Harry here in rain soaked ATLANTA. Hurricane Earl is making it's self evident, and sure enough Quint and Tom Joad made it, though their adventure is dare I say fantastic. But that's not why you clicked here, you clicked to read this rather intelligent (not what you're reading, but what's below) discussion piece about the art and technology of ANTZ and A BUG'S LIFE, so read on you should enjoy it...
Whether this comes as interesting information to the masses, or just another misguided missive, who can say? Still, after having been treated to back to back previews (and such) for both Disney/Pixar's "A Bug's Life" and Dreamworks' "Antz", I was compelled to shoot my big mouth off.
To put my opinions in perspective, I offer up the following obligatory information. I am an obsessed fan of the art of animation. Serve it up in any guise you choose: Disney-style, anime, stop-motion and computer. Hey, I watched 'Heavy Metal' on the basis of artistic merit (pathetic, isn't it?). I have dipped my toes into the cg pool as well, studying the different software packages that are available...
But being a fan of animation doesn't necessarily prepare one to like or dislike a movie. There have been some lavishly animated, but ultimately soulless, duds... just as many times that crude animation told a great story. On those terms, understand that this is just a cursory review of what is the best source material at the time, and that a good script doesn't necessarily come through the 'coming attractions'.
There is a term in computer animation known as "seeing the software". You may have experienced the phenomenon yourself after seeing too many cg commercials. You start seeing common traits in the processing of images, a familiarity of movement, even a repetition of texturing of cg models and special effects. This is because of the use of tried and true software and why it is now so hard to really impress audiences anymore with old-school product, instead of writing your own code and tweaking the pre-existing packages.
"A Bug's Life" from Pixar is a seamless piece of work. Much like their work on "Toy Story" (and their short films previous to it), the character design draws closer to traditional animation styles than the on-screen design work utilizing nurbs and splines. Also, the texturing is unique and dense, again like "Toy Story" where you could marvel at such benign details as wood grain, gravel and blanket fuzz. Visually, you cannot "see the software" unless you get so anal in studying the product that you leave forehead grease and snot on the screen.
"Antz", on the other hand, puts the software way up there. Everything looks cool enough, but the artifice of cg animation keeps the viewer from being immersed in the sights. I wondered, as I watched, what workstations they were using; Windows NT or Silicon Graphics. Was that a Softimage water effect or glow... that sort of thing. The common viewer wouldn't be such a hardnose about it, but others were telling me straightaway that "Antz" didn't come close to "A Bug's Life". So even though I know the laundry list of behind-the- scenes junk, Joe Blow noticed the difference too.
Aside from that, I think the vocal talent on the films draw the attention in opposite directions too. "A Bug's Life" has possibly the coolest guy in Hollywood right now, Kevin Spacey, as a voice, and he isn't distracting in the least. Like any good actor, he becomes the role, at least as presented in the preview. The other voices aren't quite as invisible, but most of them are not ridiculously glaring. Casting was important here, and I hate to refer back to "Toy Story", but the most jarring in-joke in it, Don Rickels as Mr. Potato Head, became easier to deal with thru it, eventually having Rickels become the character instead of the character always wearing a celebrity voice.
There is casting all over "Antz" and I think it could be the biggest problem of all. On paper, having voices like Woody Allen, Sharon Stone and Sylvester Stallone looks mega. But after even the preview, something didn't click. I felt like it was going to be impossible to marry the voice and the character on it. Sharon Stone has the best of the bunch and blended very well here. This is, obviously, because she doesn't have the kind of voice that has been mimicked to death ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I hope that my opinion will change once I get to see the real deal, but if you see the movie and wind up saying, "What were they thinking, casting such familiar voices that I just couldn't get into it", remember me...
To herald or crucify any project on the basis of an advance preview is unfair. The constraints of both time and comfort are imposed in order to sell the thing and trailer cutters go for the big scenes to grab that attention (another recent and hateful practice, but that's for another time) . You don't learn to love or hate characters based on snippets of dialogue sandwiched in- between a little flash 'n boom. Still, Dreamworks and Disney have presented a puzzle to us: two computer animation movies at the same time, both with star voices and both about insects and such. I hope I'll like both, and would hate to think that the demise of a project (or worse, both) would stop companies from releasing this type of movie.
For right now, "A Bug's Life" is the winner, and while not a loser, "Antz" isn't going to make anyone forget the competition.
See you in November.
