I recently had the opportunity to speak with legendary Disney producer Don Hahn while he was promoting his new fabulous book, The Alchemy of Animation. Don Hahn has produced a few small, low-budget animated Disney movies during his career (not sure if you’ve ever heard of them, but they include films such as The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and The Emperor’s New Groove). We reported on the new Beauty and the Beast 3D remake a few weeks ago, which Don Hahn is helping to produce, but a lot of us were left wondering: Why Beauty and the Beast? And how would they add a third dimension into an essentially 2D film?

So of all the films, why did Hahn and company pick Beauty and the Beast to remake in 3D? The answer was for practical as well as artistic reasons:

About a year ago we looked at our library and looked at the 3D technology and the fact that more 3D screens are becoming available every week. It’s a chance to take a title that’s very beloved by the audience and try to share it in a way that people haven’t seen before. Also, the way we made it and archived it allowed us to do it. If it were any other movie, it might have been somewhat more difficult. We did Beauty and the Beast on the CAPS [Computer Animation Production System] System, which is the early computer animation system that we had at Disney and archived it in separate layers and separate levels, so there’s a great separation of all the artwork in the computer. So, we can go back in now and separate those layers into a depth of field to create a great 3D experience for the audience. In the end, we’re trying to deliver a great new piece of animation on a really familiar and beloved movie title.

But what would the animating process be like? Would only the CGI backgrounds that were lauded in Beauty appear in 3D? Would the 3D simply be layers of flatness? Hahn responded:

We didn’t want to do the layers of flatness. There are some old Chip and Dale cartoons that do that. One of the first 3D movies is called Starchaser and it was just layers of flat, kind of viewmaster-looking flat. I think what we we want to do is not do that, and create a truly dimensional environment. It’s a very hybrid approach. There’s some proprietary software that Disney created for this, and it actually bends the drawings around geometry. You take a character like Belle or the Beast and you create geometry in the computer that matches the image on the screen, and then bend the original movie around that geometry, be it the character or a background, a tree, or a building or whatever. That creates very dimensional, round faces.

This sounded similar to the method they used to convert The Nightmare Before Christmas into 3D (Hahn produced the 3D version of that film as well). When I asked Hahn what this new proprietary system was called, Hahn responded, “I don’t think they’ve named it yet…It’s so new, that they haven’t put a moniker to it.”

Hahn also assured me that all the animation in the film would be virtually indistinguishable from its original:

We wanted to deliver the original movie. We didn’t want to add new drawings or take away anything from the original movie. I think all you’ll notice is that now suddenly there is great depth to everything on the screen. The effect is somewhat like the Haunted Mansion Madame Leota when you go through the ride at Disneyland and they project a piece of film onto a mannequin head. When that projector hits the mannequin head, it bends the light around it and it looks like it’s 3D. It’s not unlike that, where you’re taking the film, a character like Belle, and projecting her on a digital, rounded surface mannequin head. When it hits that, it breaks out into a 3D looking object that then you can photograph with a right eye, left eye, and create the illusion of depth.

Keep an eye out later this week on slashfilm.com for the full interview, courtesy of the /Film movie podcast. A big thanks to Andy Sorcini from The Drill Down podcast for making this interview possible.

Don Hahn will be signing copies of his book, The Alchemy of Animation, at 7 PM this Thursday, December 11th, at the Barnes and Noble on 210 Americana Way in Glendale, CA.

  • If it 'aint broke, don't fix it. Look what Lucas did to Star Wars. 'Nuff said.
  • If it 'aint broke, don't fix it. Look what Lucas did to Star Wars.
  • joshi38
    Beauty and the Beast was (and still is I guess) one of my all time favorite animated movies and while I like to see them honoring the classic, I still feel like 3D is a bit of a gimmick at the moment and I see no reason to do that to a classic.

    And frankly, they're not going to get much of an effect if they simply take the cell animation and double it to give depth. The idea of 3D is hat your eyes see two different images and your brain computes that as having depth. All we'd get from this 3D rehaul of Beauty and the Beast would be the sense that the 2D characters were in a setting that had depth, not that the characters themselves had any more depth.

    Sort of like having animated cardboard cutouts in a 3D setting, I'm seriously not seeing the point.
  • Your an...
    Did you even read the article? They said that they were putting the 2D character images around a 3D digital image to create depth with in the character itself.

    "We didn’t want to do the layers of flatness. There are some old Chip and Dale cartoons that do that. One of the first 3D movies is called Starchaser and it was just layers of flat, kind of viewmaster-looking flat. I think what we we want to do is not do that, and create a truly dimensional environment. It’s a very hybrid approach. There’s some proprietary software that Disney created for this, and it actually bends the drawings around geometry. You take a character like Belle or the Beast and you create geometry in the computer that matches the image on the screen, and then bend the original movie around that geometry, be it the character or a background, a tree, or a building or whatever. That creates very dimensional, round faces."

    How did you miss that huge part? He discusses it in great detail and then you try to claim as fact that it will look like cardboard cut outs? He explains carefully that they are specifically not going to look like layers. I know some people have already told you this but Jesus, when i saw your comment, it just made me lose so much faith in humanity...some people...
  • El Bart-O
    Does this movie have any "subliminal messages" like all the other Disney movies?
  • HenryJonesJr
    Did you even read the story? They're not doubling the cells. They are wrapping/projecting the cells around a 3D object. It's not all that different than the way 3D computer animation is done, wrapping a texture around a mesh. Taking the time to do it right, there's no reason why it shouldn't end up looking pretty decent and much better than just the "layers of flatness" that they could have gone with.
  • joshi38
    Hmm, guess I missed that. I really have to stop doing that. Sorry.
  • I think I'd actually go see this if it were in 3-D. It's one of my all-time favorites and I've never seen it on the big screen.
  • I'm surprisingly excited by this. I've recently come around to liking 3d, what with recent developments of people pledging to "do it right". I think there's an understanding of the fear audiences have towards it, what with 3d's cheap tricks of the past.
  • Ed P.
    Really looking forward to this! One of my all-time favorite Disney films.

    That said, it shouldn't be so difficult to recreate the scenes in 3D. The pre-production part is usually heavily taxing and that's already done. Heck, half of the production is already done, too. Tight meshes + cell paintings as textures + reused background = voila!
  • Still sounds like a money thing.
  • Disney
    It's Disney, it is always a money thing. But that doesn't stop it form being good. I mean, look at "This is it." It was clearly a cash in but it was still good. Disney at the end of the day is a corpiration and their main goal is to make money. Fortunatly the make money by creating good movies (well trying to amke good ones anyway.)
  • i don't get it, I thought the new clone wars was a MASTERPIECE. The Citizen Kane of Animation.
  • I've still yet had time to check out the 3D Nightmare Before Christmas. When it plays again in a megaplex, I'll go and see it. Loved Beauty and the Beast when I was a kid, I'd love to see it again at the movies, esp. in 3D. Anyone heard about the progress of Star Wars 3d?
  • i don't understand the 'why beauty and the beast?' thing. it was oscar nommed for best picture and it's a classic...why NOT beauty and the beast?
  • What I liked best about Pixar was that it developed great movies, ideas and stories and left it alone. I only believe in touching older movies if you have a great re-imagination of the story or if technology has advanced enough to further the cinematic value of the film. Disney milks every storyfor every penny that it is worth. Now that Pixar has been acquired, I see them doing that with their stories as well. Pixar is succumbing to that mentality. With Beauty and the Beast, why touch this? Why make it 3D? Does 3D really enhance the story behind it? Does it add anything more that can be appreciated? I don't really think so and that's what should be asked before doing this.
  • What happened to my comment? Deleted because I ragged on George Lucas? Sheesh.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    It just sounds like Disney trying to find more ways to milk a cow.

    I really like Beauty and the Beast and I think that the mixed "working reel" version is a great compilation of work. I've watched it quite a bit. Any animation purist holds these Disney movies in high esteem and truly appreciates the talent of the artists involved in their efforts to bring dimension from the confines of "2D" animation design. I guess that is why I'm surprised that Hahn is such an advocate of 3D conversion.

    Ultimately, I don't get the need to mess with past films for any reason. These things remind me of the Lucas/Star Wars tinkering.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    oh....also wanted to say that getting Hahn for the interview is some nice work. Thanks!
  • mud
    Has anyone here seen Nightmare in 3D?

    All the reviews I can find seem to be generally positive - a pretty subtle effect compared to true 3D, but still impressive, and doesn't take anything away from the film.
blog comments powered by Disqus