Discussion in 'Misc. Films' started by phoenixflight, Mar 13, 2006.
That is just ABSURD. One of thee dumbest comments I have ever seen.
Sigh, I won't even try to explain... Amazing.
Ok, no I will. I respect Griffin. I've read some of your posts before, and you seem like a good poster. I'm not sure why you'd go and insult me, but then again maybe you didn't intend to, or you were in a bad mood. Who knows.
So, i'll try to.
Look at howl's moving castle. Or, um, any other miyazaki, or the first ghost in the shell. There are painting, and drawing in there. When Sophie's character in Howl's moving castle opens the castle's window to look outside, we see the land they are in. It's all so beautifully draw, or painted (there's some 3D hidden underneath also, but 2D is painted on it, masking it).
And the viewers go "holy crap, what a wonder!". Or something like that.
Same with many of the greatest animated movies (mostly the japanese ones, actually. Though, there are still many beautiful american one, but they, imo, never achieve Oshii, Takahata or Miyazaki's sense of wonders).
But then you go look at a 3D movie. Let's take the best of them for exemple. The pixar movies (they are easily the most well done of the 3D bunch, and, imo, the betters).
In incredible, when we get on the island, the first thing I though was "woah, that's so well done, I could swear it's real". And while it felt real (well, mostly), real looking didn't make me go into a state of wonder, but rather of intrigue. I was amaze not by the movie's beauty, but by how well it duplicated the real world.
Same with nearly every 3D movies. The problem with 3D, ain't the medium. It CAN produce beauty. But it cost a lot, and people still aren't sure what they should do with it. So many possibilities. And so they often go with the most real looking style. Sure, the main character are deformed, but the backgrounds all look real (or at least try to).
2D's simplicity is his main weapon. I think, that might be one of the reasons why.
But 3D CAN do wonders. In the right hands. In the gaming world, the industry is getting VERY diverse. And we get games like Ico and shadow of the colossus, that looks like nothing we usually see. And it's a world of beauty. Now THAT'S how you try something.
Same thing in ghost in the shell 2: Innocence. Oshii's a genius. The characters are in 2D, but nearly everything else is in 3D.
And when you get at the middle of the movie, you are treated to a parade, nearly all in 3D. And it's got a style of his own. And my god it's fantastic!
3D CAN be beautiful. But, imo, it hasn't been used well. And so, 2D usually looks so much more beautiful in animated movies.
Here is the new one-sheet poster for CARS. Hope everyone likes it.
1-What's so great about that "Ghost in the Shell" movie?
I don't know what is it, and if I don't know about it, it must be horrible.
2-Why the hell do you have to resort to Japanese animators to explain how traditional animation is better than CGI?
What happened to Walt Disney, Don Bluth, Ralph Bakshi, Hanna-Barbera, Rankin-Bass and Chuck Jones?
3-Face it: you are just pissed-off that "Howl's Moving Castle" didn't win the Best Animated Movie Oscar.
4-The thing about Pixar is not about how it's animated, but the story they tell with that animation.
"Final Fantasy" and "Titan AE" were beautifully animated, but their scripts were crap.
"The Incredibles" was good because it was a superhero movie, NOT because it was a CGI movie. It was good because it poke fun at the established cliches of the comic book genre (the super-hot kickass heroine, the super-strong invincible hero loved by all, the techno-wizard villain with a grudge against society, the young inexpert heroes...)
5-And, lastly, CGI movies gather people and make money.
Compare how much money "Ice Age", "Shrek", "The Incredibles" and "Monsters, Inc." made, and compare it to how much money "Lilo and Stitch", "Treasure Planet" and "Brother Bear" made.
It's more convenient for studios to make CGI animated movies.
While I wouldn't agree with the statement that 3D can't be considered beautiful, I know what TheSaint is trying to get at. The majority of 3D films have had a huge pre-occupation with simply getting things to look real, which of course is an obvious objective because nothing actually is real. With traditional 2D animation, at least watercolor and ink on celluloid do have a sort of tactility and palpability of presence that the viewer percieves subconsiously. As time progresses 3D features are looking more and more real, but few have looked to move beyond that, into creating a sense of the sublime.
But just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it's not possible. Mirrormask is an example, and an antithesis to other 3D films. Whereas other films aspire to create realistic looking backdrops and characters, Mirrormask banckdrop is fantastic (as in fantasy), and due to the movie's small budget it couldn't even be bothered to even try to make their CGI look real. Which is fine, because the movie's goals lies elsewhere, in harnessing all aspects of mood and atmosphere to create a sense of wonderment, excitement and exhilaration; a feeling that exists on another plane beyond the literalness of what you're looking at, what's being displayed visually onscreen. That's what the sublime is.
Saying CGI movies are bad is like saying cartoons are bad as well.
I think there's plenty of room for all forms of animation. 2d, 3d, stop-motion. They don't have to replace each other. To take a quote from Christopher Walken, all these animation styles are tools for us to "explore the space" of our own imagination. If you don't have a good one to begin with, no type of animtion will help you make a ****ing good movie. That's just what I think anyway. heh.. ****ing good movies are orgasmic by the way.
Was that a respond to my post ? If it was, what the hell ? Did you even READ my post ??? What you just wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote, amazing. If it wasn't a response to me (but since i'm the only one who mentioned Innocence I guess that it was), I apologize.
I never said Bluth and co. were great. They are. Same with pixar. And Brad bird, my gone, he's a genius, Iron Giant is one of the greatest animated movie of our time. Easily. And there are MORE to animation then Hollywood. Look at the french. "Le roi et l'oiseau" is a masterpiece that inspired Miyazaki and Takahata for their first feature lenght, Horus. I strongly recommend it, i'm not sure what's the name in english, though. I'll look for it and come back to you later on.
And the Asterix movies ? Or the Lucky Lukes ? All great movies.
Anyway. Back to what I think you wanted to say, even if it had nothing to do with my own posts:
No matter how good Don bluth or Jules Bass were in the 80's, they were never able to make movie as beautiful as Miyazaki and Takahata were doing back then. Watch Totoro, or Nausicaa, both came out in the same time Last unicorn and Rock-a-doodle were made, and yet, they are miles superior in visuals. Why ? I'm not sure, but maybe Miya and co. are just better in their medium than most american animated directors. Nah, impossible!!! The mighty americans can't be beaten in any category! How insulting that is!!!
Btw, I could care less about the oscars. I love Wallace and Gromit, but getting an award is more of an insult than a gift, imo. The oscars do not even deserve to have howl's in one of their category. Heck, it's a foreign movie, what the hell is it doing OUTSIDE of the foreign category ?
As for the rest of your points, I fail to grasp how you got there.
That's actually the first Cars poster to give that feeling. John Lassenter behind the newest Pixar movie ? It will be gold!
And even better, they just annonced that Brad bird is helming the next Pixar movie, named Ratatouille, and it's coming out summer 2007. Brad bird + Pixar = animation dream! "drools"
And the movie's beginning to take shape, Moriarity on aint-it-cool-news has already seen the first trailer. I'm guessing the rest of us will see it in theatres when Cars comes out.
I know - A Bug's Life was an excellent film. It's surprising, really, that it didn't gross more than it did. It had excellent adVertising and an excellent storyline, the latter of which can be lacking in Disney-Pixar films. Its success was probably marred by DreamWorks' parasitic feature ANTZ that came out at the same time, dividing up ABL's rightful success.
It's true sequel was Finding Nemo, to me, because Nemo also contained a good storyline to go with, IMO, the best Pixar graphics to date.
Rumored cast for Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille.
June 29, 2007
"Featuring the voice talents of:
Brad Garrett as Chef
Kate Beckinsale as Esemhones
Jimmy Fallon as Frloen
Jeffrey Tambor as Banas
Harrison Ford as The Evil Andws
John Ratzenberger as Eskoimes
Martin Short as Nemral
Patrick Warburton as Wean and
Bill Fagerbakke as Featner."
Quint from AICN reviews the Ratatouille Teaser Trailer
The trailer opens with a big table of cheese with the waiter, in heavy French accent, pointing to different kinds of cheese, describing the differences of the cheeses. We never see his face, just his hand as it gestures at the tray, with the camera focusing on each different sample of cheese as he's talking about it. Then, he says this last cheese is rare and expensive, but exceptional. The camera pans over to see a gray rat caught like a deer in headlights, a piece of the expensive cheese in his mitts. The rat is of the cute rat varieties, not the evil R.O.U.S. type ("I don't think they exist.")
The waiter shouts, the patrons scream and the rat screams himself and runs like a bat outta hell. He runs through the kitchen, knocking pots and pans over, cheese still in a death grip. He makes a leap off of a table, kitchen knives and other utensils falling around him and then it freeze-frames, like an action movie with the hero jumping over a cliff or away from a fireball or something.
The rat introduces himself to us. The voice was familiar, but I couldn't place it. He says that he loves good food, and it's a good thing he lives in Paris because there's a lot of it... It's just hard to get.
It cut to our hero grey rat walking about outside, near what looked like a sewage pipe or something. He tells us about his distaste for trash and love for real food. His dad yells at him from inside the pipe (we never see him), telling him he wouldn't be hungry all the time if he just ate trash like all the other rats. A chubby rat comes along eating something... dirty. It's gray-ish/black and it could be rotting oyster... or something. The chubby rat tells the gray rat that once you get pass the gag reflex, you'd be surprised what you can eat. The gray rat asks the chubby one what the hell he is eating. Mouth full, the chubby rat just kinda goes, "I don't know."
Then it cuts back to the freeze frame of the gray rat in mid-leap and it reiterates how dangerous it is for a rat with a taste for real good food is in Paris. The film unfreezes and the rat hits the ground running, darting into a crack in the wooden wall, followed almost immediately by the falling cutlery imbedding itself into the wood around the hole.
There was also talk several years ago of another Brad Bird project (one of his older ones) that I would love to see come to fruition. It would have preceded The Incredibles (prior to him joining Disney/Pixar).
Ray Gunn is about a private detective story set in an ultra-futuristic city (think Blade Runner crossed with Buck Rogers). A film with this type of premise would most likely be PG-13. Imagine them creating the imagery of a whole city of the far future. That is soooo Pixar!!
The other idea for Ray Gun (not to interested in seeing this version) was a mad scientist invents a doomsday machine that threatens to destroy everything off the face of the Earth unless he is paid $100 million dollars ransom.
Though early reports suggested this would be a Pixar film, reports indicate that this will be a 2D animated film, and that Pixar have no interest in developing it. Warner Bros. Pictures currently owns the rights to the film.
What's your thoughts?
If it's made by Brad Bird, it can only be one of the best american made animated movie. Bird is king in his land.
Can't wait for Ratatouille. I'm disappointed though. The movie's not written by Bird. He usually writes his own movie, and he shines in his writtings. That's what usually makes his movie to be far above the rest of the other crap coming out.
And, in that case, it won't be one of his own script. Still, a new Bird movie next year is better than no Bird movie, heh.
I'll list my favorites in order, I can't really add The Incredibles as I haven't gotten the chance to see it yet.
1) Monsters Inc.
2) Toy Story
3) Toy Story 2
4) Finding Nemo
5) A Bug's Life
I totally agree, both are Pixar's most visually stunning films Dispite A Bug's Life outgrossing Antz and its critical acclaim, I think it could have been a much bigger success if it hadn't been for Dreamworks craptastic copy
Sounds hilarious I can't wait to see it
Here is another ad poster for "Cars". It is the first to be released, one each week, in the 12 week run up to the film's theatrical release.
Really cool promotion. Can't wait to see the other 11 as the weeks go by.
It's supposed to be Hugh Jackman, if I remember correctly. Not really sold on the 3D, but i'm sure Aardman studios will put out a solid flick.
Saint, you continue to be 100% the man.
My fave from Pixar is The Incredibles. It was the movie that the FF movie should have been.
Right now, my favorite Pixar movie is Monsters, Inc. Billy Crystal is hilarious, and I'll never forget what the door warehouse looked like on the big screen.
In terms of best movie, the award has to go to Toy Story. The first of its kind, it still makes me laugh and dream about what toys do when nobody's watching. I couldn't help it, so I picked both of them
I loved The Incredibles.