Examining the Animation Drafts (Disney's Peter Pan)

[Rodney]

There are many ways to approach the breaking down of scenes in a film but one of the best is to study what has worked (and worked especially well) in the past.

 

For many years Hans Perk has posted the drafts from classic films on his blog where the films can be examined in light of these production drafts.

These drafts attempt to break down the assignment of scenes as they are doled out to the various animators.

 

Much can be learned from these drafts.

 

As a means to understand the breakdown of timing in a shot or sequence we can see the timing of any particular shot from the vantage point of any animator or director.

 

 

 

In this assigned shot, Milt Kahl has 7 feet and 10 frames (i.e. 122 frames or 00:05:02@24 frames per second) in which to deliver the performance.

We can therefore gain even more understanding from studying the shot frame by frame when we examine the over all timing dictated by the number of frames. The timing assigned to key poses then becomes all the more relevant and we can learn to more easily spot the key poses and extremes within a scene. Through this form of study we can better identify appropriate timing in our own scenes.

 

Note: Timing charts in classical animation are almost invariably annotated on the extremes

 

The 'Description of Action' is particularly useful in that it captures in a minimum of words what the whole focus of the shot must be.

In this case to deliver the line from Pan, "Big Chief Flying Eagle Greets his Braves"

Just a few seconds but perfectly executed to deliver the performance and to move the story forward.

 

These drafts also serve as a great aid to studying individual animators.

For instance, if you are studying a particular animators scenes to get a sense of timing or how they move characters through screen space it can be used to narrow down the field of where to look for their animation in one film or in others as well. While much will be gained by studying the famous names, much can also be learned by following the lesser known animators.

 

 

To study additional animation drafts visit: http://afilmla.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Just because a draft identifies a particular animator on a shot it does not mean they actually produced the animation.

In a perfect world they might but in the world where typos exist, animators share work and deadlines are routinely faced they should be regarded more as rough plans. Hence the name 'draft'.

 

Added: I've added a sampling of the sequence in question by Milt Kahl for study/comparison with the draft.

Whereas there is a fade out/in at the beginning that accounts for some missing frames the next shot is a closeup of Peter as he delivers the greeting "HOW" in the Chief's voice.

[Gerry]

That's some interesting and educational info, Rodney!

[Rodney]

Thanks Gerry. There is so much to learn.

 

I have yet to fully study an animated film in the way that I know I need to in order to extract the essence of the work that went into those sequences.

But in the meantime I sure can appreciate them.

 

In fact it's been over 24 years since I first took an animated sequence and showed it to a group of kids frame by frame.

While there was an assortment of animation available, I had limited resources (I think I had to rent a VCR) and I recall the movie I selected was Osamu Tezuka's 'Unico' wherein I highlighted the sequence where little Unico transforms into a beautiful pegicorn (or whatever they called a pegasus and unicorn smashed together in those days). That sequence was magic and the kids understood that immediately.

 

Of course some of the kids just wanted to watch the movie... that frame by frame stuff was not their cup of tea.

But they were all very innovative when it came to making flipbooks. Kids have wonderful imaginations.

 

Studying movies frame by frame is something I've always wanted to do but in a way I'm a lot like some of those kids... I'm still enjoying the magic too much to be distracted by the behind-the-scenes... so just show me the movie please.

[robcat2075]

Overlapping motion mistake on the Indian Headress. It jerks backwards even though Peter Pan has barely begun to move forward. That's what they get for making a movie we want to study.

 

[Rodney]

That's what they get for making a movie we want to study.

 

Well, to study a thing does mean it needs to be perfect and to take them too much to task for that would be a considerable stretch.

Sometimes it's enough to note that the secondary action is there to convey the intent and isn't an attempt to fully replicate the real thing.

Abstractions tend to work that way. Animators can also be occasionally forgiven for being caught in the act of learning how to communicate more perfectly as well.

 

Milt Kahl (who we presume would have at least drawn the extremes of this sequence) was perhaps more well known for his abstraction than most animators (his design style soon began to be seen as the Disney house style and it largely still is today). Kahl was well known for taking his (inbetweening) assistants to task for screwing up his animation (I'm using polite language here but I'm sure anyone who has considered Milt Kahl will know his personality well). Such is the nature of productions that rely on more than one hand to get a film completed on budget and on schedule.

 

I am of the opinion that it is possible, although very difficult, to determine who is to blame for every decision made in animation that gets into the final film. This is largely due to the nature of animation itself where we can at leisure reverse engineer the whole thing. We can also examine in great detail things that were not originally intended to be so closely scrutinized over and over again. Remember... this was 1952... the age before VCRs... and a time when Disney movies where rereleased (maybe) every seven years or so. If you wanted to study an animated film over and over frame by frame you had to either be rich or work in a movie theater. One of the reasons that Disney films are studied and appreciated so much today is that Disney's animators had access to the latest and greatest technology of that day. That made quite a difference I'd say.

 

That presents another interesting aspect of this, that the animators of old did not have all of the tools of the trade we take for granted today and yet were still able to create animation of the quality and caliber that animators strive to reach today. This makes these presentations all the more magical.

 

If one wants to study shortcuts and mistakes, Disney's 'Robin Hood' is a film with so many of those it'd be easier to spot frames without mistakes.

Despite its flaws though, that film is still one of my favorites and is even more fun to study than most because the animation allows us to see more easily through to the process of how animated movies are made.

 

In our studies, finding something that doesn't quite work as well as it should in an animated sequence is almost as valuable as something that is perfectly communicated. Even more valuable in many ways.

 

That's the long way of saying... 'Regarding the motion of the headdress feathers moving back so rapidly... not necessarily a mistake... I believe they were attempting exaggeration.'