Daniel Herrera
Phys123
Laws of Physics in Animation Universe
“Adventure is out there.” That is a
simple four-word sentence that has a much greater concept behind it. With every
adventure, comes a unique story to tell to the world. In the animation world,
the story is the heart of it all. Without a strong and appealing story, an
animated film simply could not succeed in the world of cinema. In school we are
constantly reminded that a strong story in animation must be able to convey
emotions to the audience, such as happiness, sadness or sorrow. However, in
order for a story to work in the world of animation, there are several rules,
concepts, and principles that must be followed in order to convey realism and
believability in a world full of imagination. One of those rules is following a
believable use of physics in the animation universe. Yes, there are laws of
physics that must be understood and studied when creating animations. Without
the knowledge and consideration of physics, the audience would be hit with a
red flag and automatically feel distracted and confused by the lack of
believability being projected on the screen. That being said, an artist has the
power to bend and push those laws of physics in order to convey a strong story
that has potential to leave a mark in the entertainment industry and create an
impact on people’s lives. In Pixar’s UP
film, by directors Bob Peterson and Pete Docter, a story is told about a
78-year-old salesman by the name of Carl Fredrickson that goes on the biggest
adventure of his lifetime, fulfilling his dream of flying his home to the South
American wilderness with thousands of balloons tied to his chimney. In order
for the animators to succeed in portraying the crazy, adventurous, and
emotional journey of Carl Fredrickson and a boy named Russell, some of the laws
of physics in the real world, including gravitational forces, path of actions,
and laws of speed and inertia were bent, broken and exaggerated in order to
push the story and create a fantasy adventure full of laughs, tears and
suspension.
First, I want to talk about one of
the laws of physics that was pushed and stretched throughout the film. That is
the use of unrealistic gravitational forces that can be found in certain
scenes. For example, in the opening scene when a construction company is
evicting the old man, Carl Fredrickson from his home, he decides to tie 20,000
helium balloons to the chimney in order for the home to fly away with him in
it. Such a fun and cool idea for an awesome floating house adventure, but unrealistic
and physically impossible to say the least. For one, the gravitational force
emitted from the balloons would not be strong enough to rip the house off from
the ground and detach it from the pipes as it is shown in the film. Secondly,
with that many balloons and tied and floating up above and centered on the
house’s roof, Carl’s home would loose balance and fall over instead of floating
in the air due to the lack of stability from not having balloons on the sides
of the house. In the real world, there would have to be a balanced force in
order to prevent the house from tipping over to the ground. In relation to the
house floating, the strings of the balloons were way too thin to have the
possible strength of giant monster carrying the house in the air. However, this
works because the general audience will not be too concerned about the physics
in this film’s universe and the possibility of houses flying with that many
balloons attached. Another scene that stood out to me in particular was when
Russell, the wilderness-exploring boy, is piloting the house and lands on top
of the missile-shaped plane. Russell, along with Carl, Kevin the bird, and Doug
the dog, all defy the rules of air resistance by moving around as if they were
in the ground. At that extreme height up in the air, they would not be able to
move around that easily as they make it seem in the movie. Due to air
resistance, they would move around at much slower speeds with that amount of
wind and air pressure in the sky. In my opinion, I definitely think the
animators could have improved that scene by adding weight and resistance to the
characters’ movements while in the air to add more believability. On the other
hand, there were scenes that did stick to physics that would exist in the real
world. For example, the scene where Carl wants to make his house float again in
order to chase Russell because he left on his own to rescue Kevin, whom was
kidnapped by Charles Muntz, the villain of the film. Fredrickson begins to
throw out all of his household objects such as furniture, suitcases, and other
things and the house takes off into the air once again. Due to minimal air
resistance and less weight from the empty house, Carl’s home is able to take
off and speed up into the air, which relates to the law of acceleration in
physics. It is also an exciting and very emotional scene for me because Carl
reflects on his past life with his wife Ellie that passed away, and how they
loved adventuring together. He decides to give Russell a chance and help him rescue
Kevin, which shows the sudden shift in Carl’s character and the change in moods
from sad and depressing to courageous and adventurous.
Next, UP uses a couple of path of actions and parabolic arcs that are
super exaggerated in comparison to real world physics. This is common in the
universe of animation because cartoons have to be pushed in order to
communicate well. One obvious parabolic arc that is extreme in order to carry
out the main story of Carl’s adventure is the path of action of in the distance
the house travels all the way to the South American wilderness. Just like any
ball bounce or any other object with a line or path of action, the trajectory
of a moving object will fall in a parabolic arc due to gravity. However, in
this film, the artists bend the laws of falling objects because all of sudden
the floating house becomes a flying object that almost falls at an infinite and
never-ending parabolic arc. Talk about pushing and exaggerating laws of physics
in the animation universe. It is obvious that this film would not be successful
without the use of exaggerated arcs because the constant floating motion of the
house is vital for this story to succeed. A second path of action that was
extremely exaggerated and pushed to the max was when Russell attempted to build
a tent in the wilderness with the old man, the tent swings out hundreds of feet
up in the air and too far away. I understand physics are bent and pushed for
entertainment purposes, but I feel like this scene is a red flag and lacks believability
in my opinion. Even with a lot of momentum and force, the tent would be too
heavy to travel such distance in with that incredible amount of velocity
portrayed in the film. A good example of an exaggerated path of action used in
the scene that actually follows the laws of physics in real life, is when Carl
and Russell carry the house on their backs with water hoses wrapped around
them, because it shows a path of action with a constant motion. This is
possible due to a concept in physics known as Buoyant Force. This force causes
the house to rise upwards, then the density of air and balloons decrease, and
in turn allow the weight of the house and the buoyant force to be the same and
balanced.
Finally, the laws of inertia and
speed were pushed beyond the limits but I think it definitely helped the film. One
example of this is shown in the opening scene when the house starts to fly away
with the thousands of balloons. As it is floating away and gaining speed, the
house runs into several objects such as minivans, antennas and other objects
along the way. In the movie, Carl’s home hits the objects and continues
traveling in very similar if not the same speed as it was traveling in before
it hit those objects. This defies Newton’s law of inertia and follow-through
because an object in motion will remain in a constant motion unless acted upon
an unbalanced force. Therefore, the house would have to slow down on impact
with other objects. A second example where laws of speed and gravity were not
followed too well in order to push the story was when Carl and Russell are
escaping Charles Muntz from the cave after rescuing Kevin the bird. As a couple
of balloons pop from the impact with the cave walls, Carl and Russell start to
run away and float like if they were astronauts walking on the moon. Obviously
this isn’t possible in the real world, but it is definitely entertaining and it
sells in my opinion. However, UP did
have scenes where laws of inertia and speed from the real world were actually
present. For example, when Russell is almost thrown over the cliff while being
chased by Charles’s dogs, there is enough acceleration and speed present to
show believability in the distance Russell travels hanging from a water hose.
This is also an example that shows good use of inertia and drag because Russell
drags perfectly behind the rest of the motion (house flying away).
In conclusion, the film UP bends and pushes physics existent in
real life in order to tell and push a story to the audience. I mentioned the
film’s use of good and bad examples of physics that were done intentionally by
the artists in order to illustrate a retired balloon salesman’s ultimate
adventure and journey to the Southern wilderness. From bending the laws of
gravitational forces, to exaggerating path of actions to the max, every little
detail was considered in making this film a hit. It is no shock that this
awesome film produced by Disney’s-Pixar received a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. From making me laugh when Russell attempts to
crawl on top of Carl Fredrickson’s head and completely failing, to secretly
weeping and getting a knot in my throat when the old man Carl has a flashback
on his past life with his wife Ellie. Laws of physics in the animation world
must be pushed and broken in order to convey strong stories that
can create an impact in the entertainment world as well as a film that can
possibly touch many people’s lives. “Adventure is out there,” so don’t be afraid
to go on life’s journeys yourself and tell your next story to those around you.
No comments:
Post a Comment