Zenzy lab: Animated Comic book case

Confluent Comic-book created by bully! Entertainment

Our team was asked to develop a short animated promo video for a comic book called “Confluent Chronicles” for bully! entertainment.

The assignment was the following:

• To develop a short 30 second promo teaser, using the materials in editable .psd files (and even a few coloured files), based on an existing example. We were also provided with a specific scene order and a specific number of scenes (15). The client also asked specifically for parallax effect during animation.

Ordinarily, when developing a standard animation video, the team needs to develop key visuals, the mood-board and the storyboard. Since we were working with a comic book source file, these steps could be fast-tracked. In itself, this assignment was an opportunity to work in a way that we never worked before. Here is an overview of how we handled the challenge.

Step 1. We decided to do a an animatic so that the client sees (1) the content of each shot, (2) the order of the shots, (3) the duration of each shot, and (4) the background music/score.

• We provided a slightly different shot-by-shot order, so as to increase the dynamic effect of the video and to improve story-telling. Our approach was to develop an arrangement so that any person can easily understand the setting, protagonist, antagonist and conflict. This is a structure commonly used in script-writing and movie-making.
• We used AudioJungle to identify a few soundtracks that would fit the theme and mood of the teaser. We were instructed to find something that was techno/electronic/upbeat similar to the Tron Movie score. We included the sample into the animatic with a sound stamp.
• We decided to try and develop a voice over, even if it was not specifically requested by the client. We looked at a few different examples of similar video teasers and two of the ones that we paid special attention to were the teaser for My Hero Academia (s4) and the trailer for the latest Spider Man: Across the Spider-verse movie. Based on these two examples, we asked Chat-GPT to provide a short V.O. script for a 30 second promo. We then used that structure in order to develop a very short script for our animatic. We placed the script on an AI voice generation platform and we generated a very simple draft V.O. for the animatic. This took no more than 1 hour.

Feedback loop 1.

• The client requested that we stick to the original shot-by-shot arrangement. Our proposal for story-telling improvement was not accepted. We remade the animatic according to the creative director’s choice of arrangement.
• The client requested a different score, and we chose a slightly different one based on their brief feedback.
• The client requested that we remove the V.O.

Step 2. We delivered an adjusted version of the animatic to the client and started to work towards recruiting the right team for the animation part of the process.

• We provided the adjusted animatic with a request to get feedback once more on (1) the content of each shot, (2) the order of the shots, (3) the duration of each shot, and (4) the background music/score. We submitted this for final approval so that we may move to the next step of production -the animation- which by our estimation should have lasted 4–5 days if we were to work on animating 2–3 frames per day.
• We organised a small test within our team of animators, for animating just one shot using parallax and layering. Out of the fifteen people in our animation team, only 8 were selected to participate in this test and the scope of the test was to animated a single shot (the same one), as best one can, during 1 hour. We rated each of their final output at the end of the day and at that stage we had a better understanding of their compatibility with the assignment. Two of them were very good at creating animation and another two were very good at layering. In the end we worked with four different people that were assigned micro-roles. Ideally we would have included one more person on photoshopping and one more on (re)colouring. At this stage already, we started to plan a second test for getting at least two more people to help us with frame-by-frame animation.

Feedback loop 2.

• The client requested a new shot order. Ideally we would have had more time to work on better transitions and this could only be achieved if we had an early green light on the final order. Either way, we found a way to compensate for this.
• The client rejected the second soundtrack provided and gave us a specific soundtrack that we should use.
• We took note of all the feedback and made a promise to deliver the first draft of the animated video in two days. Once we got a green(ish) light on the animatic, we could finally give the assignment to the animators in our team.

At this stage, we had two supervisors working on the assignment (Mihai & Serge), one project manager (Maria), one junior director (Lidi-Ana) and four (4) animators. In total, a team of 8 people worked on the assignment and we had two (2) more frame-by-frame artists on the bench waiting for the call to get to work.

Step 3. We proceeded to animation of the each shot.

• Our junior director developed a plan for animation for each individual shot which means that she decided what should be in motion in each of the frames (i.e., hair moves, arms move, etc.). Serge supervised her work and after a few back-forths, we had our first animation script.
• Our project manager broke down the script into tasks, and assigned each of them to a specific member of our production team (x does layering, y does animation parallax effects, z does integration and final collage, w does transitions, etc.)
• The project manager, together with the two supervisors, checked the quality of each individual output. We had a system for real-time tracking of our production team. Every eyebrow move, was in our sight, so to say. We planned to apply at least four different types of animation: (1) cutout, (2) parallax, (3) infinite fly, and (4) frame-by-frame. In the end we used only two of them, due to lack of time. We focused on the needs and requests/feedback of the client. We could not afford to take any additional creative risks so as to not move outside the scope of the technical brief.
• After one and a half day, we had our first draft montage with basic transitions and music.

Feedback loop 3.

• We got feedback on certain animation elements, frames, character movements and we took note of them all. Our project manager had an excel sheet with ALL feedback provided by the client (and all of their representatives) from day 1. Within our team we decided the hierarchy of the client’s representatives so as to resolve conflicts in feedback. The basic rule was that more recent feedback takes priority over older feedback and that feedback from a more senior person takes priority over feedback from a person with less seniority.

Step 4. We adjusted the animated teaser draft based on the feedback

• We submitted a second draft of the animated teaser to the client by the deadline.

Feedback loop 4.

• We got feedback from the client and we were told that there was a deadline extension. We were asked to do a draft 3 of the animated teaser and deliver it in one working day.
• Since there were no objection on the animation, and no specific requests for more complex animation, our two animators that were prepared to do frame-by-frame animation were not called in to contribute to the project.

Step 5. We adjusted the animated teaser draft based on the feedback

• We submitted a third draft of the animated teaser to the client by the new deadline. Find here the final output:

Note: After our final submission, the client’s creative director added some creative tweaks to the product. Most of these were focused on 1–2 transitions.

Final note. We are proud of this final output and it will gladly find its way on our great projects shelf!