The Adventures of Tintin

[dark_b]

in the naaaaaaaaaaaame of god. thats more then 2 years.

you think this new technology takes so much time to finish?

 

[Electrix]

How interesting that Paramount is releasing it a week before New Line is supposed to release The Hobbit (if NL follows the mid-December release like the original LOTR trilogy). Isn't it counterproductive for Peter Jackson?

Del toro said they would begin filming in 2010 and shoot for 370 days. I wonder if they'll be able to hit that December 2011 release date.

 

[Timstuff]

I haven't really been following this movie, but I heard that it's going to be "performance capture CG." And as history has shown us (and any REAL animator can tell you), performance capture as an "art form" is a piece of crap. Darnit Spielberg, why did you have to catch the Zemeckis bug?

 

[mclay18]

The thing is, Timstuff, Spielberg and Jackson aren't necessarily using the same technology as Zemeckis. They caught the Cameron-Avatar bug, as WETA is doing the animation for both.

Although I don't know why the movie is taking so long in post-production. Aren't the characters already animated (with full-blown backgrounds) by the time the actors do the motion capture? It shouldn't take as much post-production time as Avatar does if the look of the characters and backgrounds are established.

I guess Paramount and Sony really want to stretch their dollars when it comes to a $135 million film with huge backend fees for the Beard and the Kiwi.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why are they releasing at the same time as another movie Jackson is involved with is being released? Is that a bit silly.

 

[Timstuff]

The thing is, Timstuff, Spielberg and Jackson aren't necessarily using the same technology as Zemeckis. They caught the Cameron-Avatar bug, as WETA is doing the animation for both.

It doesn't matter if their technology is better than Zemeckis's. The point is, if you're going to do a CG movie, then you should do it with style. The only reason you'd want to use "performance capture" instead of real animation is because you want to avoid stylized movement. That's fine and dandy for special effects since they're not supposed to draw attention to themselves, but for an animated film it's crap. If you're using performance capture with stylized characters, you're ruining it by giving them boring, realistic movement, and if you're using realistic characters then you may as well do it in live action.

I think that performance capture is excellent for special effects, however I do not believe it is a viable medium for producing animated films, and I don't think it will ever be. Perfomance capture films are nothing but showcase special effects technology, and it's not half as entertaining to watch as even Pixar's worst work. At least with James Cameron's Avatar the movie is using performance capture to create creatures that can't be done with makeup. With movies like Beowulf and Tintin though, they're using it because they don't understand what makes an animated movie good. Anyone who has studied the principles behind animation (like myself) in particular are aware of why performance capture films are inferior to the kind of stuff Pixar puts out-- it's stripping animation of the exaggerated qualities that make it worth watching. You can have the actors try to mimic the exaggerated movements of real animation, but it will always look like an inferior imitation of the real thing, and again, what's the point when you can just hire actual animators, who are not only cheaper but deliver superior results?

It's ironic that Peter Jackson, who directed the amazing Lord of the Rings Trilogy, is now backing the 21st century equivalent of the crude "rotoscoping" techniques that Ralph Bakshi used to make his craptastic "animated" Lord of the Rings film. I say rotoscoping in quotes, because Ralph Bakshi's technique was basically a very involved and time consuming camera filter, just like performance capture.

 

[nite-owl]

Tintin
The Hobbit
I graduate from uni

2011 looks like a good year for me.

 

[dark_b]

It doesn't matter if their technology is better than Zemeckis's. The point is, if you're going to do a CG movie, then you should do it with style. The only reason you'd want to use "performance capture" instead of real animation is because you want to avoid stylized movement. That's fine and dandy for special effects since they're not supposed to draw attention to themselves, but for an animated film it's crap. If you're using performance capture with stylized characters, you're ruining it by giving them boring, realistic movement, and if you're using realistic characters then you may as well do it in live action.

I think that performance capture is excellent for special effects, however I do not believe it is a viable medium for producing animated films, and I don't think it will ever be. Perfomance capture films are nothing but showcase special effects technology, and it's not half as entertaining to watch as even Pixar's worst work. At least with James Cameron's Avatar the movie is using performance capture to create creatures that can't be done with makeup. With movies like Beowulf and Tintin though, they're using it because they don't understand what makes an animated movie good. Anyone who has studied the principles behind animation (like myself) in particular are aware of why performance capture films are inferior to the kind of stuff Pixar puts out-- it's stripping animation of the exaggerated qualities that make it worth watching. You can have the actors try to mimic the exaggerated movements of real animation, but it will always look like an inferior imitation of the real thing, and again, what's the point when you can just hire actual animators, who are not only cheaper but deliver superior results?

It's ironic that Peter Jackson, who directed the amazing Lord of the Rings Trilogy, is now backing the 21st century equivalent of the crude "rotoscoping" techniques that Ralph Bakshi used to make his craptastic "animated" Lord of the Rings film. I say rotoscoping in quotes, because Ralph Bakshi's technique was basically a very involved and time consuming camera filter, just like performance capture.

you see what Zemeckis has done?

because the guy realesed bad human movement with hes bad ''dots'' you now don belive in this.

and he will do it again this winter

 

[Timstuff]

you see what Zemeckis has done?

because the guy realesed bad human movement with hes bad ''dots'' you now don belive in this.

and he will do it again this winter

It doesn't matter how good the technology is, because even if it works perfectly it's not worth doing. One of the wonderful things about animation is that you can stylize how things move, and if all you're going to do is simply film an actor and then let a computer draw a fancy skin over them, then all you are doing is wasting money. If you want a character to move realistically, use film. If you want a character to look like a cartoon, use animation. I do not see the benefit of robbing animation of what makes it unique, except that in the future it might end up being cheaper (at the cost of quality though, obviously).

I might be biased because I am an animator, but I can assure you that most people in my profession think of "perfomance capture" as animation in the same way athletes view video games as a sport.

 

[dark_b]

i think it makes sense now. WETA is 100% working on Avatar until december. they have so much work until december that ILM is helping them out.

so until the december WETA can not do TinTin. so i guess they will start in januar 2010 working on the CGI for this movie. and from januar 2010 to december 2011 thats less then 2 years.

i think this is the reason why its coming out in december 2011.

 

[Nivek]

Tim, are you seriously saying that hand animation is better than motion capture, even though the entire CG animation industry since T2 and Jurassic Park has used motion capture?

 

[dark_b]

Tim, are you seriously saying that hand animation is better than motion capture, even though the entire CG animation industry since T2 and Jurassic Park has used motion capture?

i think he means for stylized movies. tintin will have stylized humans but with very photorealistic surfaces.

 

[Kent]

Tim, are you seriously saying that hand animation is better than motion capture, even though the entire CG animation industry since T2 and Jurassic Park has used motion capture?

Naw. He's saying that because he doesn't like the mocap movies Zemeckies has done that somehow invalidates the medium as a whole.
...Which is absolute nonsense.

 

[Hunter Rider]

 

[terry78]

That's some good ass CG.

 

[Octoberist]

you can see every strain of their CGI beards...fascinating!

 

[ravn0s]

spielberg and jackson are thomson and thompson? :P

 

[Carmine Falcone]

That picture is ancient.

 

[dark_b]

i think thats old.

this is the new simulcam that they created for Avatar. right?

 

[matrix_ghost]

i think thats old.

this is the new simulcam that they created for Avatar. right?

Yep. The avatar empire article describes it as a very large looking XBOX Controller.

 

[dark_b]

its funny that from tintin we will get everything that Cameron doesnt want to show. he he

 

[Octoberist]

Peter Jackson looks 10 year younger since he's so skinny now.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It's good that he lost the weight. Though I'll admit, I kinda miss his former image... because I always got a kick out of watching him work on the LOTR films. But good for him he did it.

 

[dark_b]

because he lost weight he will live longer and be more healthy. so this means more good movies from him.

ohhh yeah.

 

[terry78]

Some fan art depicting what they think the new Tintin will look like. The gun and blood is obviously tongue in cheek, but the look of the character does look like what i think they may have gone for.