Pixar and Disney scored a major coup in 2006 with the animated film “Cars”. The film won awards, including an Oscar nomination, and at the same time opened up a lucrative merchandising world. It was therefore not surprising that “Cars 2” followed in 2011.
A certain scepticism crept in with “Planes”, which was produced by DisneyToon Studios in 2013. For a long time, the studio was primarily responsible for direct-to-video (DTV) productions within the Disney group. Cheap sequels were produced based on Disney film successes. These “cheap sequels” were increasingly criticised, especially by John Lasseter, who became Chief Creative Officer at both studios after the takeover of Pixar in 2006. Following a fundamental reorganisation by Lasseter, the aim is now to produce independent spin-offs rather than sequels. As a result, the independent film “Planes” (2013) was developed from the “Cars” universe, although it was initially planned as a DVD/BD-only production. With the reorientation, Lasseter also took the production process apart and under his wing. For “Planes 2” in particular, the employees invested Disney- and Pixar-like months in extensive research. The team also researched the first part – all the aeroplanes are true to scale, as are the sets, and the planes fly at their original speed. Nevertheless, the film, which was perceived as a “Cars” spin-off, received rather subdued reviews. These are likely to be more positive for part two, as the studio has produced a solid film. Although “Planes 2” will not make animation history, the film is a step in the right direction for the history of the DisneyToon studios.
Research
The research took the Toon team to the L.A. County Fire Department, to the U.S. Forestry Service training camp where the team met a graduating class of fire jumpers, and most importantly to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Hemet-Ryan Air Attack Base in California. Most of what is seen in the film is based on conversations with the firefighters there, who were also involved in the storytelling and development of the dialogue. Helicopter aerobatic pilot Chuck Aaron was brought into the team to ensure the correct depiction of the flight manoeuvres, who had to approve the storyboards and finished shots in the film. For the finishing touches, the artists were also allowed to practise themselves with remote-controlled model helicopters in order to determine the correct flight angle for a credible crash. Naturally, visits to the national parks, especially Yosemite and Yellowstone, were also on the programme.
Effects in Houdini
In “Planes 2”, released on 14 August, the toon team plunges the little racing plane Dusty into a serious crisis shortly after the film opens. Due to gearbox damage, the racing career seems to be over, whereupon the main character goes crazy and ruins his friends’ airport. The only way out of the dilemma is to train as a fire-fighting aeroplane. From this point onwards, the focus is on fighting forest fires, for which the studio had to increase the FX team alone to 75 artists. More than half of the 1,224 shots in the film are about fire, smoke and water. The wheel was not constantly reinvented: In addition to the elaborate design of individual fires, the team made use of a specially created effects library for the remaining fire shots. Important shots that were realised with Houdini were the white water rapids and the flight into the canyon, which is completely engulfed in flames. There were 571 shots for this showdown in the film alone. Another tough effect and animation nut to crack was the collapse of a large suspension bridge along with the figures to be animated on it. We spoke to director Roberts “Bobs” Gannaway and producer Ferrell Barron about effects, historical research and why, as a director, you sometimes have to make a monkey of yourself or a helicopter.
DP: How do you manage to keep a brand alive?
Roberts Gannaway: You have to be able to tell different stories within one world. That’s why we changed the genre and instead of a racing film, as in the first part, we told an action comedy. We also invested a lot of time in research – the basis for the storytelling. With Dusty, we found out that his type of aircraft was also used to fight forest fires – as a SEAT, Single Engine Air Tanker. That gave us the idea of fighting fires from the air, so we met with firefighters. The stories developed from the research. There was also a change of director with me. That makes a difference because our stories bear the signature of the director – they are also nurtured and cared for by him.
However, you mustn’t forget that DisneyToon Studios works together with Pixar and Disney Animation Studios in relation to the Story Trust and the Brain Trust system. This means that all directors work together anyway. I supported Klay Hall on the first Planes film and now it’s the other way round.
DP: Why was the subject of forest fires worthy of film content?
Roberts Gannaway: One of the reasons people go to the cinema is to see something they don’t see every day. Even though there are over 50,000 wildfires in the US every year and there are firefighting operations all over the country, it’s not as much of an issue in the public eye. But the only reason you don’t hear about it is because most fires are fought before they can cause serious damage. We give a little insight into this world and that’s great.
DP: You hid a reference to Ed Pulaski in the film, right? In the shot when the two main characters are taking shelter in a mine.
Roberts Gannaway: That’s a thing, that you recognised that reference! Right, this U.S. Forest Service ranger saved himself and his team that way in the Great Idaho Fire of 1910. That was part of our historical research and we reproduced this incident in the scene with Dusty and Blade in the film. No one in any press conference has come up with it yet – I’m really proud of you! This scene is also a good example of our research work. After all, we’re dealing with talking vehicles. That’s why we have to be as close to the truth as possible and invest in characters and plot so that viewers forget that.
DP: How much time did you invest in the effects scenes?
Ferrell Barron: In the four years of production, we spent two and a half years working on the fire. We usually create effects in Maya. For this project, however, we also had to use Houdini, as there were simply too many problems to solve. The software was used for the fire, but also for scenes with water. The white water rapids in particular caused us some difficulties. A lot changes on the technical side over such a long period of time. We really grabbed everything that was new to make the fire look real and at the same time keep the whole thing producible. There are a total of 662 effects shots with fire, smoke and water – that’s over half of the whole film! For us, this was the most challenging film we have ever produced. We had to call in external expertise. The effects team consisted of 75 people and was the biggest we’ve ever had.
DP: Do you have any tips on how best to animate helicopters?
Roberts Gannaway: Well, I rely on the animators, they’re the experts. As a director, you need to gather great people around you – people who are much more talented than you are – and then guide them through the production. But my tip as a director is: stand up and act out the scene. Just don’t be shy. So, I act out a scene, walk around, make faces and so on. The animator, and that’s the challenge, has to apply what they’ve seen to a character, and in the case of vehicles we are indeed very limited. But our guiding principle is “truth and materials”. The aeroplanes are very real, but the eyes are quite large due to the windscreens – and these are a key element. Posture is just as important. I look at what I can work with for each figure. Dipper, for example, has two propellers. When she meets Dusty for the first time, she’s quite excited, so we make her propellers spin.
But this aeroplane model can also lower the tanks. It looks like she’s got her arm round someone’s shoulder.
Ferrell Barron: The voice actors are also a big help. We do the voice recordings first. We take the opportunity to record the actors’ faces at the same time and send this to the animators. This gives them a direct reference.
DP: What specific references did you use for Blade?
Roberts Gannaway: The characters are based on real models, but not necessarily on a single one. We combine them depending on what we need. For the helicopter Blade, we needed a model with wheels – it’s hard to run on skids. So we had to find a suitable model. As it is a rescue helicopter, we also needed a reference for a winch. So we travelled a lot in Los Angeles County and in the city itself to look at the rescue helicopters.
DP: How long did the storyboard and layout phase take?
Ferrell Barron: It took over a year. There were many iterations until it was just right and we could start with the animation.
Roberts Gannaway: We attach great importance to visualising the script as a storyboard as quickly as possible so that we can see what we have to work with. The script is just a kind of guide for the film. With the storyboard, you immediately recognise the first inconsistencies. But the most important thing is that you see the film for the first time. The cinematography is then done in the layout. But let’s move on to the iterations: In a live-action film, you shoot your film and take the material to the editing room. When you see an animated film in the cinema, you can assume that it’s the eighth, ninth or tenth version. Depending on the budget, a live-action film might be two? But I see this way of working as an advantage. You have the film in front of you and then it starts: “We can’t show it like this”, “This has to be fixed”, “Stamp it out, redo it” and then start all over again.
