Finding Dory

This week, Ellen Degeneres announced on her show that the sequel to Finding Nemo will be hitting theaters in November 2015.  The sequel will focus around the quirky, forgetful Blue Tang, Dory.  The title? Finding Dory.

Immediately, I was thrilled.  Me being the Disney fanatic that I am, I was excited to see that Finding Nemo was going to return to the big screen.  I was also very excited to see that the movie would be focused on one of my favorite characters from the original movie, Dory.  Since Dory was my favorite character from Finding Nemo, I can't help but be excited for this film that is to premiere in two and a half years.  I think it will definitely be a treat for my generation to see the story that we saw as children continue as adults.

But then I started to get wonder if this may be an unnecessary extension of the classic Pixar film.  Part of what made Dory so lovable was the fact that she was a supporting role.  I feel like an entire feature length film of Dory being forgetful may be too much Dory.  The basic story line for Finding Dory is still unknown, but I have a feeling it will be a LOT of Dory.  I hope Pixar can keep the line between funny and too much uncrossed.

Regardless, this movie comes out the day after my 22nd birthday, and I'm already hoping that I get tickets for my birthday....

Pixar has long been a source of animated entertainment, which has most likely shaped all of us in some way or another. Dreamworks and Pixar both are renowned for some of the best animation of humans, and other characters ranging from robots, insects, every type of animal imaginable, even mythological creatures.

When I was still in high school, debating whether or not to choose a major in animation or live action, I looked a lot at the similarities and differences between live action film and animation. While animation is now entirely digital and created from computers, whereas live action is shot using real people on a set/location, there are some similarities.

Live action is frequently used in animated films, where someone hooked up to a motion tracking system performs the actions of the character, and the motions are recorded and used to create the motions of the character. On the other hand, animation is frequently used in live action movies to create the backdrops and special effects that would otherwise be impossible to achieve.

Through both styles, the same basic concepts are held constant, where every shot is thoroughly thought through, every line and every motion is carefully planned by teams and teams of crew members.

But besides making some deep concepts more "kid friendly," what is the purpose of choosing animation over live action? Because as far as I've noticed, almost all animated films (except stop-motion shorts) are comedies. Any thoughts?

The animation used in Tangled v. Toy Story 3

So I watched Tangled for like the third time on thursday night and the animation still blows my mind. I found it shocking that it wasn't Pixar that created it but Walt Disney Animation Studios. The next day I watched Toy Story 3, which was created by Pixar Disney animation and it is obvious that the animation was different. I was wondering how the studio that produces the film effects how it is animated? Do they use totally different programs even though both are affiliated with Disney?