Ratchet and Clank

[Rodney]

A really nice bit of character animation worth analyzing:

 

qx1oyMUxmkc

 

Moral of the story: 'Never mess with the animators'

 

 

Note the length of this 'story'.

In my estimation, this is about as long as most A:M projects created by lone individuals should be (i.e. not more than 2 minutes in total length)

In fact it is probably a bit longer and more involved than many lone projects would need to be.

[Ilidrake]

Nice

[Fuchur]

I just love that kind of stuff

 

See you

*Fuchur*

[zandoriastudios]

Nice!

[itsjustme]

That was fun!

[Simon Edmondson]

Moral of the story: 'Never mess with the animators'

...

 

Impressive but bears a strong resemblance to "Duck Amuck" the Chuck Jones short were Daffy gets animated by Bugs Bunny ?

 

regards

simon

[Rodney]

Impressive but bears a strong resemblance to "Duck Amuck" the Chuck Jones short were Daffy gets animated by Bugs Bunny ?

 

Obviously a conscious homage to several animated themes. Duck Dodgers etc. as well.

I also see Buzz Lightyear... himself a tip of the hat to some of Warners Bros popular animated themes... and Kronk... and Crash Bandicoot (I think that is the name) and several others)

 

Keep in mind that "Duck Amuck' itself was following a time honored tradition where cartoon character interact with their creators... McKay's 'Gertie the Dinosaur'... Fleischer's 'Inky' and 'Bobo the Clown' from others from the black and white era. It's a novel storytelling device that for some reason never quite gets old... most likely because we get to see ourselves playing in a parody where we get to play the role of God himself.... the greatest animator ever... who has unlimited power in freely interacting with his own creation. That in and of itself is a pretty primal theme.

 

Interestingly, the animation itself made me think of several animators from our own community... there is a sense of 'Alien Song' by Victor Navone... and of 'Briar Rose' by Stephen Millingen... and that robot (or one very much like it by Kevin Waldren) can be found on the Extra CD (in the Sci Fi projects). The lighting itself and animated moves by the characters has me thinking of several classic styles seen in animation made in A:M... by Avalanche Studios and ReelFX. There are some likenesses to animation created before my time in the A:M Community... Captain Comet for instance.

 

Yes, the sense of homage runs deep with this one.

One thing that makes this such a successful animation is its keen sense of both classic and contemporary animation all mixed and layered and layered in as if to invite the audience to count the influences as we see them.

[Wildsided]

Ratchet and Clank is a video game series that they're making into an animated feature. Ratchet isn't an homage to Crash Bandicoot he's an alien known as a Lombax in the series. Just letting you know.

[Rodney]

Ratchet isn't an homage to Crash Bandicoot

 

Homage isn't quite the right word. I should have been a bit more careful.

I'm talking more of general influences and inspirations.

I base the observation of Crash and Ratched on the chronology of the characters more than anything else.

Crash Bandicoot... Mid 1990s.

Ratchet... Early 2000s.

 

The creators of Crash weren't likely inspired by Ratchet (he likely didn't exist yet although the initial ideas certainly might have) but the creators of Ratchet very likely had to consider similarities with Crash.

Hope that makes sense.

 

I suppose pretty much all of these games borrow off of each other with regard to Sonic like themes/memes.

 

Its not unlike animation companies like Disney coming up with a character like Oswald the Lucky Rabbit because they needed a cute animal character like the other companies had. Then when Oswald gets taken away Disney has to come up with a different animal/mascot/star to take top billing. Success of a Mouse named Mickey then in turn inspires other companies to develop their own characters... but they can't be a mouse... they can be a woodpecker.... a panda... a cat and a mouse... a tweety bird... a rabbit.... a duck... on and on Ad infinitum.

 

Over the years I've created literally hundreds of characters but all... every single one of them... was inspired by looking at other characters.

 

Check this out for some initial sleuthing:

Since working together in the same building on the Universal Interactive Studios backlot, Naughty Dog and Insomniac Games have had a close relationship. Producer Mark Cerny has worked extensively with both companies. They have made similar types of games. For example, in the late 1990s, Naughty Dog's Crash Bandicoot series and Insomniac's Spyro the Dragon series both competed on the PlayStation as character-heavy platforming games with imaginative environments. With the release of the PlayStation 2, the two series were left in Universal's hands, and both developers continued in friendly competition after the creation of their new flagship franchises (Jak and Daxter and Ratchet & Clank, respectively).

 

Success breeds success in the time tested fields of character development.

A homage is more of a public acknowledgement of the origins of inspiration (although often subtle so as not to take the audience completely out of the scene). If there has never been such an acknowledgement then the word likely will not fit. Of course homages also aren't overly footstomped sometimes in order to steer clear of infringement of intellectual property. That's why such things are often referred to as 'a tip of the hat'; as it is a public display of professional courtesy or simply a way to say, "Thanks for the inspiration".

[Roger]

A really nice bit of character animation worth analyzing:

 

qx1oyMUxmkc

 

Moral of the story: 'Never mess with the animators'

 

 

Note the length of this 'story'.

In my estimation, this is about as long as most A:M projects created by lone individuals should be (i.e. not more than 2 minutes in total length)

In fact it is probably a bit longer and more involved than many lone projects would need to be.

 

The 3 fingers are different. Was expecting 4 but they make it work.

 

Not sure I could tell my story in just one minute, that would be pretty rough.

[Rodney]

Not sure I could tell my story in just one minute, that would be pretty rough.

 

Sure you can. In fact, it has been said that a good story should be able to be summarized in one sentence!

The real question then becomes... what do you do with that second minute.

 

An important concept to grasp in filmmaking is the difference between 'real time' and 'screen time'.

When we begin to recognize that we can span a story of millions of years within a few seconds this should start to sink in.

 

How to do it?

 

Distill the story down into it's very basic elements.

Who?

What?

When?

Why?

Where?

How?

(and my personal addition to the list) To what extent?

 

Dialogue is the real boogabear of filmmaking. Most of it is unnecessary.

Spend time distilling dialogue down into only what is required to be heard, and let the remainder be internal dialogue.

Transfer all other important dialogue elements into pantomime and performance (non verbal communication).

Show. Don't tell. An image is worth a thousand words. An animated sequence translates a thousand images. Etc. Etc.

 

Underlying thought: if you can fully distill your story down into two minutes then you can more easily expand that story out to 90 minutes by manipulating the story to alter the sense of time and emotional involvement on the part of the audience.

 

Consider that most movie trailers run less than one minute.

Teaser: 15-30 seconds

Trailer is 1- 1:30 seconds

Long Trailer: 1:30-2 minutes

A quick random sample of theatrical trailers yielded: 1:25, 2:05 and 1:46 seconds each respectively.

 

And get this.... the primary element missing from a trailer is the story's resolution.

That is the remaining 88 minutes of most 90 minute films.

But consider that in a comedy (or a punch line) the resolution of a story can conclude in about 2 seconds.

 

But really, why tell short stories?

Answer: So you can tell more stories or other tales with different characters.

[Rodney]

consider that in a comedy (or a punch line) the resolution of a story can conclude in about 2 seconds.

 

I wanted to add a comment related to this idea while observing something related to the A:M Community.

 

It has been said that once a story is resolved that the filmmaker needs to quit the film as soon as possible.

This is why we often get to the conclusion of a movie and then suddenly it's over... when you anticipated at least a few more minutes.

 

I've been tempted to go back through this trailer and spot out shots and sequences that I have seen presented by users of Animation:Master in the past.

I've already mentioned a few but it's resolution provides one as well.

 

Some may recall Victor Navone's 'Alien Song' and there are several elements from his short that are present in this trailer.

I dare say that I believe Victor has had a direct influence on the animators of the trailer although the burden of proving that would be mine to bear.

The lighting is one tell tale sign. The resolution by a sudden falling object is another. The general storytelling suggests its influences.

The resolution brings about a swift kick to the gut that doesn't bother to be subtle in saying, "This particular story is finished." which in the case of serial storytelling, then can move on to invite the audience to hear yet another tale.

 

Of course Victor didn't invent the quick resolution but he certainly leveraged it!

It's should be no big surprise that audiences tend to mass around those with successful storytelling skill.

 

Going back a little to pick up an important element of character design with regard to storytelling:

The 3 fingers are different. Was expecting 4 but they make it work.

 

Speaking of time honored traditions... way back when cartoon characters where given three fingers primarily as a means to be more economical in animation. One less finger to animate could equate to a lot of man hours saved in animation.

 

Going further and dropping yet another finger for these characters (I'm not sure what they are called but I understand the whole race has two fingers and a thumb as well) signifcantly speeds up production and reduces necessary calculations in real time gaming/animation.

[Rodney]

Here for general reference is an 'episode' of "Ratchet and Clank":

(Disclaimer: It's a game review and run through

)

_-SRY2EM-N4

 

The whole video runs just under 15 minutes but most of it is game commentary.

Of note: The large cut scene runs about 1:30 seconds the remaining cut scenes approx 30 seconds.

 

This 1:30 timeframe appears to be an ideal limit for an extended shot.

For the shorter scenes 30 seconds is quite adequate.

 

By this we can extrapolate that a story setup should take approximately 1:00 (1:30 max) and the transitional/ending take about 30 seconds.

It's rather interesting this yields an over all length for the story as clocking in at 2 minutes.

 

The underlying pattern:

Setup (1:00 to 1:30)

Resolution/Transition (1:00-Finale but not beyond 2:00 without very good reason)

Audience Participation (This is up to the audiences' attention span and imagination based on the success of the material presented)

It is rather significant to note that this 2 minute timeframe is representational of the upper limit of an active attention span. At this point the audience will be expecting a satisfactory resolution/transition and is looking to move on.

[Roger]

Not sure I could tell my story in just one minute, that would be pretty rough.

 

Sure you can. In fact, it has been said that a good story should be able to be summarized in one sentence!

The real question then becomes... what do you do with that second minute.

 

An important concept to grasp in filmmaking is the difference between 'real time' and 'screen time'.

When we begin to recognize that we can span a story of millions of years within a few seconds this should start to sink in.

 

How to do it?

 

Distill the story down into it's very basic elements.

Who?

What?

When?

Why?

Where?

How?

(and my personal addition to the list) To what extent?

 

Dialogue is the real boogabear of filmmaking. Most of it is unnecessary.

Spend time distilling dialogue down into only what is required to be heard, and let the remainder be internal dialogue.

Transfer all other important dialogue elements into pantomime and performance (non verbal communication).

Show. Don't tell. An image is worth a thousand words. An animated sequence translates a thousand images. Etc. Etc.

 

Underlying thought: if you can fully distill your story down into two minutes then you can more easily expand that story out to 90 minutes by manipulating the story to alter the sense of time and emotional involvement on the part of the audience.

 

Consider that most movie trailers run less than one minute.

Teaser: 15-30 seconds

Trailer is 1- 1:30 seconds

Long Trailer: 1:30-2 minutes

A quick random sample of theatrical trailers yielded: 1:25, 2:05 and 1:46 seconds each respectively.

 

And get this.... the primary element missing from a trailer is the story's resolution.

That is the remaining 88 minutes of most 90 minute films.

But consider that in a comedy (or a punch line) the resolution of a story can conclude in about 2 seconds.

 

But really, why tell short stories?

Answer: So you can tell more stories or other tales with different characters.

 

Well, I'm golden there

No dialogue in my story at all. I'm planning on conveying everything through body language.

Maybe once I get down to it, 1 minute or a minute and a half will be more than enough. I won't know until I'm there.

I really need to do some kind of animatic, I think that will give me a better sense.