(criticschoice.com - blogs.indiewire.com)
The Hollywood Film Festival has lassoed “Rango.”
Organizers for the 15th annual event announced Tuesday that director Gore Verbinski’s animated Western will receive this year’s Hollywood Animation Award Oct. 24 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel. The festival is deployed by many Oscar campaigners as a promotional event on the road to the Oscars.
The film stars the voice of Johnny Depp as Rango — a chameleon whose wayward path leads him to the town of Dirt, where he leads its lizards and other creature residents to believe he’s a dangerous gunslinger. But after he’s appointed sheriff of Dirt, Rango faces an identity crisis when some fearsome outlaws roll in.
“It is a great pleasure to recognize ‘Rango’ as the recipient of our animation award,” said Carlos de Abreu, founder and executive director of the festival in a statement. ”This piece of cinematic treasure borders on surrealism and ‘Rango’ will be a classic for generations to come.”
The Paramount film also features the voices of Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina and Bill Nighy. Unlike most animated films, all of the actors were present on set to record their dialogue and act out their scenes.
Four of the previous five Hollywood Animation Award recipients from Pixar took home the Best Animated Feature Oscar: Toy Story 3, Up, WALL·E, and Ratatouille. Cars, as we know, lost to Happy Feet, which makes for an interesting irony with Cars 2 now competing against Happy Feet2 (Nov. 18).
Still, it’s an extremely wide open field this year. Also contending are Blue Sky’s Rio, DreamWorks’s Kung Fu Panda 2, Disney’s Winnie the Pooh, which will be joined this holiday season by DreamWorks’s Puss in Boots (Nov. 4), Aardman/Sony’s Arthur Christmas(Nov. 23), and Steven Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin (Dec. 23). Yes, the performance-captured adventure from Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital should qualify, since it definitely utilizes the necessary frame-by-frame animation technique now specified by the Academy.
Layoffs At Disney Interactive Studios
(gamasutra.com)Disney Interactive Studios laid off a number of employees last week from its Salt Lake City, Utah-based Avalanche studio, developer of Cars 2: The Video Game, Gamasutra can confirm.
Approximately 15-20 people were let go from the studio on September 1. The developer also developed the movie tie-in title Toy Story 3, according to a laid-off worker who requested anonymity.
A Disney rep confirmed the layoffs in a statement: "Avalanche Software has completed a restructuring that resulted in the reduction of a small number of positions."
The layoffs are just the latest at Disney Interactive Studios, as its parent company changes focus from console-based retail games to online and social titles. Reports earlier this year stated that a significant amount of employees within Disney Interactive were let go.
Gamasutra's source estimated the number of remaining Avalanche employees to be around 170, and stated that "budget issues" were to blame. "Disney has been on the losing end for a while, supposedly," the source said.
Disney acquired Avalanche in May 2005. The studio was founded in 1995, merging with Disney's Fall Line team in 2009. Avalanche has developed games based on Disney IP including Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Hannah Montana Spotlight World Tour and Bolt.
"The Hobbit" Resumes NZ Shoot - Cameron Books Tech Visit
(Stuff.co.nz) Sir Peter Jackson’s movie The Hobbit is set to be filmed in Nelson at the end of this year, with hundreds of crew members expected to stay in the region.
Local moteliers have been contacted by the film’s production company, 3 Foot 7, which is looking for accommodation for about 400 to 500 people in November and December.
Motel Association of New Zealand Nelson’s John Gilbertson, who owns Arrow Motels on Golf Rd, confirmed some of the association’s members were holding rooms for such a group.
Filming for the anticipated two-part movie resumed last week and will continue until December.
According to the New Zealand Herald James Cameron will be paying a visit to the set of The Hobbit this month.
Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg decided to make The Adventures of Tintin after playing around with the motion capture technology on the set of Avatar, so Cameron may be checking out some new technology in action in preparation for the shooting of Avatar 2 and 3 next year.
Beetlejuice Sequel Finally Happening
(Deadline) A long-awaited Beetlejuice sequel may finally be moving forward, Deadline reports. Writer/producer pair David Katzenberg and Seth Grahame-Smith have just signed a two-year first look contract with Warner Bros. and among their first projects is a follow-up to the 1988 film.
Directed by Tim Burton, the original starred Michael Keaton as the titular Beetlejuice, a "bio-exorcist" (a ghost who removes humans), who is unwittingly employed by a newly-deceased couple (played by Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis) to frighten away the family that has just moved into their would-be home. Winona Ryder starred as the daughter of the family in her breakout role.
While the original film spawned a lesser-known animated series, a sequel was planned in the early '90s with the title Beetlejuice Goes Hawaiian. Burton had planned to return as director, but the project failed to develop beyond an initial screenplay. It is currently unknown whether or not Katzenberg and Grahame-Smith's upcoming script will have any crossover with that original concept.
Grahame-Smith is one of the writers on Burton's upcoming Dark Shadows and, while there's no confirmation yet as to whether Burton (or Keaton) might be involved with the sequel, it is stated that the film is planned as a continuation of the original and not as a reboot.
'The Thing' Mixes Practical and Post VFX For 'Terrifying And Disgusting' Moment
(mtv.com) It's a horror-movie question almost 30 years in the making: What the hell happened to the Norwegian researchers discovered toward the beginning of the 1982 John Carpenter cult fave "The Thing"?
Kurt Russell and his crew do end up stumbling into some terrifying answers, but Carpenter's flick concentrates on the alien horrors the Americans endure. The 2011 fall movie season, however, is set to uncover what really happened before Russell touched down in the Antarctic, as director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. delivers a prequel story, also called "The Thing," to theaters on October 14.
We sat down for a chat with star Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who plays a young researcher confronting the extraterrestrial danger.
MTV: Carpenter's movie really was horrifying and just gross. Really gross. Are you guys taking the same angle?
Winstead: The "assimilation scenes" are definitely terrifying and disgusting and just creepy as hell. There's one in particular that stands out to me that's just horrific. I can't really describe it in too much detail because I don't wanna give anything away. It just blows your mind. Just seeing it being filmed, because we have a lot of practical effects stuff there, which is great and kind of seeing the beginning of it on set was terrifying in itself and disgusting. They just took it to a whole new level, the stuff they added in postproduction.
MTV: We get a glimpse of the creature in the trailer. Because it's a prequel, do you guys have to stay very true to the first one or do you have room to play?
Winstead: I think they definitely kept the John Carpenter version in mind when it came to the creature design. Definitely it is still that same world, but there is a somewhat new look to it and somewhat different take on it. It's sort of the 2011 version, but still with that spirit of practical effects. It certainly doesn't look exactly like the John Carpenter version. As awesome as those effects are, they are out of a certain period. And when you see that, you can kind of tell like, "Oh, those are really awesome '80s effects." So you can't really go exactly for that. You have to bring a little of the modern element in to it too, but hopefully keeping that real tangible quality the '80s effects had as well.
Harry Potter and Transformers Win The Box Office
(screencrave.com)Summer officially ends this weekend as Labor Day signals that kids are going back to school, and that temperatures will begin dropping. This was a big summer for movies, with Harry Potter 7.2, Transformers 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean 4 making more than a billion dollars worldwide. Much of the big money titles were franchise starters or sequels, but there were a few surprises.
Check out the top ten (sorta) list… Worldwide Totals Quoted
1 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 $1,295,555,000
2 Transformers: Dark of the Moon $1,107,482,760
3 The Hangover Part II $581,325,595
4 Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides $1,039,041,782
5 Fast Five $606,887,938
6 Cars 2 $522,078,906
7 Thor $448,512,824
8 Captain America: The First Avenger $329,153,783
9 Bridesmaids $277,673,198
10 Kung Fu Panda 2 $642,450,741
With the films that crossed the Billion mark, much of that came from international – at least two thirds of the gross was made outside the U.S., and with Pirates it was more than 75% of the final gross. Domestically, Pirates was a modest hit for what it was, but showed a $70 Million decline from the last film – which would suggest that audiences are either growing tired of the franchise or didn’t much care for this one, but with a Billion dollar worldwide total, Disney would be foolish not to make some more.
We’re seeing inflated budgets. Next year will bring John Carter, Battleship and Men in Black III, all of which cost way more than $200 Million.
Image Conscious: A Conversation with VFX Supe Christopher Townsend
(flickeringmyth.blogspot.com)“I come very much from a design background,” states Visual Effects Supervisor Christopher Townsend who studied Graphic Design at Coventry University. “I learnt a lot about composition and how to place things in relation to each other so as to make a decent looking image.” The native of Britain readily admits, “What I don’t have particularly is a highly technical scientific brain.” 11 years were spent at Industrial Light & Magic. “I was very much a generalist when I worked there,” says Townsend whose first ILM film credit was as a Computer Graphics Artist. “One of the things that Congo [1995] taught me well was the fundamentals of computer graphics.” Other projects followed such as The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005). The most controversial assignment involved the altered scene in the 1997 special edition of Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope (1977) where Han Solo kills a bounty hunter out of self-defense. “I was surprised that the response was so dramatically against it. It was George’s [Lucas] idea of making the movie a little more p.c. [politically correct], which has offended people. To be honest, there were times I have wished that once the movie is made you leave it as is.”
“Something that was unique was Davey Jones from Pirates 2,” remarks Christopher Townsend who worked on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006) for Industrial Light & Magic. “I remember sitting in the theatre and thinking, ‘I know that’s a visual effect but I cannot tell.’” The biggest challenge at ILM was the Star Wars prequel trilogy. “I was the Sequence Supervisor on the first one. I was between gigs as a Digital Production Supervisor so I worked on Episodes II & III briefly as an artist.” Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) consisted of 1900 visual effects shots spread over three units, with a year and a half spent in post-production. “We were breaking new ground and setting a new bar for the amount and quality of the work.” Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008) caused Townsend to leave the landmark visual effects company. “Eric Brevig [Yogi Bear] was the visual effects supervisor at ILM for a long time; worked on a few shows with him. He got the opportunity to direct it and asked me to leave ILM at that point to go to be his visual effects supervisor.” The project was the first feature length stereoscopic movie created for the modern era of high definition and digital projection. “We were breaking new ground not even realizing it because we were running so fast trying to solve problems. It was a great training ground which has helped me immeasurably over the last few years.”
“Having a good eye and being able to know when to step in and offer a solution,” believes Christopher Townsend is the key to being a successful visual effects supervisor. “It’s a lot of p.r. work in some ways, trying to make sure that you’re getting the very best out of the entire team.” The visual effects industry is experiencing a remarkable period of growth. “The studios are using visual effects more and more. Visual effects compositing is becoming in many ways the reason why a lot of people go to see a movie.” The success has brought about a call for unionization to ensure that VFX facilities offer fair wages and benefits. Another significant issue is the use of international vendors which has had a great impact on the industry in America. “You might be able to get the work done cheaper somewhere else but ultimately it’s the matter of getting the best quality on the screen.” As for his attitude towards 3D, Townsend remarks, “3D is incredibly difficult and challenging because you have to make sure that the left and right eye work harmoniously as a unit.” There is also the contentious issue of converting a 2D film into 3D during post-production. “People are getting more educated from an artistic point of view of what makes for a most successful conversion.” The notoriously poor job associated with Clash of the Titans (2010) was no fault of the company responsible for the assignment. “They weren’t given enough time or resources to do a top quality product as far as I’m concerned.”
After serving as the Visual Effects Supervisor for X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), Ninja Assassin (2009), and Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief (2010), Christopher Townsend was recruited to assist with bringing Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) to the big screen. “I didn’t grow up reading American comics because I’m from England,” he confesses. “I found myself being attracted to the process; it was very clear that Joe [Johnston] wanted to make the best movie rather than the best superhero movie.” The director was easy to communicate with as he also comes from a visual effects background. “Joe certainly knows what he wants and he’s incredibly instrumental in the final image and how we get there. Throughout the process he would be storyboarding things for us.” Johnston [October Sky] made a decision which made things more difficult for Townsend. “He made a statement in the trades early on that he didn’t want to work with pre-viz.” So there was no opportunity to map out shots before hand. “It was challenging because you had to react to everything.”
“What we were trying to do was make a film which would appease the fans and those who weren’t big fans could watch,” reveals Christopher Townsend; he welcomed the creative task of making an origin story about a scrawny U.S. Army recruit who is transformed into a hulking World War II super soldier. “From my point of view it was the most interesting aspect of doing this kind of work because you get to set the tone of who the character is.” The over 1600 visual effects shots featured in the comic book picture were divided between 13 VFX facilities located in California, Australia, Germany, and Britain. To create Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as a 98-pound weakling, a combination of practical and computer generated effects were utilized. Actors were placed on boxes to change eye lines between them and Evans; a body double was deployed, and a process known as Digital Plastic Surgery, developed by Californian company Lola VFX, was used to make “Skinny Steve” a reality. “The thing I misjudged was how much higher a quality we needed for the final take,” admits Christopher Townsend. “We weren’t just doing a five second piece with a guy skinning down and, ‘Wow! That’s really cool!’ That wasn’t the point of the film. The point was to get the audience not to even question and think about it as an effect.” Townsend observes, “The tools have become easier, faster and far more sophisticated but ultimately I don’t think the industry has changed that much; it’s still about creating a good-looking image.”
The TRON Legacy: Developing Technology in Film
(huffingtonpost.co.uk)My friend, Ann, has three teenage kids between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, and we're all into movies in a big way. The other day, after watching TRON:Legacy on Sky, we started to talk about it. The consensus was that it was a pretty awesome film, with a funky soundtrack and great special effects. We were all very much in agreement. Until I mentioned the original.
I didn't get to go to the pictures too much as a kid - something I made up for by going twice a week when I was in college - but I remember the original TRON very fondly. I was only about four years old when it was released but the light cycles and the glowing neon world in which they existed were eye-popping. Even then, computers were familiar to me; my Dad was a programmer before it was a cool job and as a result we had a BBC-B in the house from before I can remember. For young me, TRON was a magical journey behind the black velvet curtain with its blinking green or white cursor; it literally brought the computer to life. But no matter how affectionately I remember these first tentative steps into a digital world, I have to also remember that in 2011, the original TRON is, as Ann's nineteen year old daughter (born a full decade after the original release) puts it, "a bit naff".
Like so many productions and techniques that were ahead of their time, TRON is now showing its age. The visual effects, nominated for a BAFTA in 1983, were cutting edge; combining live action sequences with extensive digital animation sequence had never before been attempted. Unlike today, where the computer does the lion's share of the work, back when TRON was in production, computers only generated static images. This meant that the animation still had to be constructed in frames, with coordinates for each frame input into the computer by hand. Just 4 seconds of film required around 600 coordinates. In fact, the effects were so cutting edge that TRON was disqualified from consideration in the visual effects category at the 1983 Oscars because using a computer was considered a cheat. Tell that to the animators that programmed the thousands of coordinates by hand!
The late seventies and early eighties witnessed the birth of CGI. Before TRON films had only used computers to generate short sequences that were not integral. Without TRON, we might not have seen the impressive morphing spaceship in the 1986 movie, Flight of the Navigator, the 3D water effects of The Abyss or the photorealistic effects in hundreds of films, from Backdraft to Terminator 2. TRON inspired John Lasseter, the Chief Creative Officer and the brains behind Pixar, to make Toy Story, the first full length feature film made and rendered entirely on a computer; an achievement that took thirteen years.
Every film inspires someone else and no matter how dated a digital masterpiece like TRON might be, it has a legacy. And I'm not just talking about a sequel, reboot or remake. Sometimes it seems like Hollywood has stopped taking forward steps. As technology improves the visual difference on the screen tends to become less impressive while small technological steps facilitate the giant forward leaps that audiences find more noticeable. Over the last decade it hardly seems like CGI has moved on, but you only need to compare Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and Avatar to see just how far we've come. The future, it seems, will be to develop better 3D technology, but who knows what movie makers will think of next.
So, regardless of what today's teenage audiences make of TRON, I appreciate its contribution to computer generated imagery, which has made and will continue to make many other brilliant movies possible. I forgive it for Jar Jar Binks. But only just.
Is Performance Capture in the Same League as ‘Real’ Acting?
(bestforfilm.com)The ever-increasing presence of performance capture techniques has led to a bit of a division in the film industry: is it to be admired or discouraged? Film purists say nay. Andy Serkis fans say yay. But what do you say?
Performance capture veteran Andy Serkis has awed us again. His stunningly realistic performance as wronged chimpanzee Caesar in the Rise of the Planet of the Apes stole the spotlight from the star-filled live-action cast. Not for the first time either. With stellar performances depicting Gollum and King Kong in the not so distant past and the role of Captain Haddock in The Adventures of Tintin in the not so distant future, isn’t it about time the film industry acknowledged that performance capture roles are worthy of awards?
But firstly, what exactly is performance capture? Put simply, it is a type of software that sensitively translates an individual’s actions, down to the minutest movements and the subtlest expressions, into computer generated imagery (CGI) to add realism and personality to an animated character. The depth of detail available is truly astounding; Giant Studios (the technology providers for LOTR and Avatar) go so far as to map out the skeletal figure, transmitting bone length and density measurements for accurate depictions.
Academy awards exist in the category of Visual Effects, but this only applies to the film in its entirety rather than a specific character. This raises the point of whether it is the actor behind the CGI or the team behind the creation of the CGI who should be credited for the performance. Serkis seems to argue for both, “The first part is capturing the performance. Only later down the line do you start seeing the characters being painted over frame by frame using pixels.” With performance capturing becoming an increasingly common technique used by filmmakers, it seems appropriate that awards should be given to the actors who play these digital parts.
However Serkis doesn’t believe these roles should be given any special treatment, “Personally I’ve never believed there should be a separate category because the essence of the performance is pure acting.” Yet there are film traditionalists who argue that CGI and performance capture should be avoided completely. They believe that using CGI filters out the raw nature of the film; how can you accurately judge the components of a film if they are not real? Take the rumours surrounding Zoe Saldana’s role as Neytiri in Avatar for instance; whilst some claimed she deserved a Best Actress Award, others murmured about the fairness of such a claim, considering her whole performance was altered in post-production.
Yet surely these alterations still require a stupendous amount of hard work? James Cameron, director of Avatar, knows better than anyone how much time, effort and money needs to be invested into performance capture. Cameron desired to create such a perfect world that he actually co-developed a new generation of stereoscopic cameras which mimic the way human eyes view the world in three dimensions. This not only meant that the Avatar world was more realistic, but also gave performance actors one more thing to concentrate on.
So whilst some argue that performance actors have an easy day at work, other evidence suggests that this style of acting requires greater responsibilities than ‘raw’ acting. For example, it requires a substantial leap of the imagination to envisage oneself as someone else, let alone as something entirely inhuman, engaging with an alien world. An actor must believe this before an audience is able to. The actual process involves wearing a ‘mocap’ suit, complete with reflective reference markers to map their exact movements as well as headgear embedded with cameras to map their facial expressions. Easy, huh?
The pressure upon these actors is incredible; whereas in live action films there is usually a wide margin of error with which actors are allowed to play around with almost every aspect of their performance, performance capture characters tend to move in a specific way, with technology occasionally limiting the range of moves available. And of course, time is money in the film industry, but for performance capture films this rule is tantamount. Due to the sheer amount of technology involved, prices tend to spiral out of control, meaning actors have to work to tight timelines. Avatar, for instance, was given a meagre budget of $200 million which ended up snowballing into a whopping $300 million.
Robert Zemeckis, director of performance capture films Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol, argues that the Academy should create a new category of award to acknowledge these achievements. Just “like when Walt Disney made the first animated movie” which was acknowledged by an appropriate new category…62 years later.
However, there is no guarantee that performance capture films will be a success. The most recent total-performance capture title, Mars Needs Moms, (directed by Simon Wells and produced by Zemeckis), reportedly cost $150 million to produce, yet plummeted at the box office, taking only $21 million. One of the rumoured reasons for its failure is the somewhat unsettling way humans are portrayed. Indeed, this seems to be a popular critique of performance capture films in general. Sometimes an actor’s facial expression isn’t translated very realistically, resulting in a strange image of something inhuman trying to be human. This result is familiar to animators; they know how hard it is to recreate human expression in CGI. This is because humans are very sensitive to human expression; the closer an animation comes to imitating human likeness, the higher our expectations are raised. Sometimes, animators accidentally breach the unsettling zone of ‘the uncanny valley’, in which a character possesses so much human likeness, yet the audience knows that they are not human, causing feelings of an uncanny nature to settle.
This may explain why Andy Serkis has been so successful; all of his performance capture roles have featured inhuman characters in an otherwise live-action motion picture. However his next film, The Adventures of Tintin involves playing a human character, so it will be interesting to see if the magic he brings to the audience will remain.
Poor performance capture movies don’t seem to belong anywhere. They are obviously separate from the live-action films, as well as being shunned by the animated films too. The makers of Ratatouille even added “Our Quality Assurance Guarantee: 100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film” to their credit reel. So not only do they fear inclusion into this loner genre, but they also insinuate that performance capturing is a comparatively easier filming technique.
So whilst some argue that performance capture is downright weird, and others insist the unique style is the future of film-making, it appears that performance capturing has an unclear future. What with Disney pulling out of Yellow Submarine due to the colossal amount of money being spent, and Steven Spielberg/Peter Jackson’s 3D creation The Adventures of Tintin out this year, the public are being sent mixed messages on the potential success of these films.
Do you think performance capture has a glowing future? And do you think that performance actors should be awarded for their hidden performances behind this new technology? Let us know by attacking the comments section.
The 10 Worst CGI Moments Ever
(bestforfilm.com)CGI can be great, right? All you have to do is stick on Jurassic Park or The Lord Of The Rings to see it at its finest; transporting us to another world, these effects can make a film look and feel utterly tangible. But, on the other hand, CGI can also be a tool employed by the Devil to steal the souls of weak-minded movie makers. George Lucas, for example, but he has enough bad press at the moment; I’m not known for kicking a man while he’s down, after all. Instead, I’ve taken the time to look deep into our cinema archives and pull out the 10 worst CGI moments that actually made us doubt our own sanity. The ones that made us laugh when we were supposed to gasp. The ones that made us want to grab the nearest fork and plunge it straight into our welcoming eyes…
Take a look: http://bestforfilm.com/film-blog/the-10-worst-cgi-moments- ever/
Disney Imagineers Further Audio-Animatronics Research
Audio-Animatronics technology has come a long way from its early days in The Enchanted Tiki Room. While that attraction is still enjoyed daily in Disney’s theme parks, newer advancements not only offer more lifelike “robotic” figures performing preprogrammed shows, but the promise of fully automated and interactive characters in the years to come.
And it’s just that interactivity that the creative engineers at Walt Disney Imagineering were “play testing” on an audience of fans at the recent 2011 D23 Expo in Anaheim, Calif. Within the convention’s Walt Disney Parks and Resorts pavilion, “The Amazing Destini” not only offered attendees a chance to have their fortunes told by an Audio-Animatronics figure, but they also took part in ongoing research, helping Imagineers improve Destini’s ability to naturally and autonomously converse, without the aid of humans behind the scenes.
The Amazing Destini is part of Imagineering’s Living Character Initiative, which has in the past few years included Lucky the Dinosaur (a free-roaming, interactive, life-sized Audio-Animatronics dinosaur) and the Muppet Mobile Lab, which featured Muppets characters Beaker and Bunsen Honeydew in an interactive street show. But these characters required someone from Disney present at all times to control their movements as well as what they said. The knowledge gained from Destini is paving the way for future characters to be placed within Disney’s theme parks that can interact with guests in a meaningful, in-depth way, without requiring anyone to be digitally puppeteering or voicing them. Gorin describes the system behind Destini as a combination of “computers, sensors, and artificial intelligence,” but ultimately the goal is to have all that technology disappear into the background as guests feel like they are simply chatting with a real character.
VIDEO - http://www.insidethemagic.net/2011/09/disney-imagineers-use- amazing-destini-to-further- audio-animatronics-research- at-2011-d23-expo/
No comments:
Post a Comment