Working the Bugs Out

Critics and viewers alike have noted the many similarities between the computer-animated features “Antz” (Dream Works/PDI) and “A Bug’s Life” (Disney/Pixar). Both are set in ant colonies and center around a dissatisfied princess and an unconventional nebbish who save the colony from destruction.

“Antz,” which opened in October, has been a surprise hit, earning more than $84 million at the box office so far; “A Bug’s Life” opened in general release Wednesday to excellent reviews and strong word of mouth.

Both films are entertaining, but the quality of the animation in “A Bug’s Life” is noticeably superior to that of “Antz.” But both films also suggest that there’s a way to go before computer animation can match the best of the hand-drawn stuff.

Insects are a logical choice for computer animation: Like the plastic characters in “Toy Story” (another Disney/Pixar production), they have hard exoskeletons and clearly articulated joints. Computers render hard surfaces more effectively than flesh, which is one reason why the humans in “Toy Story” were less convincing than the toys. Also, studies show that children are almost as interested in bugs as they are in dinosaurs and toys.

However, an insect cast poses a major problem: Real bugs are ugly--except perhaps to another bug or an entomologist. Think about it: The most popular cartoon characters have been rabbits, mice, cats and ducks, not ants, wasps, flies and termites. Even the most famous cartoon insect, Jiminy Cricket, had very few bug-like characteristics.

Ward Kimball, who animated the character in “Pinocchio” (1940), recalls, “For the first designs, I started with a real cricket, with toothed legs and antennae, but Walt didn’t like it. I did 12 or 14 versions, and gradually cut out all the insect appendages. I ended up with a little man, really, wearing spats and a tail coat that suggested folded wings.”

In both “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life,” the audience accepts the characters as ants because that’s what the filmmakers say they are. “Antz’s” ants look more like aliens than insects, with large, triangular heads; small, pointy noses; and very human-looking eyes. The animators use the first set of limbs as arms, and keep the bottom two pairs as legs that always move in sync. Their overall feel is rigid and marionette-like.

“Antz’s” reluctant hero Z and his fellow ants have a rather finite repertoire of eyebrow movements, head tilts and gestures, which limits what they can communicate to viewers visually. Many of the scenes feel under-animated, and the filmmakers rely on the vocal performances to carry the story.

“Antz” ranks as one of the chattiest animated features in recent years, and the nonstop dialogue cloys after a certain point. The animators at PDI excel at crowd scenes: Z’s colony feels like a vast subterranean city, inhabited by uncountable thousands of ants. But the intimate scenes between Z and Princess Bala, which form the emotional core of the film, are less impressive and less convincing.

The insects in “A Bug’s Life” are looser and more cartoon-like in their design, with big, round eyes, no nose and flexible mouths. There’s a softer feel to them; they look and move like Muppets. The artists eliminated the third pair of limbs on the ants and several of the other insects: With just two arms and two legs, they look less bug-like and more human.

Pixar has been the leader in the field of computer character animation since “Luxo Jr.” (1986), in which “Toy Story” and “Bug’s Life” director John Lasseter brought a small desk lamp to life. The “Bug’s Life” artists use body language and facial expressions effectively: When would-be ant hero Flik feels he’s failed, his shoulders sag, his back curves, his mouth droops and his antennae go limp.

Some parts of “A Bug’s Life” feel overly busy: When the characters speak, they constantly change expressions, gesticulate and move. Less can be more, and in some places the artists should have let the characters just hold still for a few seconds.

Significantly, two of the most successful pieces of animation in “A Bug’s Life” involve characters that don’t talk. The cute but menacing bird moves with the staccato grace of a real finch as it darts about, hunting (gulp!) insects. The animators clearly studied the movements of real birds and skillfully re-created them. Similarly, the caterpillar mime, who imitates Flik when he visits the city, captures the style of motion of a tiresome street performer. Both characters stand out as examples of the power of animation to communicate visually.

Ultimately, neither of these computer-generated films feels as alive and expressive as the best drawn animation. None of the characters in either film could communicate the range of deeply felt emotions demonstrated in, say, Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” Nor do they exhibit the sparkling vitality that has won Nick Park’s stop-motion “Wallace and Gromit” shorts so many fans. The medium simply isn’t as sensitive and responsive at this point in its development. Ultimately, the casts of both “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life” look more like plastic toys than living, breathing animals.

But computer animation is still in its infancy, especially computer character animation. In the early days of drawn animation, the artists worked on two dozen or more shorts each year, gradually learning how to bring a character to life. Many of the animators who worked on Walt Disney’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937), the first American animated feature, already had 10 years of experience.

The artists who made “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life” are generally young and inexperienced, so their work on these high-quality features is an impressive achievement. “Antz” and “A Bug’s Life” suggest that the future of computers in film will involve more exciting and entertaining projects than putting explosions behind Bruce Willis in big-budget adventure flicks.

Charles Solomon writes about animation for the Los Angeles Times and other publications.