›

A New TT-based S+M Animated Series?

AshtonAshton
edited May 2008 in Sam & Max
Just a thought I had, it's probably already been thought of, but...

Since the CGI S+M are to easy to animate (just keyframe and the comptuer genenrates the rest) and so many settings are already made...

Any possibility of there beign a new S+M animated series? you guys did it already with the shorts form season 1, what about a full-length 20-minute series? Or even a single S+M movie? Given the capabilities today, it's a much easier task than in the past...

And if TT says no, any of you fans want to try it? I'm sure with enough work we coudl hash out a movie atleast...

Comments

  • Tester ScottTester Scott
    edited May 2008
    That would take a lot more time than you might think and we are currently swamped with all the new licenses we have acquired and games we are making. Not a horrible idea though.
  • DedlokDedlok
    edited May 2008
    Yeah, I'd say Telltale themsellves would be too swamped. Course they could probably liscence the engine to someone else to do a series. But, seriously, why would they do that and/or why would some outside company liscence it just to make a series?
  • EmilyEmily Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    This has actually been discussed before (in very broad terms). The engine would be perfect for it. Hey, if someone wanted to pay us to do it... ;)
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    *rummages around in pockets* 5... 10.. 20.. 50... I gots $7.50... might pay one of you to work on it for 10 minutes...

    Anyone want to take up a collection? PP donations towards a new S+M full-length series or movie? (I'm not joking, I'm serious, if TT will do it for a $$$ I'm willing to try and help raise the money!)
  • meelWORMmeelWORM
    edited May 2008
    At first I didn't think much of this, but if the idea has already been kicked around at the office, then it may have some serious potential. Instead of making a feature movie or televised TV show, which could be very costly and time consuming, what about a 90-minute movie download? It could be done within the engine, like the Machinima shorts, although the look of the Season 2 Trailer would be even better. Give us a fresh story, some new characters, new locations (and some old), and I think this could really work well.

    I'd pay $10 for the download, and I'd pay another $20 for the DVD. Or make a $25 package deal (download and DVD). Who else would buy?
  • xChri5xxChri5x
    edited May 2008
    If there was a 3-D Sam & Max series, I'd rather it look just like the S2 trailer. But that would take forever. :(
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    I have a friend who uses Maya professionally. Asuming there is no further rendering required by T3 (and asuming they used T3 to make the trailer) it takes soemthing like 3 hours per second for simple (i.e. less than 100 shapes) animations to render at that quality. So probably it took TT around 10-15 hours per second of "footage" for the S2 trailer. For a movie, yes, that's reasonable. For a TV series, no, they coudl never do that unless they were being paid in the millions...
  • Champ'doutChamp'dout
    edited May 2008
    how about a remake of the original SAM & MAX HITS THE ROAD GAME WITH THE 3D enginethere is already a story and all so they wont have to work on a story and the basics of the story the only thing i the way items are handled in the game with the right click button
  • EmilyEmily Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    We did not use the Telltale Tool to make the Season Two trailer. That was hand-animated and rendered in Maya, and it was time consuming.
  • TeethTeeth
    edited May 2008
    If a fan were to, say, make a Flash animation with Sam and Max in it and put it online, but give full credit to Steve Purcell/Telltale Games and not attempt to sell it as their own, would that be legal/acceptable?
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    The way I understand it, that woudl constitute fanart (as per the responces in the other thread on here)
  • LaserschwertLaserschwert
    edited May 2008
    Emily wrote: »
    We did not use the Telltale Tool to make the Season Two trailer. That was hand-animated and rendered in Maya, and it was time consuming.

    Well, it just means that you need a Maya-exporter for the Telltale-Tool. Once imported into Maya the scene will be lit and rendered properly (and maybe the animation will be tweaked a little more and particle-effects added), and you're good to go. Adding the usual amount of post-pro for color-correction, and other 2D-additions, et voilà!
  • ErwinErwin
    edited May 2008
    It could be developed in the evenings and during weekends. Who needs a social live, anyways, eh?

    :)

    --Erwin
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    Laserschwert wrote: »
    Well, it just means that you need a Maya-exporter for the Telltale-Tool. Once imported into Maya the scene will be lit and rendered properly (and maybe the animation will be tweaked a little more and particle-effects added), and you're good to go. Adding the usual amount of post-pro for color-correction, and other 2D-additions, et voilà!

    Other way around, T3 imports directly from Maya, iirc, though I dont know the system load t3 creats makign it's own effects verses makign them in maya then importing them... (I dont suppose anyone at TT woudl be willing to tive a little techy-insight into T3?)
  • NickTTGNickTTG Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    Erwin wrote: »
    It could be developed in the evenings and during weekends. Who needs a social live, anyways, eh?

    :)

    --Erwin

    i take offense to that! :mad:
  • wispwisp
    edited May 2008
    right, what was he thinking...evenings and weekends. you could get this done during your lunch breaks..
  • jmmjmm
    edited May 2008
    Sleep is for the weak.
  • Harley QuinnHarley Quinn
    edited May 2008
    Emily wrote: »
    This has actually been discussed before (in very broad terms). The engine would be perfect for it. Hey, if someone wanted to pay us to do it... ;)

    I'm sure some of us have learnt enough of Sam and Max to know how to abuse the Freelance Police badge to get some by now!

    Lets go shoot someone's tire.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    Harley Quinn wrote: »
    I'm sure some of us have learnt enough of Sam and Max to know how to abuse the Freelance Police badge to get some by now!

    Lets go shoot someone's tire.

    I call shotgun! (lol)
  • Harley QuinnHarley Quinn
    edited May 2008
    As long as I get to play with the bazooka.
  • mishmish
    edited May 2008
    Ashton wrote: »
    Since the CGI S+M are to easy to animate (just keyframe and the comptuer genenrates the rest) and so many settings are already made...

    Obviously you've never animated anything.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    Maya uses Skeletal modeling, allt eh joints and movemetns are predefined, also T3 seems to have a good physics engine already built-in, so between the two the animation shouldn't e very hard, the rest of it (sound efects, VO, etc) would be trickier.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    ... there is no physics engine. Our games are hand animated, and last time I checked, hand animation is very hard.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    .............................

    I wont comment on the engine... but I'm shocked that everything is done by hand instead of using tools liek skeletal animators.

    In that case, the whole thread is now null and void... sorry for makign an ass of myself...
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    I am now confused as to what you're talking about. Obviously our models are built and rigged with skeletons. I don't think animators have done game animation by actually pushing polygons around for a decade now. Also obviously things in the game are done in more efficient ways than every single interaction being custom animated from start to finish by a character animator, but its all still hand-touched. We don't have any procedural animation systems or physics driven stuff in our games. Not to say that sort of thing isn't interesting to us, but we're not doing it right now.

    Also, obviously, from a purely technical standpoint, its easy to animate a rigged character. You can click on someones wrist, and drag it around and watch his elbow bend around like an actual elbow would. Its easy to click points on a skeleton and drag them around, and save it out. The thing that makes it very hard is actually making it look good. I can make an animated thing in Maya. Anyone on this forum could. The problem is, it wouldn't actually look like animation, it would look like indecipherable crap. Animation is taught in art school because its an art!
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    While I've read a lot about basics and about theory, I'm very (and by very I mean *VERY*) green on CGI and animation, etc. I've only done a little animation with GIFFs and I finally managed to build a room (which is painfulyl obviously CGI, not drawn/photo/etc) in maya, so please excuse my ignorance.

    That, though, still backs up my original thoughts, even with touchups by hand, it takes hardly any time to do a CGI animation in 3D compared to the traditional animation. Also, considering how much leeway there is (if you just CANT get a shot of, for isntance, a character walking infront of a street light on the road, you can just have a car 'happen' to dive by and obscure the view for that 1-3 seconds) it should be comparitivly easy to make a new S+M Animated series using the tools you already have. That was the point of my original post (and if you incorporate a good physics engine, then a lot of the effects will fall into place almsot magically)

    Hense my suggestion also about my being willing to start a fund to pay for the time/effort to make said series (or atleast a S+M movie) since it wouldnt' take nearly as long as a live or a traditionally-animated series and woudln't require a huge budget. Since most of the models and many of the sets are already made, I'd think you could make a 2-hour movie for around 1M (probably way less for expenses, but I'm sure peopel will expect big pay since it's a "movie")

    I hope that makes more sence, if not let me know what I'm still confusing about and I'll clarify further. I'd love to see this idea really happen if there's anything at all I coudl do to facilitate it.
  • wispwisp
    edited May 2008
    Jake wrote: »
    Animation is taught in art school because its an art!
    there's a reason why art is in hart...or hard...or...forget it. you should totally get one of those motion-capture thingies. that way you and nick and everybody else could dance around in funny looking suits and animation would be done in the blink of an eye...;)
  • nhaingennhaingen
    edited May 2008
    I think wisp's idea would make a good show all in itself.

    Anyhow, this idea will never come to fruition - if you want original S&M animation that isn't just the occasional trailer or machinima short from TellTale, you'll have to make it yourself. Like Steve did! Except he's Steve, of course, and we're not, so fan-made vids would likely... not be as good.
  • unsilviuunsilviu
    edited May 2008
    NickTTG wrote: »
    i take offense to that! :mad:

    I Don't! :mad:
  • daltysmilthdaltysmilth
    edited May 2008
    Is Steve still working for Pixar? Maybe they could make a Sam & Max movie. Admittedly, it might be a little... weirder than Toy Story or Finding Nemo, but it would expose Rabbit-Dog and Bunnyman to a more mainstream audience.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    A pixar S+M movie, if publicized, woudl bomb. People woudl go in expecting either XXX rated raunchyness, or they woudl go in thinking it's a G-rated kiddy film, even if the rating says "R" (Because "cartoons are for kids!")

    The only way it woudl work is as an underground movement. I'm lineing up people who
    re willing to donate... I'm trying to raise $200K to nudge TT into developement, though so far I'm falling short...
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    A pixar Sam & Max movie would bomb? I don't think Pixar is capable of producing a bomb since everyone sees their films by default. It might not be a Toy Story or a Cars, but it would do well.
  • tobartobar
    edited May 2008
    A Pixar Sam and Max movie would rock the very foundations of the Earth....or kill at the Box Office. I always get those two confused. :D
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited May 2008
    Perhaps he meant it would be "Da Bomb."

    I actually think Pixar could hit the "edgy-but-family-friendly" mark a lot better than the TV show did. And like Jake said, people would go see it simply because it's a Pixar movie.
  • mishmish
    edited May 2008
    Ashton, you just made the same mistake everyone else makes. They think just because it's on a computer, it means that it's faster to do than hand drawn. I'm in school for animation, and let me tell you that good animation takes far, far longer. The reason the industry switched to 3d is:
    a) Because Pixar made the leap and it was all the rage.
    b) Because they could get things done faster, even if that meant compromising quality.

    So yeah, you can technically animate faster, but with god-awful results fit only for toddlers for the Wednesday morning Disney Channel.
  • DamonDamon
    edited May 2008
    Hey, don't make fun of my Gargoyles. ;)
    mish wrote: »
    Ashton, you just made the same mistake everyone else makes. They think just because it's on a computer, it means that it's faster to do than hand drawn. I'm in school for animation, and let me tell you that good animation takes far, far longer. The reason the industry switched to 3d is:
    a) Because Pixar made the leap and it was all the rage.
    b) Because they could get things done faster, even if that meant compromising quality.

    So yeah, you can technically animate faster, but with god-awful results fit only for toddlers for the Wednesday morning Disney Channel.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    @ Jake/tobar/etc:
    When you hit a middle-ground between two demographics it never works, I cite "Titan AE" which is often reguarded as a cult film, It acctually was responcible, for shutting down Fox animation studios. Nobody knew if it was a Sci-Fi action movie or if it was a kiddy movie.

    "One of the reasons most commonly given for the financial failure of Titan A.E. is its poorly identified target audience. People were unsure, having seen trailers for the film, whether it were intended for the older sci-fi fan crowd, or whether it was pitched more at children." (Wikipedia)

    This is the main reason I think a major release like pixar woudl fail, publicized materials would only serve to confuse people who automatically think "cartoon! Kiddy film!"

    And @ mish: So, you're tellign me hand-drawing a movie would be faster than doing digital cleanup on a CGI film? I find that hard to believe, though if it's true that's shocking, considering how easy a lot of the cleanup woudl be (as I said above 'coincidence' is your best friend in a medium like this)
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited May 2008
    The Incredibles? Ratatouille? Even Toy Story.... Those have contents which span multiple demographics and are successful in all of them.

    I think Titan A.E. just wasn't as good as it should have been, is its problem. The fact that it wasn't marketed well probably didn't help it at all, but I think it didn't do well because its not-greatness got compounded by its hard-to-sellness... not just one of those things. Ratatouille, for instance, was surely a hard sell, and it surely also didn't do as well as Cars, but it was a great movie, I'm sure it grossly outperformed Titan A.E.
  • TelltaleToolTelltaleTool
    edited May 2008
    Indeed... just because many films don't address multiple age groups well doesn't mean it's not possible. It's the difference between Dreamworks and Pixar, really.
  • AshtonAshton
    edited May 2008
    For the sake of argument, yes, the highest grossing feature film of all time was Disney's "The Lion King" which appealed to an audience of all ages (and which happens to be my favorite movie) and which, ironically, had almost no success in it's sequils...

    So yes, I know movies CAN hit big when they aim for multiple genres, but I als know they can bomb when tehy do. S+M is one of those that is very... it's adult but kept more clean... it wasn't intended for children really, imo, much like the TV series "The Simpsons." (acctually I see several parallels in the two, amusingly enough) S+M though LOOKS visually more childish (I acctually avoided it till last month because I thought it was a chicldren's game...) and I think it would attract a lot of chicldren because of this and they wouldn't fully understand it and it woudl frustrate them and their parents.

    Again, though, these are jsut my thoughts, plenty of films have done this and been massive successes, I'm certainly not Roger Ebert, and I can only give a layman's view of the possibility. (though I would lvoe to see a S+M movie in whatever form by whatever company...)
Sign in to comment in this discussion.