http://www.evernote.com/pub/hoggworks/PuppetPhotoRef/

Speaking as a puppeteer, I love the fact that the bed spins. And when Kermit hides under the covers? It’s done so naturally, but, man alive, that must’ve been an awkward move for Henson.

And this is how he was built:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/inelegant/sets/72157605759679230/

This is the design. Click on it to see the photos of the build process in Flickr:

Not to turn this blog into a lesser rehash of drawn.ca, but they were kind of enough to point to the very swanky-looking art book for the upcoming Pixar movie Wall-E. The Art of Wall-E has a ton of production sketches, concept art, and the like. I consider this relevant to Hoggworks because it’s all about character design, and that’s very important when you’re creating any kind of character, from a physical item such as a figure, sculpture, or a puppet, to cartoons, CG characters, or anything else.

The book looks really nice, and in my admittedly limited experience reading “Art of” books (something I should rectify) the concept designs frequently posess an energy that the final products seem to lack (I’m looking at you, Star Wars).

The reason I’m mentioning this at all right now is because this new puppet is based on an existing person. More than that, it’s based on an incredible famous and well-known person (even moreso than Stephen Colbert). As such, I’m working off an existing visual, which is to say, this person’s actual appearance. Which is to say … I’m making a caricature of him. Now, in some ways, many of the dotBoom puppets, based loosely on real people (who have largely forgiven me), were all caricatures, but that seems like a bit of a stretch, to be honest. And with the Stephen Colbert puppet, there was the attempt to make it look very much like Colbert, and despite the fact that you need to caricature because you need to pick out and exaggerate the key features so that it makes the resemblance between puppet and person completely obvious, it was and it is a very good-natured endeavor.

This new puppet, though? It’s a shot across the bow. It’s a project I’m doing with a friend of mine, and while some other people he talks about, and some other people we nearly lampooned, are people that he and I like, I have no personal feelings toward this person, and my friend somewhat actively dislikes him. There are apparently good reasons for this, but I’ve never put that much thought into it. Now, before anyone wonders or worries: no, this isn’t a simple attack piece. I’d never do this. There’s a good angle on what we’re doing, and, as with most of the stuff I do, it’s funny. It’ll be a good gag, simple as that. When it’s done I think it’ll be pretty great — my friend’s writing the script, and he’s very funny,  and I’ll be doing the puppet-building and puppetry, with the possible help of my friend Nicholas Lemon — so there’s no worry to be had about my suddenly going all-attack, and no-wit.

Back to the caricature: I spent a chunk of yesterday working on the design for this new puppet, figuring out the physical elements to highlight and accentuate, and what aspects of the puppet’s caricature they would be representative of. I think I’ve got a good design done, which will look like the person it’s supposed to, and also be exaggerated in all the right ways. If the build goes as planned (assuming nothing falls through) I should be starting on it tomorrow afternoon, and in theory I should have photos of the design and puppet progress up in the next few days.

Part of the reason I mentioned this at all, aside from a desire to update this blog more frequently, and get back to that “pulling back the curtain” kind of thing, is because I came across this very cool designer’s site (via drawn.ca), and I wanted to pass along the link. His name is Kyle T. Webster, and his work is great. He does some nice logo work, and illustration, but I mention him here because he does dynamite caricature work. You should definitely check him out.

Next to doing concept sketches for the designs of the ships and aliens on Battlestar Galactica 1978, Ralph McQuarrie was also asked to paint 24 color images to be used on the first script of the pilot “Saga of a Star World”. This script (of which only 50 were printed) was written to convince the studios to pick up this costly project and the illustrations helped to explain and visualize the story. This gallery shows, for the first time, a complete set of those 24 color images.

Say what you will about the original Galactica — I, for example, will say it was a hideously awful show, with poor writing and poor performances across the board — McQuarrie’s a great designer. And having seen the original Galactica movie fairly recently, I have to say how impressed I am at how faithfully they recreated those painted moments on the screen; top notch work, even if there wasn’t the script to back it up.

Check out all of the concept art by going here.

(I should point out that for all its faults, if not for the original Galactica there wouldn’t be the current version, and as much as I loathe the original, I love the reimagining, and so have to give the original some credit for being a great idea, however poorly executed. And, hey, if it had been wonderfully executed, the re-imagining wouldn’t have been necessary. So, thanks for sucking, original Battlestar Galactica!)

The trial lets you make a creature using the game’s super-easy and intuitive 3D interface, and the results you can get out of it are quite striking visually, and also very complex. It looks pretty cool.

I’ve heard a number of puppeteers talking about using the Creature Creator as a pre-viz environment, to quickly get a sense of what their puppets will look like in 3D. I suppose you could use them for that, but I’m going to be the curmudgeon and suggest that won’t catch on. Is the interface powerful? Yes. Is it easy to use? Yes. So why don’t I think it’ll work? Well, aside from the fact that you’re only creating lizard-skinned creatures, without (so far as I’ve seen) the ability to add feathers, fur, or anything else, it comes down to character: the game engine will automatically animate the creatures you design, and while it’s amazing and technologically fantastic — the programming skills to make an engine that can dynamically manipulate, with skill and accuracy, creatures with a variable number of limbs is insane –  I don’t want the game to tell me how my new creature moves. That’s the puppeteer’s jobs, and one of the most fun parts of the process of building a puppet: you put it on for the first time, and you figure out exactly how the character operates, how he moves, how he talks, how he laughs, all of that.

It might be more accurate to say that I don’t think I’ll use it for puppet pre-viz, not that most people won’t.

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for the game as puppet-design tool, I’m quite excited to play it, and I recommend everybody check it out.

You can download the Creature Creator Trial at: http://www.spore.com/trial

Which means, of course, that the framework works! I’m pretty excited about that. As I may have mentioned before, I was worried that it would fall apart. But it didn’t, thankfully, and everything’s good. It looks pretty shiny, too.

Having the set up at the proper height leads to additional problems, though: getting the camera up there. Longer-term plans include some kind of fancy handheld rig, but for the moment, I’m going very lo-fi, and repurposing a small rolling cabinet I have, and a sheet of plywood to create and elevated dolly. I have plans somewhere for a more sophisticated one, but this is a good first step:

This is one of the days where the studio space looks more and more like an actual puppet studio. Which is nice.

http://thewippets.blogspot.com/

No video of him yet, but he’s being used in rehearsals, and they’re sussing out his character. He’s in pretty good company.

Phase one of the new set for Ask Palpatine is nearly complete. It’s not quite as polished as I’d have liked, but I think it’ll do nicely, and photograph well (especially on the web-sized resolutions we’re pumping it out as). Today’s got me a bit nervous, because as I finish the set, the next step is to hang it, and this’ll be the first big test of my extensible set-design system.

So, basically, it’ll either work amazingly well, or my next post will feature a photo of the collapsed and broken set framework.

This is what the set looks like currently:

Future plans include building a chair for Palpatine to sit on — an Emperor needs his throne — and building two Imperial guards to stand watch over him.

http://puppetchallenge.hoggworks.com/

What does it matter, in other words, if your Youtube-featured video gets 100,000 views? Are those views gained because people are liking your content, or because it’s what’s in front of them, and they’re essentially channel surfing?

The goal of this potential metric would be to measure the popularity or stickiness of the person or group making the videos. Because I want to be able to compare my limited popularity to your massive popularity.

Now, I realize I’m saying nothing particularly new or insightful. To make up for that, though, I’d like to present a new metric. This is rough, and I’d like to get feedback on it, to make it better, or to let me know that it’s a silly idea.

The metric is this:

Video Views (Total) / Number of Videos / Number of Subscribers = Views Per Subscriber

Allow me to explain the logic. Dividing the total video views by the number of videos will get you an average number of views per video that you put out. This strikes me as a useful abstraction to compensate for the growth or decline in your traffic/audience over time. You need, I think, to “stabilize” the number.

Please note, I’m not a statistician, but rather a puppeteer, who spends a good chunk of his day with his hand up a fictional character’s butt. I may be continuing this trend right now.

Once you have your average, you divide it by the number of subscribers. The reason I do this is because I have noticed that I’m getting a number of views on each video I put out that is consistently higher than any of the standard metrics (such as feedburner). By those counts, I ought to only be getting a fraction of the views that I am. The reason for those extra views? People happening upon my content, by whatever method, and giving it a try. Some will stick around and become a subscriber, while most won’t. In theory, my numbers should not only be going up but be going up faster, as more people subscribe, and more opportunities are existed for people to happen upon the content (assuming that fans mention the content). My question is: should this drift between subscribers and views be large, or small? Which is the good metric? I believe that a lower Views Per Subscriber (VPS) is better, in that it suggests to me that more of the people who are being shown your content are sticking around. This may be the most obvious thing in the world to say, but if I have X subscribers and Y views, it’s better for the life of my content if an increase to Y*2 views is met with a X*2 increase in subscribers. Otherwise, the new people being shown your content are sticking around. Or they are sticking around for a while, and simply replacing other fans who have jumped ship (which would potentially explain any flatlining in subscribers).

To put in a real-world example, I’ll use my current Youtube numbers. They aren’t amazing, by any stretch, but here they are:

800,000 views

90 videos

704 subscribers

This brings me to a VPS of 12.62 (800,000/90/704).

I think that the better number is one closer to 1 (every view is brought in by a subscriber; with each new potential viewer being shown your content becoming a subscriber), but I’d love to hear what you think. My reasoning for favoring a golf-style scoring system can be explained thusly:

Suppose that over the course of adding 5 new videos, my views per video average increases from 8888 to an even 20,000. Without an increase in subscribers, that would mean that my VPS would be:

900,000 / 95 / 704 = 13.45

My VPS is higher, and the stickiness of my content is shown to be less. Suppose, on the other hand, that as part of that growth I brought in, say, 300 subscribers:

900,000 / 95 / 1004 = 9.435

There are obvious downsides to this approach, of course. I could put up a single video, get 1 view and 1 subscriber, and have a VPS of 1. Is that a bad thing, though? If you have ten subscribers, and you only have ten views of each of your videos, are you performing poorly, or have you saturated an extremely small market?

Maybe a better piece of math is to simply divide the number of subscribers by the number of videos you’ve released? In that case, the higher number would be better (and my own would be 7.4).

What do you think about the need for a new metric? Which approach do you think makes more sense?

What would your VPS be?

To that end, our demo reel won’t be a series of clips from our earlier work. It will, in true obsessive fashion, be an entirely new creation, featuring our most technically complicated work. Our plan is bold and ambitious, and will doubtless require a substantial lack of sleep for a good number of months.

The rough outline of the reel is made, and we have, now, a decent idea of what setpieces will be featured, and how many new puppets will need be created.

Our current count for new puppets is 106.

This guy’s being made for another client. He’s coming together well, I thinki. He just needs a body.

\n

Powered by Qumana

\n

Neat stuff, and there’s more to be added in the next little while.

Behold, the awesome conclusion of my conversation with Nick!

http://www.askpalpatine.com/2008/01/24/is-tom-cruise-a-sith-lord/

The reticulated foam is the high-quality kind, the stuff that’s better for sculpting, and holds shape and colour well enough to be used as a skin for a puppet, without needing to put fleece on top. I’m going to be using it in the creation of both the Stephen Colbert and Steve Jobs puppets, and it will be my first time using this particular kind of fleece.

When you’re younger, and you imagine what your life will be like, at no point did I imagine I’d be so excited waiting for a shipment of foam to come in. Or, frankly, that I’d be ordering such a shipment.

(That’s not a complaint, mind you, just an observation)

http://www.figurenschneider.de/

It’s work like this and Thistledown that’s at a level that I want to achieve at Hoggworks. Such creative and technically wonderful work. Bravo.

Check it:  http://www.askpalpatine.com/2008/01/10/ask-palpatine-3-jedi-romance-tips/

Nick and I talk about the writing of dotBoom 1, where it failed, and how it can be better for season 2.

Check it out: http://www.askpalpatine.com/

Thoughts?

This is the second part (now of 3) in the look at the elements of the production that we’re going to improve.

This is the first design sketch of the Colbert puppet concept #2:

In which I discuss “The Stephen Colbert Puppet Challenge.”

They tell me the book is due in stores April 3 (or 8th). It occurs to me how soon that is. It’s a little unnerving.

I’m hoping to find some time to work on it this evening, though. We shall see.

Check out Thistledown Puppets!

 http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=IchyqA7pYZQ

(There’s no reason for the link other than that it’s cool)

As part of the insane ramp-up to not only a dotBoom 2.0, but the couple other shows that we have in the works, we’re looking for more people to help out with the production of the show. If you’re in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, or can get yourself here somewhat reliably, and are interested in helping fill out any of these roles:

• Camera Operator (x2) - Helping make the show look pretty.
• Production Assistant - Helping set up shots and the like.
• Script Assistant - Helping make sure that everything gets filmed, continuity is preserved, and the like.
• Puppeteer - We’re looking for a couple more. Are you good?
• Puppet Builder - I’ve got the super-big plans, and the more people to help, the better. Are you good at building puppets?
• Wardrobe - Do you like to sew? Want to help Maddy build outfits for the puppets?
• Audio - Someone to help administer the recording, make sure the levels are right, and sounds as good as it can.
• Video Editor(s) - Do you like editing? Want to help make a more visually interesting dotBoom?

We’d love to hear from you. The production won’t start until the beginning of 2008, but I figure I’d start asking now. The time involvement varies, but it’ll be whatever you’re able to help out with. Also, unfortunately, this is an unpaid gig; there’s the slim chance of something later on, but for all practical purposes this is volunteer.

I should say that what these positions lack in money, they make up in fun: it’s a puppet show, you know? It’s fun. And also you’ll be working on something that a lot of people will be seeing, which is cool.

Also, food will be provided. Because everybody needs to eat.

If you’re interested, either respond to this post, or e-mail me at brian@hoggworks.com. Thanks!

Check it out.

The plan is to create dotBoom 2.0, to make it significantly bigger and better than the first season, and to do so while also making a handful of other shows at the same time, in our spare time, with no money.

This first episode is something of a mission statement.

The answer can be as realistic or as pie-in-the-sky as you please.

(I am of course referring to dotBoom.)

Powered by Qumana

These are some quickie Google-sketchup images of the reusable set structure I’m thinking of for dotBoom 2.0, and all other shows I’m planning. There are details missing from this (doors and windows), and I have to adjust the designs to accommodate any other specific needs of the other shows (which I still have to figure out), but this is the overview: a series of 2-foot segments, each 9-10 feet tall, with a five foot set area, each segment to be re-arranged based on the look of the given set, with the visual elements clamped on top, removable and re-usable.

Modular. Extensible. Excellent.

And so far, I don’t see the Big Problem that will keep it from working. Hopefully there isn’t one.