Animation: 'Planes' vs. 'Wings'
What is the difference between Planes and Wings? Quality.
On August 9, Planes hit the movie theaters, while Wings hit the Walmart video bins. Jerry Beck has the story and a trailer on his Animation Scoop website. YouTube has the complete Wings, but in the original Russian.
What is the similarity between them? They both feature anthropomorphized airplanes. What is the difference? Quality. This may seem like an ironic comment considering that most of the reviews of Planes criticize it for its lack of the quality of Pixar’s Cars (despite the Disney label, it was subcontracted to Prana Studios in Mumbai for production), but check out the Wings trailer for yourself. Wings is vastly inferior to Planes. Technically, anyhow. Plotwise? Ehhh…
Despite the seeming rush to get Wings out on the same day as Planes, Wings was released in Russia on August 9, 2012 – a year ago to the day. One wonders when it went into production – was it always a blatant imitation of Planes, or did it start as a Russian CGI feature inspired by Cars? Also, see the recent Turbo for the same incredible-underdog-wins-the-big-race plot.
About the author
Fred Patten — read stories — contact (login required)a retired former librarian from North Hollywood, California, interested in general anthropomorphics
Comments
In both Turbo and Planes defense, the incredible-underdog-wins-the-big-race plot is pretty much every sport movie, ever, if you substitute race for whatever.
I'm still planning on seeing Planes, though just to see all the major animation releases of the year, not for a Flayrah review; I was actually kinda rooting for it a little, if only to see the direct-to-DVD movie that went to theaters become the best reviewed entry in the Cars franchise.
See, there was almost a incredible-underdog-wins-the-big-race plot right there.
I might as well say it here: I enjoyed "Planes", and I can see why it is getting a good box office while all of the critics are reviling it. "Planes" is a good movie for children, that was made for children while the critiques are mostly judging it as though it were a movie for sophisticated adults. Almost all the critiques emphasize how its CGI is inferior to Pixar's and Disney's, but I was looking at the CGI quality as an animation professional, and I consider it almost imperceptibly inferior. Prana Studios, which did the subcontracted production, does good work. You can nitpick the story to pieces, but what else is new? Disney's "Pinocchio", considered one of Disney's greatest films, never reconciles how Pinoke can walk along the bottom of the ocean without any trouble, but drowns on the ocean surface while escaping from Monstro at the climax. I am actually looking forward to "Planes" #2.
Fred Patten
I haven't seen it yet, but unless they can really cherry pick for the trailers, the CGI is really impressive for anyone, never mind a former direct-to-DVD movie.
I'm still not sure if I'm looking forward to it, but I'm definitely going to see it.
i just watched a 3d cartoon with a talking flanker.
anyways there's also this thing, which i found pretty lulzy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKeKnCXGIjg
enjoy~ :3
Oh, yeah; that definitely belongs in a discussion of anthropomorphized airplanes! Should we reference Eric Schwartz's old Amiga animation of anthro airplanes here for completeness' sake?
Fred Patten
The important question here: what the hell is a flanker, and is it safe to Google?
Flanker: Sukhoi Su-27, A Russian Fighter, akin to the US F-15 Eagle.
"Flanker" is the NATO code for this combat plane.
Ah, thank you very much! I just felt nervous about Googling a word that contains an synonym for "ass" and rhymes with "canker," you know?
Anyway, something to actually add to the conversation: Cracked presents Pixar’s Drones!
greeeeeat, now you got the phrase "two pilots and a refueling pod" stuck in replay in the back of my head,...
Well, just got back from Planes, and I can safely say my favorite animated movie of the year is a former direct-to-DVD feature given a chance at the theaters; but enough about My Little Pony: Equestria Girls (Badumptish!).
It's definitely a better take on the "underdog from nowhere wins the big race" than Turbo, and while it is decidedly bland, it wasn't as bland-bland-blandity-bland-bland as Epic. It's kind of like the character of Dusty in the movie, actually; it finishes sixth in the tryouts for "best theatricral animated release I saw this year," but it could still be fifth due to disqualification because Wreck-It Ralph had a short re-release I caught at the beginning of the year. (For the record, from first to last, MLP:EG, The Croods, Monsters University, Despicable Me 2, Planes, Turbo and Epic, with Escape from Planet 51 rented for over a month from RedBox but still not seen, and I'm going to have to wait forever for Ernest and Celestine or resort to piracy.)
It's also way better than Cars 2, though about even with the original Cars. Also, I haven't been reading any reviews of it, but are they really complaining about the quality of the animation? Really? It looks fine, and with a higher degree of difficulty than a lot the actual Cars movies (that storm over the ocean sequence was, I'm sure, very difficult to animate, and yet very well done).
I am contractually obligated to make a joke about how the trailer mislead me to believe this was some kind of slasher; seriously, White Zombie's "More Human than Human" was an odd choice!
Hmmm! It seems that while "Ot Vinta 3D/Wings" was originally released in Russian, in Russia, it was actually produced by Touch FX Animation Studio in Yerevan, Armenia. I did not know that there were any animation studios in Armenia. It obviously has a long way to go to catch up to the quality of American or Indian CGI animation, but it's a start.
Fred Patten
Post new comment