Turns out the Zoozoos weren't animated after all. Nirvana was still behind the production... but pretty crazy the process. I'm just copy-pasting part of the afaqs! story here. This is the bit that talks about the creation of the Zoozoos.
Making of the Zoozoo
No, they aren’t animated characters. They are human beings who were made to wear body suits. “The design of the characters is such that one gets fooled into thinking it is animation,” shrugs Rao, which was indeed the very illusion that had to be created. “In a sense, it is ‘live’ animation!” he quips, referring to the fact that it was all shot live.
 |
Prakash Varma, ad filmmaker, Nirvana Films, has directed the commercials, and reveals that the Zoozoos were a big challenge to create. The practical aspects of how they will move, talk, gesticulate and emote were very important. Essentially, costume design and artwork were crucial elements.
“It took me three weeks of pre-production to understand how it will work,” says Varma. There were two fabrics that were considered for the body suits, and one was rejected for it had too many wrinkles and was shiny. The wrinkles would have shown when the characters moved, thereby shattering the illusion of animation. “So we chose the more practical, thicker fabric,” Varma explains.
The production team divided the outfit into two parts: the body and the head. The body part of the outfit was stuffed with foam in some places, while the head was attached separately. To make it look bigger than a human head, a harder material called Perspex was used, which in turn was stuffed with foam (with scope for ventilation).
 |
 |
If one wishes to understand the size of this head, here’s a fact: a human head would typically reach up to the mouth level of this giant Zoozoo head. “We kept the hands and legs thin, which is why we cast women – and occasionally children – wearing the costumes,” says Varma. The thin limbs, contrasted with big bellies and a bulbous head, all add to the illusion that these creatures are ‘smaller’ than humans. Sets were created to suit the size of the Zoozoos.
Cinematically, this ‘size’ was a trick: the creatures look smaller than they actually are on screen, to portray a different world of sorts. For this, the speed of shooting was altered: Nirvana shot it in a high-speed format to make them look the size that they do.
Furthermore, simple sets/backdrops were created and spray painted with neutral Greys – a colour of choice so that attention isn’t diverted from the main characters. For a supposedly ‘outdoor’ shot, even the shadow of a Zoozoo was kept ‘live’ and not done in post production: it was painted in a darker shade of grey on the ground. An even lighting was maintained throughout.
There was virtually no post production work done.
The films were shot by Nirvana in Cape Town, South Africa, with the help of a local production house there, called Platypus. Incidentally, the same combination of people also worked on the ‘Happy to Help’ series last year. When asked whether Cape Town is fast becoming a tourist spot for Vodafone and Nirvana, Varma laughs, saying, “Oh no! It’s just that we are very comfortable with the team there and know what sort of work to expect from them.”
Nagpal adds here that the production cost had to be minimal for unveiling such a large number of commercials. “Otherwise, our production costs would exceed media spends,” he quips.
I also checked out the microsite and I'm apparently a Busy Zoozoo. (Yeah, I really needed Vodafone to tell me that) Not a very wow microsite but they seem to have a pretty good fan following on Youtube and Facebook. Look it up if you really care.
4 comments:
From the way people have been talking and things are going, doesn't it seem that the Zoozoos are going the 'pug' way?
The reason why the pug was replaced was because it became a bigger 'brand' than Vodafone itself (Which was clearly reflected in the pug sales after the ads were shown)
Yeah. Vodafone's kinda been known to set templates for itself, which has both its pros and cons. On one hand, putting your brand into a neat little box gives it a very clear definition - like this is who we are - and people start recognizing the brand within the confines of the said box. Vodafone's been accused of doing this a lot, but a lot of other brands also actually do just this. Idea's doing it, Mastercard's doing it (internationally and for years!). It's just that Vodafone's advertising is almost always so strong that people sit up and talk about it, and it just doesn't go unnoticed.
However, if something does go wrong or the brand decides to go in for a change for some reason,it can take some time for people to get used to it. This is especially the case when the previous set of ads were loved. Hutch/Vodafone pug is case in point. It's really just like getting it a new haircut. Sometimes even if the new look is more becoming of you, people just liked you the way you were. But that really doesn't mean the new look won't eventually grow onto them.
So I guess the trick here is just to make the templates that work for your brand but also in bringing about a change fast enough. I would say Vodafone has a much larger territory to parade within than Mastercard which I can't imagine stepping beyond "There are some things money can't buy..."
Even then vodafone does seem to have done a lot of (to use a bad phrase) disparate looking advertising, they had the 'ab sabko batao', they had the tp at 10p, they also had these quite odd looking banners outside mobile shops with characters that looked like they were from a 2d video game.
I am not sure what everyone else thought of it but i saw it as a bit confusing and quite loose.
The name in the red box has begun looking like a saving grace for consistency.
I actually liked the "TP@10P" and "Ab Sabko Batao" ads. And I think the bit about consistency goes to cover the entire tone and feel of an ad. You almost know an ad is a Vodafone ad even when you're watching it for the first time.
To each his own, I suppose.
Post a Comment