What is it about stop-motion that makes it okay to produce darker subject matter. I’m not complaining, in fact, I’m applauding. But, it’s just interesting that every medium of animation seems to have it’s own type of story that generally doesn’t get greenlit in the others.

My retinas are dancing with delight!

So awesome it hurts!
Although I find the trailer too spoilerish .
The character designs are lovely, congratulations to Dan Krall, Shane Prigmore and Shannon Tindle…
Cant wait for this!

Great, now I won’t be able to get any work done because I’ll be watching this at least 20 times in a row.

Perfect.

The trailer is spoilerish . :( But otherwise, the little children may be more prepared to be scared. Seriously! The eye buttons? Freaky.

Other than that small trailer crit, this is perfect. Nothing else I can say. Awesome.

It’s just really unfortunate there isn’t a less laborious way to produce this kind of stop-motion film quicker.

“Written for the screen…by Henry Selick?” Wasn’t this Neil Gaiman’s story? Just sayin’.

Stop motion this well done is always welcome.

I do agree that this is the exact variety of trailer that I don’t necessarily like to see; I don’t understand why trailer editors feel like they have to tell so much of the story in one’s first glimpse of a film.

C. Edwards; to be fair, every mainstream puppet stop-motion feature in the past two decades, including this one, has been made by Tim Burton, Henry Selick, or both.

C. Edwards:

The obvious reason darker films get greenlit is Nightmare Before Christmas. And who directed that?

This looks fantastic.

I smell a big hit.

“It’s just really unfortunate there isn’t a less laborious way to produce this kind of stop-motion film quicker.”

What?
Why is it unfortunate?
Unfortunate for who?

I find it a bit odd the trailer makes absolutely no mention of Neil Gaiman and the tone seems to be that it all sprang from Selick’s mind.

so freakin PUMPED!!!!!

Phew! My brain hurts at the shear time and devotion needed for stop motion. This looks incredible even on a tiny media player, I can only imagine how fantstic it will look in glorious 3D. Awesome!

“It’s just really unfortunate there isn’t a less laborious way to produce this kind of stop-motion film quicker. “

—

I don’t agree. Getting there is half the fun.

Everyone wants the fast trick, the microwave version, ready in 5 minutes. “How can we make Flash look like traditional animation … with half the work ?” etc.

No, no , no.

It’s worth the extra work to draw it all or animate the puppets frame by frame .

Rules of the Cartoon Universe:
#153: Stop-motion cats must always be black, skinny and just a bit haggard-looking.

A Henry Selick film is always a treat. I’m looking forward to this one!

Wow. I’m seeing that one the minute it’s out.

Mmmm, that’s some good stop motion!

Gorgeous.

LOOKS visually pleasing. Story seems….complicated?

Well if I wasn’t excited before, I definitely am now.

I loved getting creeped out by stuff like this as a kid! It made me feel so grown up to be able to deal with it. The Disney movies with the scariest villains were great practice for this. Can’t wait for this movie!

“C. Edwards; to be fair, every mainstream puppet stop-motion feature in the past two decades, including this one, has been made by Tim Burton, Henry Selick, or both.”

Don’t forget Aardman who made Chicken Run and Curse of the Were Rabbit….and recently Canada put out Edison and Leo, and there is that new one called $9.99 which I am itching to see just as much as Coraline.

This does look awesome….can’t wait!

So excited!

Awesome work! The clip is good enough to create lot’s of enthu’ in the young minds, making it worth waiting for!
David Johnson

A lot of this looks like it was animated on ones, which either means this is just incredibly well done animation or Henry Selick is clinically insane.

Pete Kozachik’s cinematography is, as ever, quite incredible. Seeing how he and Sellick have exploited stereo photography has gotten me very, very excited indeed.

I’m glad 3D is here. I sincerely believe that, some day fairly soon, it will be as conceited to make a film in 2D as it currently is to make your film silent, or to shoot on b&w 8mm stock.

CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE! All kinds of fun stuff is already up on coraline.com!

http://drawn.ca/2008/11/20/coraline-site-up/

Drawn posted some codes for some vignettes!

buttoneyes
stopmotion
moustachio
puppetlove
armpithair
sweaterxxs

I had an odd viewing experience. Although I knew about Coraline before, and knew it was puppet animation, I kept thinking, “Well, it’s nice for CGI, but they still have that problem with colours which look like they don’t share the same space.”

I don’t know if this is a compliment for the animation, or an explanation for my uncomfortability with CGI colouring … or just Need Of Coffee.

Monkeybone-you are forgiven!

Great! At first I tought it was 3d! Then again, it was made in stop motion! The Complexity of this movie is fantastic. Kinda’ Reminds me of ‘Nightmare before Xmas’. Can’t wait to see this one. Congrats!

Ken - I’m aware of the Aardman productions, but I consider claymation separately from puppet animation. And I wouldn’t call the other two films mainstream.

My point is that the reason almost everyone associates puppet animation with a certain creepiness is because chances are the only puppet movies they’ve seen are Nightmare Before Christmas, James and the Giant Peach, or Corpse Bride. The only other puppet animation I can think of that reaches that level of ubiquity is the Rankin/Bass holiday specials.

Very, very cool.

Before the film images lodge in your mind too much, nip off and read the book. It’s very very much darker than this visualisation ( at least it was the way it played in my head! ) and serious scary in ways it doesn’t look like this is going to be.

Brendon Connelly says:

“I’m glad 3D is here. I sincerely believe that, some day fairly soon, it will be as conceited to make a film in 2D as it currently is to make your film silent, or to shoot on b&w 8mm stock.”

Yeah, you and Jack Warner …. in 1953.

I have yet to see a Stereoscopic feature film where at some point I haven’t been jolted out of the film by some of the shots not working quite right , my eyes cross, a headache starts … and then I’m grouchy for the rest of the movie. The technique still draws attention to itself. It’s a theme park ride experience. Of course , probably 90% of the audience today has been weaned on video game animation and theme park thrill rides , so it’s understandable that you don’t mind that aesthetic in your movies . I like stereoscopic effects , but I prefer the technique for shorts.

(I know , I know … the perfect stereoscopic projection system is just around the corner, just give it time , technology will triumph, Heil 3D ! … whatever. I know it’s getting better. I know the 3D today is not like the 3D in the 50’s . But this bright-eyed, golly-gosh attitude that 3D/stereoscopic projection will soon triumph over all is the same old thing we’ve heard since the 50’s . )

I understand why they left Gaiman out of the trailer. You have to think like a marketing person. Sure, the literary nerds are going to know who Gaiman is, but the average person isn’t. They’re very likely, however, to know THE NIGHTMARE BEFORE CHRISTMAS. Hence, the focus on Selick. That’s why you often see blurbs in the trailers that say, “From the people who brought you BIG BLOCKBUSTER OF LAST YEAR” even though that may only refer to an Executive Producer. It’s all about association with an already-known commodity.

I didn’t hear a fart at the end of the trailer did I?
I hope not…

That looks totally awesome and it looks like something that would have scared the living tar out of me as a child. :)

This looks like a real achievement for Gaiman, Selick, and Laika. Congrats to all! The trailer looks beautiful - My whole family will love it!

Oh my gosh… I am mad at Focus Feature. The trailer spoiled a lot of stuff in the movie. Why did they do that!? Don’t they know how to advertise a film without spoiling the best parts!? I thought they were going to show the ending and the climax of the film as well, that would’ve really punch Laika in the stomach. Argh! What is wrong with Focus Feature!?

yeah, i agree, they show too much in the trailer.

I love the movements, they are less perfect and more organic than those in Corpse Bride. That looked too much like a 3d movie, this one feels more stop-motion, which I think it has its own special charm that shouldn’t be hiden by the perfected techniques.

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

Isn’t this a lot better than making sneakers?

Would anyone who’s read it recommend one reads the original novel or the graphic novel adaptation?

I dunno…can you make a good movie from a really bad book? Because that’s what “Coraline” was, IMO…Niel Gaiman is partial to the Edward Gorey/Roald Dahl style of so-called children’s books…you know, books that really aren’t for kids, or even good for kids, to read…it doesn’t even have a bright dose of nonsense in it, as per the Alice books…oh well, I didn’t go to see “Igor”, so I’ll doubt I’ll see this either.

Hm, Henry Selick directs a dark and whimsical animated feature conceived by a popular visionary about a character who’s bored and frustrated with their life and one day accidentally discovers a door to a magical parallel world which they immediately fall in love with, but it proves to have its price.

Sound familiar?

“I understand why they left Gaiman out of the trailer. You have to think like a marketing person”

–Except the book is pretty solid best seller with many editions in print. Usually it is very mainstream to say “based on the hit book”…certainly worked for Harry Potter and Twilight…if not so much Golden Compass and Lemony Snicket. Even if Neil Gaiman isn’t a household name, people do still understand the concept of a pre-existing success being translated to the screen. It’s on a side note it’s funny because Nightmare Before Christmas was not a huge financial success when it first came out. It took years for the film to grow in popularity. Hopefully this will fare better out the gate.

And re: book vs. graphic novel, I much prefer the original Coraline novel. These things are a lot creepier when left to the imagination and the graphic novel’s character designs aren’t as charming as the film in my opinion.

This trailer isn’t the worst I’ve seen of a good film, but I still cringed watching this. I’m under the impression that the same studio edits at least 90% of American films (especially animated)…and it shows, because they all sound the same. Same tag lines. Same narration that’s far too expository. Same nonsensical cuts. Revealing too much. Same out of context dialogue with the visuals…and a fart/raspberry gag??? I’d be embarrassed if a film I made got a trailer that looked like this.

The actual film still looks amazing, however.

BTW - Im pretty sure the Backgrounds are mostly 3D and then comped over green screened stop motion

It looks great, it look’s like something I’ll enjoy, but I fear the essential soccer-mom-and-kids audience will opt to pass on this. The give-the-story-away trailer is a play for their attention because they only make safe purchases.

I think the hand-crafted look of stop-mo is too much art for the mainstream audience to digest. It’s too challenging to their notions of what things look like. I don’t think there hasn’t been a real stop-mo box office hit since “Nightmare” and that was a rather modest hit.

I think its creepy and probably will not strike a cord with the general movie going blockbuster type audiences. But I’ll go see it for the technical approach for sure.

What?! No mention of the “voice talent”? I might just go to the theater for this one based on that alone! Well done Laika.

am disappointed. This girl has no appeal. Her face is so generic and can’t relate at all. too expessionless (and I’m not talking about if you can raise her eyebrows or not) - just devoid of real life. Devoid of real girlishness. A cliché shell.

2:27 and other spots: shades of Nightmare Before xmas. blah. the 3 doorways (just like the trees, remember?) the flying 1/2 transparent 2D ghosts.

The Mom is boring. I wonder if any women were involved in the creative process of this? Doesn’t feel like it. Sorry, Henry.

>dan says:
>That looks totally awesome and it looks like something that would >have scared the living tar out of me as a child. :)

Hmm. When were you born, around 1992, I would say?
I was born in ‘78 and there were shorts on Sesame Street that I found scary (and loved); this, however, is more reminiscent to me of Bob the Builder. Were you scared of Bob the Builder, son? I’m with uh-oh oh no Annie and all the people who found the book to be more enchanting.

Oh, I just noticed the fart. What is that doing there? I mean, it seems totally out of place. Well, I guess it’s not a big deal considering how good is the rest…

I spotted Monkeybone as the other Dad´s slippers!!!

…and “uh-oh oh no Annie” nor the ghost are 2-D nor there were only three trees in “nightmare before christmas” nor the female characters are boring or generic at all

Selick did write the screenplay based on Gaiman’s novel. My understanding was that Selick and Gaiman were in close contact through out the effort, but the screenplay is Selick’s work. I had an opportunity to read an early screenplay for this about 5 years ago (before Sellick landed at Laika with the project and Selick’s agency was shopping the tandem around) and back then I thought “Wow, this would be a cool movie to make- and watch!”. But even then there were concerns about making an animated film that might scare the crumb-cruncher crowd. But for reasons that defy definition stop-mo has a charm to it that seems to take the edge off of things for kids.

Wow….Uh-Oh oh no Annie….talk about sour grapes. Let’s see what you can do.

It looks like “Mirror Mask” done right.

I’m usually not a big stop-motion fan, but THIS I gotta see!

Hey Annie…

“Real girlishness”? Even if the main character’s a girl, she doesn’t have to be girly. According to the book, (and yes, I know, I’ve broken a cardinal rule by comparing a book to its source material), Coraline is supposed to be a tomboy.

I’m baffled by your comment that the mom seems boring. This is only the trailer. Her “final” design is no doubt being saved for the movie.

I flew out to Oregon to see the film about a month ago (crew screening) and was absolutely blown away! I think it will be a new experience for a lot of people who are used to seeing the same thing over and over again.

I think there are going to be a lot of people who are going to think certain things were done in CG.

Matt, those BG’s aren’t CG. In fact I don’t think there are any CG sets in the film. They were all handmade in a giant warehouse in Hillsboro, OR by an amazing crew. Henry was really adamant about retaining the handmade quality unique to stop motion.

Annie, the puppet fabrication crew was headed up by a woman, the amazingly talented Georgina Hayns. In fact, there were quite a few extremely talented women who worked on the crew.

Wait until you see the film before you pass judgement on the character. I think you’ll be presently surprised.

Feeling lousy today with a nasty bug - but this has REALLY cheered me up. Can’t wait to see it.

So often, when I make comments on this site, it’s to groan about the generic, cliche-ridden, boring puff I see in most animated movie trailers.

It’s so nice to be able to feel excited about a movie, which from all indications, seems to be dripping with imagination and fun. Great production and character design — and the premise for the film seems like a lot of fun!

I’ll gladly wait in line to see this one!

Coraline’s character design seems hardly generic to me. She’s got a long nose, a flat, wide head and is kind of gawky. She’s got crooked, buck teeth and favors the left side of her mouth when she speaks. This doesn’t seem generic to me, more like someone really taking the time to make Coraline seem like a real girl. Face it, 80% of females in animated films and TV shows are cute-as-a-button redheads.

Maybe a solid artistic triumph will silence the many Laika naysayers. It’s what Laika, and the industry, need right now. A commercial hit would also be nice, though the animated feautre teacup is getting crowded for an economic recession.

FWIW Coraline’s design also leaves me underwhelmed. Based on her movement and expression in the scenes, not a still, btw. She just doesn’t seem very interesting or appealing. Not unpretty, not horrible, not much of anything, actually. Generic.
I was and still am looking forward to seeing this as no trailer is a movie. I love the production design. But “Monkeybone” was a terrible film. A total mess. This one has had a very up and down history.

And a puppet fabricator is not a story artist. Where were the “sour grapes” in what the Annie poster wrote? Those seemed like fair observations and not a slam.

Ahhhh, so excited.

I may be the only one here but, I read Coraline the week it came out. I really dug how creepy and dark the book was. Especially for it being a kids book. Yeah, the trailer looks great and is done very well BUT there’s a huge problem. IT’S NOT DARK ENOUGH! After watching it both my wife and I were shocked that it didn’t seem creepy in any way. Am I the only one here?

Reader,

There were plenty of sour grapes in Annie’s post. She’s written the character off as boring and unappealing based on the trailer.

And, no one ever suggested that a puppet fabricator was a story artist. Annie questioned whether any ladies were involved in creating Coraline and I simply answered the question.

Also, ST, trust me, the film is plenty scary. There are plenty more surprises to be had:)

Of course nothing, especially on the internet, exists in a vacuum, but I really wish that people would wait for the film to come before passing judgement.

As we all know, a trailer is not the film. I think the trailer for Pearl Harbor was one of the best ever, but I sat through the film rolling my eyes for nearly 3 hrs. In the past, I’ve hated some of the Pixar trailers, (Nemo comes to mind) but have generally had my socks knocked off when I finally saw the film.

Again, having seen the film, I really think that people are going to be pleasantly surprised.

One of Coraline’s story artists was also the amazingly talented Vera Brosgol, who regurlarly knocks “girly” right out of the park:

http://www.verabee.com/art.html

“Annie questioned whether any ladies were involved in creating Coraline and I simply answered the question.”

I’m sure Annie meant and you understood that she was referring to having an impact on how the character behaves and thinks and moves when she used the work “create”. Not referring to a puppet builder or fabricator who with all due respect is not involved in how a character behaves or even impacts the design.
Not to worry about fair judgement. I said I was still looking forward to it, and likely “Annie” and most of the commenters here will wait to see the movie to see how we really like it or don’t like it. Hardly a huge thumbs down, merely an impression which is all this post was provided for.

This looks great! Hip-hip-hooray, Laika!

with all due respect, does “A Reader” really believe that someone building a stop motion puppet wouldn’t have any influence on its design and function? really?

oooooooohh - so much talk about what I wrote!

girlishness = acting like a real girl (not a cliché girl, not a girlish girl, but the feel of REAL…and INTERESTING.. more like Miyazaki)

appeal = is subjective, I still feel that character has no appeal. And I do think you can recognize appeal within a few minutes/shots.

Women involved as creatives = involved in story, character DESIGN, not just the execution of the men’s ideas.

And, hey - I’m entitled to my opinion.

Of course I’ll see it! (as soon as I can for free!!)

“I’m sure Annie meant and you understood that she was referring to having an impact on how the character behaves and thinks and moves when she used the work “create”. Not referring to a puppet builder or fabricator who with all due respect is not involved in how a character behaves or even impacts the design.”

WHAT?!?! Obviously, you’ve never worked in stop motion before. A fabricator has quite a bit to do with the design of the character’s movement and does in fact impact the design.

The fabrication supervisor is involved from the very beginning. They suggest what kinds of material can be used for armatures, skin and costume. They help decide how and even if the character designs can be achieved in 3 dimensions. Even with the most highly rendered character drawings, there is only so much you can do in 2 dimensions.

On Coraline, Georgina (puppet fab supervisor) was in EVERY character design meeting. She would make suggestions on how we might resolve certain design problems when we reached the 3d form. These solutions not only effected the designs, but also influenced movement. Since stop motion is truly a 3 dimensional form the materials used to create a puppet have a big impact on how a character moves.

I’d also like to point out that Georgina didn’t just provide technical suggestions. she also gave her input as a woman, when she thought we weren’t hitting the mark with the female characters. She brought her own experiences as a little girl into the meetings and had a lot to do with how we dressed Coraline.

I’m not trying to be inflammatory, and I’m glad that you are excited to see the film. However, you are completely misinformed to suggest that puppet fab has nothing to do with the design or behavior of a character.

“Monster House,” “The Corpse Bride” and now “Coraline.” It’s all starting to look the same - and not in a good way. I can’t even tell the difference between stop-motion and CGI anymore.

The acting in this film is phenomenal. And Coraline’s actions & movements, along with her little quirks as a young girl are spot-on (nice to have a daughter for observation on this subject matter, of course).

This argument is silly. Moot, really. No, you cannot base an entire film just by the few scenes in a trailer chosen by an outside PR firm, especially when the main character is in just about every single scene. Just wait until the film comes out.

““The Corpse Bride” and now “Coraline.” It’s all starting to look the same - and not in a good way. I can’t even tell the difference between stop-motion and CGI anymore.”

I’m not sure that that’s necessarily true, nor necessarily bad. There are things in stop motion (like big knit sweaters, for example) that you’re not likely to see a lot of in CG. Also, most stop-motion has a distinct lack of motion blur which gives the animation a distinct look. Also, head/face replacement animation in stop motion, having been around since very early on, does look distinctly different from the fuller, more nuanced motion that you would see in CG or mocap. There are only so many ways to express cartoon form on a 2-dimensional screen; I don’t know what else you can expect to do. It all comes down to design, which has nothing to do with whether it’s stop motion, CG or drawn.

Of course I’ll see it! (as soon as I can for free!!)

Great attitude there, Annie. The animation industry needs more misinformed freeloaders, after all.

“Women involved as creatives = involved in story, character DESIGN, not just the execution of the men’s ideas.”

annie: way to poop on all the hard-working, creatively-involved women working on this project.

“i am annie, hear me… [puke]“

Thanks Shannon for defending the work of the crew. It is a shame that people make judgments based on trailers, but you know what they say, opinions are like … everyone has one. And they are allowed to share.

And as a mother of a little girl, and a crew member from Coraline, I can say with confidence that people will connect with her. She isn’t generic, and she has so much character brought to life by animators, and that’s what this is about … animation.

Hang tight nah-sayers, you are in for a good time.