Fish science in "Finding Nemo"

used to be jwoodget · Feb 19th, 2004, 11:42 AM

There's an interesting article on remarkable accuracy portrayed in "Finding Nemo" that I think was a significant factor in its success and reflects the increasing realism in animated movies.

It's in Nature which you need a subscription to. I've excerpted some parts.

Allison Abbot. Nature 427, 672 - 673 (19 February 2004)

"Last year's movie smash Finding Nemo impressed many marine biologists with its scientific accuracy. Alison Abbott meets the young expert in fish biomechanics who helped to breathe life into the film's stars. Adam Summers doesn't own a television. And he had never seen an animated movie until a chance encounter propelled him into the studios of Pixar, as scientific adviser on the company's film, Finding Nemo.

In early 2000, Summers was beginning a postdoc in fish biomechanics at the University of California, Berkeley. He rented an apartment owned by a woman who was an art teacher at Pixar.

The film-makers devoured his words like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Summers told them about fish locomotion, behaviour, physiology and coloration. "It was the most engaged class I've ever taught," he says. "I could only get out two or three sentences before a hand would shoot up — and it was graduate-level stuff."

He organized some 20 lectures on subjects ranging from swimming mechanics to the social behaviour of fish. Some of the topics he suggested himself; others were requested by Pixar employees.

"In every movie, you need as much research as possible: for every fact you use, you have ten more you need to know about," says Stanton. "We had to traverse a whole ocean in the movie, so we needed a lot of knowledge."

Light quality is immensely important for animators, particularly the 'shaders' who have to worry about how light is reflected from surfaces. So they wanted to know, in huge detail, how fish scales reflect light. Summers brought in a selection of different fish and some microscopes, set up trestle tables and launched into a practical dissecting class to explain how the optical properties of fish scales can give rise to 'structural' colours. In another lab, his pupils dissected fish heads to understand the limits of jaw movement.

Head shader Robin Cooper took her research to extremes. It was a long swim to Sydney, so Marlin was helped on the last leg of his journey by a passing whale, who swept him into his vast mouth; later the fish was expelled through the whale's blow hole into the city's harbour. Cooper told Summers that she needed first-hand experience of the texture of the inside of a whale.

Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, where Summers was working, is always alerted when creatures wash up from the sea. So he was able to take Cooper to look inside a newly beached dead grey whale, which had appeared on the shore near Marin, north of San Francisco Bay. Venturing her camera-bearing arm through the whale's blowhole, its mouth, and even bits of its rotting flesh, Cooper took scores of digital shots. The experience gave her a perfect feel for the reflective properties of the inside of a whale. "But she ended up quite smelly," Summers recalls.

"I'm just amazed at how rigorous these people were," says Summers. One detail involved a female anglerfish whose fluorescent 'lure' — a protuberance extending from its dorsal fin used to attract prey — was used by Marlin to help him find the goggles of Nemo's abductor in the murky depths. As described in Summers' initial lecture, she has a parasitic male clamped onto her body, just above her anal fin.

After one talk, Summers recalls, when Nemo was well along the production road, the director asked him and his guest lecturer, Mike Graham of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories on Monterey Bay, California, if there was one thing that the film might get wrong that would really disturb them.

Quick as a flash, Graham said the most intolerable outrage would be to see kelp — a type of seaweed that grows only in cold waters — depicted in a coral reef. There was an uncomfortable shuffling in the audience. Then a voice from the back called out: "Better not go see the movie, then." But if you check out your video or DVD, you'll see that there is no kelp. After Graham raised his objection, every frond was carefully removed from each scene, at considerable cost.

Sometimes, though, it was not possible for the film-makers to be true to the science and keep the story moving. Take Marlin's expulsion into Sydney Harbour. In fact, there is no connection between a whale's mouth and its blowhole. But Nemo's father had to get out into the harbour somehow, and whales can't spit. So in order to drive the plot, Stanton decided to defy nature.

Indeed, so concerned were the film-makers about accuracy that Summers remained in hot demand throughout the production process. And although he won't be at the Oscar ceremony, he has been rewarded with a morsel of immortality. Right at the end of the film's long list of credits, below the voices, the technical directors and the caterers, comes: "Adam Summers — Fabulous Fish Guy."

MannyP Design · Feb 19th, 2004, 12:52 PM

It goes to show what John Lasseter said on the DVD: "Research, research, research!"

Thanks for sharing.

Moscool · Feb 19th, 2004, 12:56 PM

Nice change from alleged practices at Disney, don't you think? Great story!

Dr.G. · Feb 19th, 2004, 01:01 PM

We should send a copy of Finding Nemo to Maxpower, in that it is a fine primer on fatherhood.

Chealion · Feb 19th, 2004, 08:58 PM

Moscool - Technically Disney had nothing to do with that at all. All Disney was in charge of was promotion and distribution if I recall correctly. Everything else was handled by Pixar.

MannyP Design · Feb 19th, 2004, 09:29 PM

Correct Chealion,
Disney had no more to do with Finding Nemo than a newstand would do with publishing a magazine or newspaper. They basically marketed and distributed the film under the Mouse's ears and reaped a good portion of the awards. Doesn't seem fair considering the financial loss (or potential thereof) is significantly less than that of making said movie.

Word has it that everyone from the WB to Marvel Entertainment are courting Jobs & Co. — if Marvel got into Pixar's toolbox, well, I'd pretty much squeal.

I've always been of the opinion that comic book movies belong in CGI and not live-action, it would solve a lot of problems including having to find an actor that could look the part. (Longing for the ultimate Superman & Batman movie).

MacDoc · Feb 19th, 2004, 10:58 PM

Yet Spiderman worked in my opinion and X-Men seemed to come off okay whereas the Spirit Within despite the good looking characters did not .
I think the mix of live and CG ( tho not like League of Gentleman [img]graemlins/ptptptptptpt.gif[/img] ) is best.
Some of the Batman stuff worked well too.
There is something a good actor brings to the table.
So far I think we have
top notch animation with known voices ( Shrek - Nemo )
some reasonbly live/CG mix with known actors as noted above

We have yet to see a CD world that complete bridges the gap. Even the dinosaur stuff from Discovery still has awkward bits.
Can you imagine trying to do Gollum level CG entirely without mixing in live.

Anyway I for one am glad the free spirited Pixar is loose from the Eisner's right wing America garbage.
The power of Pixar to express other visions needs to be kept free.

talonracer · Feb 20th, 2004, 12:20 PM

There's something to be said for seeing your favorite characters portrayed by a real person. While at first I thought Hugh Jackman was _totally_ no Wolverine, I was sold less than a quarter of the way into X-Men 1.

And on the other side of the budgetary spectrum, I recently got totally hooked watching Captain America on Space.. bad costumes, writing, you name it.. but still, I watched the whole thing after I stumbled upon it.

I think CGI is a great tool for adding to the story, but you can't replace a real person.