all-of-the-jungles-animal-inhabitants-werecreated-in-post-production-9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSQcBZcvqpg
scenes for The Jungle Book were first filmed using motion capture. ‘We motion-captured the entire movie before we filmed anything and we cut the whole film together,’ says Favreau.
Using that footage, the effects team then built the film’s sets virtually, a process known as previsualisation (previz). ‘Everything was mapped against the virtual sets. We designed
the sets like you would for a video game.’ (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/jungle-book-jon-favreau-disney-film)
The CGI was mostly created by MPC.
Their website includes an excellent exposition of how the effects were created http://
www.moving-picture.com/film/filmography/the-jungle-book/
The VFX won both the BAFTA and Academy Award. The new film opens and closes using analogue techniques, however, referencing the original film: https://youtu.be/aZOUWQ6iox
Ownership
JB16 was planned by Walt Disney Studios Chairman, Alan Horn, as one of a series of remakes of their classic properties: ‘Hollywood makes lots of films for kids, but
Disney reboots are considered safe bets. They revive classic characters for a new generation of kids, and their parents may be especially willing to shell out for related merchandise.’
Disney have leveraged the technology within the film to widen audience appeal and create spectacle during the marketing e.g. showing film teasers in 3 D
Distribution
Box office
budget (estimated) $175 Million
The Jungle Book (2016) has taken over 1 billion US dollars already at the cinema box office (worldwide)
In 2016 Disney’s productions earned more at the box office than any of the other six majors; Disney ‘amassed $2.56 billion globally
They focus on blockbuster films and their strategy to “reboot” their older animations (Cinderella, JB) helped to guarantee success.
History of Cel animation
-background and character separately
-redrew background on every single frame
-static background and moving character on top of it
-painting of cels, Disney first to hire woman
-Too many cells stacked causes foggy image
-Cels originally made with real cellulose nitrate but was flammable so replaced with cellulose acetate
-coloured outlines
-CAPS - computer animated production system (DISNEY WORKED WITH PIXAR)
ADAM VALDEZ -
In addition to a great working relationship with Jon and Rob, we worked directly with production designer Chris Glass, DP Bill Pope, animation supervisor Andy Jones, and editor Mark Livolsi. Producer Brigham Taylor, line producer Pete Tobyansen and VFX producer Joyce Cox were all there keeping it all together throughout. This movie required us to shoot with VFX in mind at all times, so having everyone aligned was essential.
The process of facial rigging had a lot to do with mapping out muscles that animals have that humans don’t, and making sure the face could do things like snarl and yawn and growl correctly. Then we did mouth shapes for speaking. We tested until we found a combination of animal and human muscles that felt like an animal who happened to be able to talk. We never attempted to put human qualities into their faces.
Jon was very involved in animation all the way through. As an actor, he had opinions on how beats would play within each scene, and how the individual presence of the lead animals would evolve. There were some scenes where he would pantomime for us and provide his own animation reference.
There are key moments where Mowgli actually touches the animals. Hugging, riding etc. These are case by case solutions. Riding was done with a typical motion base setup. This had one added trick in that the rig was articulated with shoulder blades and other actuators internally which gave a more complex movement for Mowgli to ride on. We animated those scenes first, and then programmed the rig on set with Glenn Derry. Hugging moments were done onset with a puppet, built exactly to match digital models of characters. These were typically furry and the color of the actual animal. Then we’d track Mowgli and the puppet, and match up the digital animal. Often we’d have to replace parts of Mowgli with digital parts. The best example is when Mowgli hugs his mother wolf, Raksha. Here his camera side arm is digital, so that the fingers and fur could be rendered together.
I think the trickiest was when Mowgli escapes a mudslide and rides down a turbulent river. This started with ride-rig shots that were really difficult to make convincing. Then a huge and complex environment with lots of big effects simulations we worked on over the course of a year. Then water tank shots which were very hard to track and modify for the action we all wanted. And in the end all of the water simulations that had to match water tank currents. Then getting the feeling of hand held cameras, the right balance of depth and rain effects, and the final comps with all the FX simulated water splashes and fancy color work. It had all the problems: technical, creative, editorial, digi doubles. How did we do it? Lots of development time, editorial tinkering, hard work and time. It’s all about putting your team on different problems and moving them forward with enough time to give the final look what it deserves.
Economic factors
2016
Budget 177 million USD
Opening Weekend USA: $103,261,464, 17 April 2016, Wide Release
Gross USA: $364,001,123
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $966,550,600
1967
Budget:$4,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA: $5,291,670, 27 July 1984, Limited Release
Gross USA: $141,843,612
Cumulative Worldwide Gross: $64,000,000
New technology requires a bigger budget but also allows for more audience interest, which explains the huge financial differences between the films.
The BIG 6 film studios are increasingly pouring more resources into fewer films offering SPECTACLE but limiting choice. This can arguably decrease budget as Disney do not have to pay many other companies to distribute films, and can do it themselves. It means there is much more control over what films are released as they are 6 conglomerates
.
A Quiet Place is an independent film, not created by the conglomerates, that was still successful and had famous actors, showing that we are not completely limited to the same companies.
Budget:
$17,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA:
$50,203,562, 8 April 2018, Wide Release
Gross USA:
$188,024,361
Cumulative Worldwide Gross:
$332,583,447
Winter's bone was also a successful indie film. However it is clear that these projects are unable to use a massive budget.
Budget:
$2,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend USA:
$84,887, 13 June 2010, Limited Release
Gross USA:
$6,531,503, 21 April 2011
Cumulative Worldwide Gross:
$13,831,503, 21 April 2011
Producing an Indie film can be a gamble, especially as a loan from a bank may be made for the budget, and this could always have the risk of not earning a profit. There is significant difference in risk-factor, as the 6 conglomerates have a fairly large amount of security and certainty.
Arguably creativity, variety and quality in the media is limited due to the amount of companies. This can be proved by what is popular in cinema e.g. marvel or superhero movies, Disney remakes etc. I'm not sure that I agree as there is always a wide range of genres to watch. Some examples of the repetitive films released by the conglomerates are Superhero, nostalgic, historical. Saving the world is a common theme in films.
Quality is subjective. For example Jungle Book has high quality acting, as he is portraying the emotions despite being young and the only live actor in the film.
Having diverse ownership would result in varied media productions as there is more styles and creators to contribute. It seems that films with dark themes are outside of the mainstream conglomerates.
Disney was highly aware of how to build and maintain
audiences nationally and globally, from the shaping of
the original product to appeal more to a family audience,
the marketing and distribution by its own company,
merchandising etc. Disney was an early master of synergy,
persuading companies to tie in with their film’s release,
running a character merchandising department. ‘In addition to
pioneering synergy, branding and merchandising beginning
in the 1930s, Walt Disney also developed the idea of synergy
between media consumption and theme park visits in the
1950s. The producer of animated films used the popularity
of his famous cartoon characters for a weekly show on ABC
that served as an advertisement for his theme park. In turn,
visiting Disneyland helped secure customers’ brand loyalty
to the Disney trademark for the future. This strategy of
cross-promotion… has become a basis for the Walt Disney
Company’s rapid growth.’ 4
Thus Disney constantly renewed films.
‘Disney leads the world in the production and distribution of
popular culture.6
What’s more they can use their incredible
back catalogue of production and re-present it for new
audiences: To have this incredible vault of content that they
can go back to and reimagine, retool and recreate for today’s
audiences just gives them a depth and breadth of films that
is almost unparalleled.’ As noted above JB16 was planned by Walt Disney Studios
Chairman, Alan Horn, as one of a series of remakes of their
classic properties: ‘Hollywood makes lots of films for kids, but
the Disney reboots may be one of the few safe bets. They
revive classic characters for a new generation of kids, and their
already smitten parents may be especially willing to shell out
for related merchandise.’ With DVD sales declining and digital
downloads on the rise, studios can’t just reissue old films in
6 Lee Artz in Budd. M (Ed) & Kirsch, M. (Ed). (2005)
‘There used to be a re-release of a classic film every
seven years..Now re-imagining them is what’s hot.’ However, the production process of JB16 was highly
dependent on other companies, such as MPC, and so was not
fully made in-house, as JB had been. The 2016 was distributed
by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures.
- Synergy and merchandise beginning in 1930s, theme park visits in 1950s
- Reboots is a safe bet for kids and parents (who may buy merchandise)
- Re-release vs re-imagine
The impact of digitally convergent
media platforms on media production, distribution and circulation, including
individual producers
- Film
content can be consumed by audiences in a variety of ways and locations
•cinema,
•home
entertainment
•On
the move (in flight entertainment, etc.)
Institutions
need to provide films increasingly in digital format
•Because
film consumption is moving away from cinema towards Home entertainment via
Blu-ray, streaming
Many people feel cinema is too expensive and would prefer to use streaming such as Netflix. This may be why Disney has cancelled its relationship with Netflix, and attempted to start its own.
•Increases
the risk of Piracy
Movies are easily copied onto illegal websites which are consumed by people all the time, often a replacement of cinema.
•Large
institutions (Big 6) offering cinematic experience in large screen (iMax)
format, followed by digital release as DVD, Blu-ray, streaming
This is a method to get box office revenues to increase, preventing people using illegal streaming.
•Disney
actively growing its business to fend of streaming services such as NETFLIX
Netflix likely has an affect on Disney's profits as they may have to pay Netflix for a relationship (or receive it, but lose money regardless due to less cinema visits). Disney would make more money if Netflix didn't exist.
Disney
actively trying to make its own streaming service through the acquisition of
FOX review the following link and summarise why it is a smart move for Disney to
grow: why would disney buy
fox?
This allows Disney to reduce the amount of companies that they work with, and stop competition. Disney buying fox is a clever idea as it gives Disney more control over how their films are consumed, whereas with Netflix they may be stuck. They are also able to profit from FOX streams in this way and earn more money.
