The sketches continue as we work with a student animator, Matt, from Caveat Cartoons.
Again, we won't give away the names or story yet, but we want you to enjoy the sketches.
The notes in red are Matt's notes to himself as he teaches himself how to draw and animate. Being able to teach yourself is actually the most important skill of animation.
For example of the imporance of an animator being able to teach himself/herself, Disney and DreamWorks switched from 2D to 3D animation, and those who embraced it had a great future, and those who did not embrace it have not faired so well.
This gap of animators who did not ramp up quickly also left opportunities for brand-new visionary hot shots (like the directors of Bolt) to come in as animators without as much industry experience and go straight to the top.
(It doesn't seem like Bolt was very visionary, but that's because they made amazing 3D animated shorts in school and then directed mroe amazing shorts for Disney and then, as a result, they were brought on to replace the director of Bolt and to clean it up. So they were successful in saving Bolt, and I'm sure once they get a chance to make their own movies from the ground up, that's when we'll see their true genius.)
So anyway, go check out Matt's other illustrations in this round, and follow him as he journals about what he learns through this process:
That's pretty bad when compared to Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks, who typically get well over $100 million domestically (really depends on the films).
Now Space Chimps cost $37 million to make. So by our normal standards, that's a flop. But that budget is actually super cheap, considering that the big boys spend over $100 million on an animated film. If you keep your costs down, then you don't need as big of a profit to have a "success."
So the first saving grace was that Space Chimps made $34,682,011 in foreign markets, totaling $64,787,979.
That said, not all that goes to the studio (a lot of it goes to the theaters). However, adding DVD sales on top of that, then "Space Chimps" definitely made a healthy profit for the studio.
Plus if they had a sweet script for the sequel, a promise that they can make the effects look better, and point that Andy Samberg is even more popular now than before... then I think they could sell the idea to the studio executives.
================
I think the aliens stuff from the first film was a little too "home video worthy" for a theatrical release, so I hope they have a better script and better alien effects if they venture back out to an alien planet. (Obviously Zartog is back, but he could be invading Earth.)
I think they knew that the alien stuff was the weakness, because it didn't show up in the trailer at all. Just going by the trailer, you actually didn't know that 80% of the movie was on an alien planet.
So I hope they make the script and alien stuff a little more movie-worthy. As for me, I loved the movie, and I thought the actors really did a great job!
Vanguard’s Space Chimps 2 3-D Goes into Production
Los Angeles-based Vanguard Animation is producing a sequel to its 2008 CG-animated feature, Space Chimps. Overseen by animation veteran John Williams (Shrek, Valiant, Happily N’Ever After) the studio is working on the 3-D Space Chimps 2 feature with Fox Home Entertainment, The Animation Picture Company and New Market Capital.
Plans are to release the new feature on DVD in the U.S. in January 2010 and theatrically in select foreign territories in March or April. Mumbai-based Prana Studios is handling the animation. Vanguard presented some of the completed 3-D scenes to buyers at the Cannes Festival this spring. An animated TV series based on the property is also in development.
On a lighter note, there is this standard-length small, which was the next-to-last Mickey Mouse dramatic cartoon shaped for thirty years. It also happens to be one of Disney's best, with or lacking Mickey. Christmastime is upon us, a detail quickly announced by the short combination of seasonal tune instrumentals that accompanies the opportunity title screens. To get ready for the holiday, Mickey and Pluto go out to cut down a Christmas tree.
The one Mickey picks out suddenly comes with two chipmunk residents, Chip 'n (you guessed it!) Dale. When Pluto finds this out, he's furious, but the two naughty rodents barely and frequently escape the dog's attempts to prevent them. It is Pluto's actions which threaten the vibrantly-decorated tree and raise Mickey's rarely-seen temper. A new nice, joyful, Christmas ending punctuates this fun cartoon which at all times dazzles the eyes with its bright holiday imagery.
I found this classic Disney tale, and I thought I'd share it with yoU!
Peter and the Wolf was released in 1946 as part of the compilation film, Make Mine Music. It was re-released in 1947, played as a short before the re-issue release of Fantasia (which was originally released in 1940).
PART 1:
PART 2:
This is where Peter and the Wolf fitted on Disney's release canon...
Full Features:
1 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, December 21, 1937 (premiere)
2 Pinocchio, February 7, 1940 (premiere)
3 Fantasia, November 13, 1940 (premiere/roadshow)
4 Dumbo, October 23, 1941
5 Bambi, August 13, 1942 (limited)
World War 2 Budget Issues and Compilation Features:
6 Saludos Amigos, August 24, 1942 (premiere)
7 The Three Caballeros, December 21, 1944 (premiere)
8 Make Mine Music (featuring Peter and the Wolf, April 20, 1946 (premiere)
9 Fun and Fancy Free, September 27, 1947
10 Melody Time, May 27, 1948
11 The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, October 5, 1949
Back to Full Features:
12 Cinderella, February 15, 1950
13 Alice in Wonderland, July 26, 1951 (limited)
14 Peter Pan, February 5, 1953
15 Lady and the Tramp, June 16, 1955 (premiere)
16 Sleeping Beauty, 6 January 29, 1959
17 One Hundred and One Dalmatians, January 25, 1961
18 The Sword in the Stone, December 25, 1963
19 The Jungle Book, October 18, 1967
The rest are post Walt Disney. With one exception (it was a compilation of shorts Walt had already released or was planning)...
22 The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, March 11, 1977
=========
Peter and the Wolf is a composition by Sergei Prokofiev written in 1936 after his return to the Soviet Union. It is a children's story (with both music and text by Prokofiev), spoken by a narrator accompanied by the orchestra.
Disney obviously rewrote it a little to add in Sterling's character/personality and some new character differences.
In this photo, you can tell that Sterling was a comedic actor:
The narrator was played by Sterling Holloway, who was a professional actor in live-action shorts. He also played:
- The Frog in a 1933 non-Disney, live-action version of Alice in Wonderland (Disney's version came in 1951, where he played the Cheshire Cat).
- In 1937, Disney considered him for "Sleepy" in Snow White, but they decided against it.
- Mr. Stork in Dumbo (1941)
- Adult Flower in Bambi (1942)
- Narrator in The Pelican and the Snipe (1942) - Originally made to be released in The Three Caballeros, it didn't fit well, so it was pulled out and released as a "special short"
- Narrator of "The Cold-Blooded Penguin" in The Three Caballeros (1944)
- Narrator of "Peter and the Wolf" in Make Mine Music (1946)
- Narrator of "Mickey and the Beanstalk" in Fun and Fancy Free (1947)
- Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland (1951)
- Narrator and Mr. Stork in Lambert the Sheepish Lion (1952)
- Narrator in Susie the Little Blue Coupe (1952)
- Narrator in The Little House (1952)
- Amos Mouse in Ben and Me (1953)
- Prof. Oscar Quinn in "Adventures of Superman" (3 episodes, 1953-1955)
- Narrator in Adventures in Fantasy from "Disneyland" (1957)
- Narrator in Goliath II (1960)
- Winnie the Pooh in Winnie the Pooh and the Honey Tree (1966)
- Kaa in The Jungle Book (1967)
- Winnie the Pooh in Winnie the Pooh and the Blustery Day (1968)
- Roquefort in The AristoCats (1970)
- Winnie the Pooh in Winnie the Pooh and Tigger Too (1974)
- Winnie the Pooh in The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1977)
In a very negative review of that SNL episode, Andy's Scrooge performance receives one of the few positive comments:
...best of all, Samberg as Scrooge McDuck. Maybe it’s just because I’m an unabashed Scrooge McDuck fan and The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck is a masterpiece, but I thought this was pretty awesome...
Yeah, I think Andy could work on his Scottish accent a little more, but other than that, it was a great way to bust out Scrooge McDuck and to put Scrooge up there in Andy's wacky impressions that include the Swedish Chef (Muppets), Cathy (comics), and now Scrooge McDuck!
The Swedish Chef spawned two full Muppet skits and Cathy spawned a full comic skit and a bigger Cathy ensemble (with Justin Timberlake and Jessica Biel jumping in).
Will Andy's Scrooge McDuck spawn a Duck Tales sketch or a Disney sketch? Time will tell!
Andy also has a little competition from Bobby Moynihan, who isn't afraid of busting out the cartoon and odd characters himself. He did a bad Garfield impression, but he nailed a Cats (musical) impression, Cogsworth (from Beauty and the Beast), and a Snagglepuss impression. Plus Bobby has been talking about doing a Hamburglar (do it Bobby!).
A little less than a year with about 6 months of doing nothing in between bursts of posting vids. How's that for not answering a question? =^)
So I guess about 6 months of dedicated time in trying to build an audience. And stuff.
Q2 - How many subbers did you have?
I forget. Probably around 1300 subbers. That was in like early 2008.
However, subbers aren't that important. A few hundred are good. Anything over is just a bonus. What they want to see is that most of your vids have at least a thousand views (or lots of vids with over 1,000 views, even if it isn't most). That's really what they're looking for. Plus that you can justify that you have something to offer to a market of viewers. Also how you integrate into the YT social scene. All that would go in your essay when you apply. We applied and got accepted on our first try.
Q3 - Did becoming a partner increase your viewership?
I think. A little. Yeah. Depends on how social you are I guess. I'm pretty social, so that helps. If people don't go to your channel, the autoplay won't help much. [UPDATE: Autoplay now works on all channels, so the biggest reason to be a Partner no longer exists. Getting money from ads is also a big reason, but if you don't get a ton of views, you wouldn't get any money from ads anyway.]
Plus you don't make much money off of it unless you're super popular (100K plus views on most of your vids).
Autoplay is nice. Banners and other little channel things are nice. That's about it. Plus it's cool to say, "I'm a YouTube partner." =^)
It's not huge, but it is nice. On the negative side, it is a little painful to do and it takes a long time to process (like when you turn in your application, you pretty much need to wait 3 months to hear back; when you get accepted, you need to wait like a month or so for it to kick in: yes, it's that slow).
In a happy suburban neighborhood surrounded by white picket fences with flowering rose bushes, sits a black house with a dead lawn. Unbeknownst to the neighbors, hidden beneath this home is a vast secret hideout. Surrounded by a small army of minions, we discover Gru planning the biggest heist in the history of the world.
He is going to steal the moon, yes, the moon. Gru delights in all things wicked. Armed with his arsenal of shrink rays, freeze rays, and battle-ready vehicles for land and air, he vanquishes all who stand in his way. Until the day he encounters the immense will of three little orphaned girls who look at him and see something that no one else has ever seen: a potential Dad. The world's greatest villain has just met his greatest challenge: three little girls named Margo, Edith and Agnes.
This is done by Blue Sky as their follow-up to Ice Age 3. So it makes sense that they get Kristen involved, since she worked on Ice Age 3.
Posts
