I often talk about character introductions and how important they are. I think animated films could be better in this area so I bring it up frequently.

Why is a good introduction important? It can be a great shorthand to tell the audience exactly who this character is, what they're all about and what they want. Film is all about economy and if you can make a powerful statement quickly then you've done yourself a favor. Strong characters with clear personalities and wants are central to making a movie work. If you can create strong characters with a lot of drive who are in conflict with each other, you are going to have a more interesting and dynamic story. So if you can make a powerful statement right off the bat and communicate who each character is strongly and efficiently, then you can get back to telling your story and you don't have to constantly remind the audience who the characters are and what they want.

So here's the introduction of Jesus from "The Big Lebowski" (which is on Amazon Prime for free right now, if you haven't seen it or want to see it again). The language is NSFW.



This introduction does a lot of things well and it has some of my favorite techniques when introducing a character. I always like when we see close shots to see pieces of a character before the camera reveals all of them. It always creates a sense of mystery about the character. What do they look like? Also, it can help create a sense of anticipation so the audience really wants to see the reveal of what they look like from heard to toe, or maybe see what their face looks like, depending on how you do it.

It's not appropriate for every character, but seeing pieces of Jesus here works well because the little details are interesting and tell you a lot about him. The wrist brace, the jewelry, the all-purple wardrobe and the polished fingernail all give you a good sense of what type of person this is. In the fingernail shot, I like that you can see his face reflected in a distorted way. Again, it creates a sense of mystery about him and makes you want to see his real face.

The next shots really show a lot of thought an care about his character. Licking the bowling ball...the hairnet...the monogrammed purple jumpsuit...even how intense and serious he is about bowling and how he celebrates by doing a little arrogant dance...all of these great details tell you exactly what type of person he is.

The other element I always like to have in a character introduction is finding out what other characters think of this person. When you see Jesus's teammate, it seems like this guy looks up to and is impressed by Jesus.

Then you get the reaction of The Dude and Walter, who tell us what they think of him. The Dude confirms what we suspected: the Jesus is a good bowler, and we find out that The Dude is intimidated by him. Then Walter reveals a different side of Jesus that confirms the creepy vibe we get from Jesus...yes, he actually is a bit creepy. But it's also interesting to see the vulnerability on Jesus's face when that guy comes to the door. It humanizes him a little bit.

One last aspect I love is the music. The music does a great job of getting us into Jesus's head. That's the music he hears in his head and makes us see how awesome he thinks he is. It's also a nice choice because it's a version of "Hotel California" by The Eagles, which is a band that The Dude says in the film that he despises. So on a subtle level, it's a good choice because The Dude and Jesus are antagonistic towards each other.

So that's about two minutes worth of film with a ton of information packed in, and it's entertaining to watch as well, which, in some ways, may be the most important part of any character introduction!

One of the aspects of making mainstream feature movies that may or may not be obvious is how much the format can affect content.


There's a good reason that a movies tend to be two hours long, as Hitchcock says. We humans can't really sit still for too long, and once you hit that two hour mark, you're really pushing it. So films are made in a certain way because of this basic fact of human physiology, and many people may not even be aware of it.

Films (at least American, mainstream ones) tend to have a fairly brisk pace. Most films don't linger in one place too long. There aren't usually a lot of moments of characters interacting or having introspective moments other that what's necessary to convey the plot and emotions. Very rarely is there a "time out" for any kind of diversion that isn't absolutely vital to the plot and the story being told.

It's worth noting that in animation we work with even smaller running times than our live action counterparts. In general, animation is much more expensive and labor-intensive than live action, and every minute you add to the running time equals a lot of money that has to be spent to get it done. Also, we tend to aim for a general audience, and that can include young children who aren't really able (or interested enough) to sit through a three-and-a-half-hour director's cut of a movie.


Over my years as an animator and a story artist, this has always lead to one of the most difficult (and ironic) balances that you have to strike as an animated film maker. Animated films are all about character and personality. My favorite moments in animated films are little moments where some character shows really fun behavior that shows how their mind works. I love it when an animated character does something that only they would do. This is one of the areas where I feel animation outshines live action all the time. Animated film makers are great at finding moments that speak to who a character really is and portraying their inner qualities through performance.

And those are always the moments that I love to storyboard. I always look for ways in my boards to give characters behavior and "business" that shows the audience who that character is and what they are thinking.

The rub is that these are sometimes the first moments to get cut out, because we are always wrestling with keeping the film moving. We are always trying to get the pacing to be quicker. We are always trying to figure out how to cut the unnecessary parts and get to the heart of the story sooner. Because, as Hitchcock also said...


Audiences are really good at detecting what is necessary to the narrative and what is unnecessary. Whenever you're taking them down an extraneous side avenue, they get antsy. They check out. So you have to keep moving.

When I worked on "Tangled", there was a constant fight to whittle down the beginning of the movie. People would always give us the note that the movie doesn't really start until Flynn and Rapunzel get together. So we were always trying to tell the audience what they needed to know up front for the movie to make sense, but not give you too much and to keep moving as quickly as possible. And so it's been on every film I've worked on: that balance of having fun, getting a few character moments here and there, but not lingering too long or where it's not necessary.


We've all had that feeling when we walk out of a film and we think back on what we just saw, and suddenly you remember this one part that didn't fit. "Why the heck was that there?" we wonder. And sometimes you'll hear later that it was a piece of a bigger story that got eliminated late in the game but that piece got kept, for some reason. It's funny, though, that without realizing it, we've all become accustomed to looking at films as a whole and detecting the parts that were unnecessary to the telling and identifying those pieces easily.

Imagine what books would be like if they had to be read in one sitting. They'd be the same way, I suppose...much tighter and without much of the internal monologues or character interactions that are what make a good novel so mesmerizing. One of the strengths of a great book is how you think about it when you're not reading it, considering what you've read and how you feel about it. Since a novel can be read over days...or weeks....or years, the author doesn't have to edit themselves as rigorously as we do when we make films. In novels, there is time for extraneous detours and exploring different avenues and getting into deep character.

Which is what is so interesting about the state of entertainment these days. The relatively new phenomenon of modern television shows and their format has changed all that, and added a great alternative to telling a story in movie form. I feel like now, more than ever, stories have the option to be told in the way that suits them best.

For example, when you look at the Harry Potter films, you can see what a struggle it was for the film makers to fit the books into a film format. So much of what made the books great had to be eliminated to get the films down to a reasonable length.

By comparison, look at the "Game of Thrones" series. Because each season is 12 episodes and not a film, there's no time limit, and they are able to get much more of the feeling of the books into each season. There's time for detours and subplots that don't necessarily go anywhere. And when you finish watching a season, you don't reflect back on it and think "wait a minute...that subplot never went anywhere. Why did they include it?" with the same critical eye that you would if a movie did the same thing. Because a season of GoT isn't meant to be consumed in one sitting like a movie, we're more forgiving and we're willing to sit through more leisurely paced episodes, where the film makers can explore characters and linger in corners of the world that are interesting to visit just for fun and atmosphere.

Side note: yes, I am thinking what you're thinking. Why doesn't Netflix or HBO turn each Harry Potter book into a season of shows so that, freed from time restraints, they can get much more of the content from the novels into each season? I think they should. I would watch the heck out of that (personally I would wait until Daniel Radcliffe is old enough to play Snape. But that's just my vision).

Anyway, Hollywood, call me. I've got many, many more brilliant ideas.


So to sum up, different stories are suited for different mediums. I think we really are living in a new world where film is no longer the "best" medium to tell a story. I'm so glad that shows like "Game of Thrones, "House of Cards", "The Walking Dead" and dozens of other shows have really shown what you can do with a season of episodes. And every story is better suited to one medium or the other. And when they're done well, both can be really engaging, entertaining and memorable.

Someday I'd love to see an animated show that feels like Disney or Pixar, but is stretched out over a season like "Game of Thrones". That way there'd be more time for character and to explore the avenues that we can't explore in those type of films right now.

Or do the Harry Potter thing. Whatever. Your move, Netflix.

A couple of posts ago I talked about how important it is to give your figures lifelike, natural poses and that you should avoid drawing figures straight up and down.

It's probably obvious, but the same thing applies when drawing four-legged animals. Animals aren't tables, and their legs rarely form a perfect square with their necks posed straight up-and-down (unless they're posing for a portrait, like this horse).


Looks stiff and unnatural, right? Also very uninteresting.

If you're drawing an animal that isn't sitting or lying down, look for ways to find variation in their leg positions to add interest and variety. Don't have all four legs straight and parallel to each other. Sometimes it's helpful to think of the leg positions by where they touch the ground.


Also, remember that the neck is a great opportunity to show character and expression when drawing animals. A neck that juts forward can indicate aggression, curiosity, determination, etc. A neck that's pulled back can indicate hesitation, surprise, fear, etc. A neck that droops can indicate weariness, exhaustion, etc.






I'm no animal expert, but it seems to me that most four-legged creatures have the same kind of trouble that we have when standing for long periods of time, and I've definitely seen dogs and horses that are standing around shift their weight in order to relieve tension in their shoulders and hips. I haven't spent a lot of time around horses but I've definitely seen them lift a hoof from time to time to (I assume) adjust their stance and alleviate tension on their joints (like in these two photos).



It's an interesting touch that can add character and specificity to what would otherwise be an average standing horse pose.

There are some exceptions, however. There are some animals that tend to have a solid, table-like stance most of the time: heavier animals, like cows, oxen and water buffaloes are so heavy that (I assume) they tend to keep their legs spread wide and keep a stance without a lot of variety or variation in leg position. I think they do this to accommodate their heavy frames and bulky bodies. It's hard to find a picture of a water buffalo that isn't squarely centered over four firmly planted legs.




Also, they don't have nearly as much variation in their neck poses as, say, a horse or a dog does. To draw a water buffalo with their neck pulled all the way back would look weird. It wouldn't look much like a water buffalo anymore, really.


So, more than anything, I suppose the takeaway from this post is to look for variety in poses when appropriate. When drawing an animal, do your research and figure out what kind of flexibility and variation of movement is typical for that type of animal. Also, let their personality dictate their range of movement and expression. One of the things that animation does better than any other medium is investing animals with personalities and character, and it's always a bit magical to see a well animated animal that retains the characteristics of an animal and yet has that sense of human personality that we all sense sometimes in the beasts around us.