The Adventures of Tintin

[Brother Jack]

I like the character models, the CG looks pretty amazing. Now I just want to see how it all looks in motion.

 

[xwolverine2]

im glad they made the proportions cartoony.... otherwise it'd be another zemeckis film that just feel wrong.

should be an extremely beautiful movie... pretty much a pixar film that doesntget lazy with the cg.. lol

 

[dark_b]

Well it's kinda like with Gollom from Lord of the Rings, which used Andy Serkis as a reference point, and 1/4 of it was hand animated to make his movements more fitting for the character.

the funny thing is that Weta did a lot of clean up on the na'vi characters. and because of the animators it looked so good. they were the one who looked at the real actors footage for months and made it look good.

the tecnology will never translate and fit the animation on the CGI.....automatic. it can not do.Zemeckis animators do almost no clean up.
so TinTin can only work if SPielberg was smart enough to use as much animators as possible to do clean up.

 

[dark_b]

The Polar Express-

It looks like a Playstation 2 game! No a Playstation game. It looks terrible. Syberia had better CGI.

come on this was realesed in 2004. this was the first time a studio and director tryed to make a CGI movie that is stylized and realistic.lets give Zemeckis and Sony some credit for trying. their mistakes helped teh whole industry with learning.

 

[Octoberist]

Polar Express still looks awful.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Come on this was released in 2004. This was the first time a studio and director tried to make a CGI movie that is stylized and realistic. Lets give Zemeckis and Sony some credit for trying. Their mistakes helped the whole industry with learning.

Actually, Sinbad: Beyond the Veil of Mists is the first, and funnily enough, it sucks A LOT. The Polar Express was next though, so I'll give it credit where credit is due for being the first to bring it to mainstream attention. Without it Tintin, at least as it currently is, might not be here, and the great motion capture work that has been done might not be here.

Besides, compared to Sinbad: BtVoM, The Polar Express is gorgeous.

 

[obin_gam]

Just a sidenote; how is Tintin pronounced in the us and uk? Is it [taun(like the starwars animals)-taun] thats used or [tin(like the metal)-tin] or something else?

 

[Octoberist]

I pronounce it "Tin-Tin", like the metal.

 

[Etienne]

Jamie Bell seems all too perfect for Tintin. How does this guy not get more work?

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Tintin is actually called Kuifje in Holland. It means something like ''small quiff''

 

[LostSon88]

I mean, they got THIS *thumb and pinky* close and just missed it. Why? Is my question.

I know its nitpicking, but it wouldnt be SHH without nerdy nitpicking now would it

That is not nitpicking...that is something at a whole different level that they have yet to invent a term for...

I mean good lord, criticizing the angle at which the guys nose points? REALLY?!

 

[spidey-dude]

Outside of the Zemeckis movies, there is no major difference in CGI quality between these pictures.

sorry mate but these 2 tintin pics come nowhere near avatar, loftr or potc they all look feasibly real

that pic with tintin and haddock on the boat looks SO fake!

 

[dark_b]

sorry mate but these 2 tintin pics come nowhere near avatar, loftr or potc they all look feasibly real

that pic with tintin and haddock on the boat looks SO fake!

but is this bad? its meant to bring a comicbook to life with an artistic touch.

i disagree that it loosk ''SO'' fake. its a CGI movie with globall illumination and realistic texture sufraces.

 

[Rac]

I don't like how Haddock looks...

 

[spidey-dude]

but is this bad? its meant to bring a comicbook to life with an artistic touch.

i disagree that it loosk ''SO'' fake. its a CGI movie with globall illumination and realistic texture sufraces.

id rather they just went full cgi then - i think the "realistic" textures (especially on the faces) dont work

that water looks very fake, as does the plane

ill definitely see the film and i hope it improves visually as im very disappointed right now

 

[Electrofarce]

Okay let's examine the uncanny valley effect here and the CGI realism compared to other movies.

Tintin-

Very realistic, especially the lighting. The textures are very well done, especially on clothing. No major uncanny valley effect present as the facial expressions and eyes are very real. The only thing keeping characters from looking like real actors is the surreal cartoonish style. The skeletal structure makes sense.

Avatar-

Just about the same amount of realism as Tintin. No uncanny valley effect; the characters look like real actors.

Lord of the Rings-

No uncanny valley effect, the skin is smooth but that makes sense for the character, the hair is realistic and so is the skeletal structure. Slightly less realistic than Tintin.

Pirates at the Caribbean-

No uncanny valley effect (betcha didn't know Davy Jones and his crew were motion capture and not actors wearing makeup huh!) Perfect textures and perfect lighting.

A Christmas Carol-

The eyes look like plastic, the face looks like plastic, the only realism comes from his wrinkles, he has no pores for being elderly, the hair texture looks fake, the cloth texture looks too smooth, and the facial expression is slightly impossible. Trust me, I tried it myself and it's painful and it makes my nose twitch. Looks NOTHING like Tintin.

.

You forgot Tron Legacy. Nearly perfect:

 

[Electrofarce]

id rather they just went full cgi then - i think the "realistic" textures (especially on the faces) dont work

that water looks very fake, as does the plane

ill definitely see the film and i hope it improves visually as im very disappointed right now

how can you tell if the plane looks fake? there's not even enough pixels to determin that! it's simply to far away and the texture of the water is fine the only problem i have is that it looks kinda green which will probably be fixed later.

 

[Timstuff]

the funny thing is that Weta did a lot of clean up on the na'vi characters. and because of the animators it looked so good. they were the one who looked at the real actors footage for months and made it look good.

the tecnology will never translate and fit the animation on the CGI.....automatic. it can not do.Zemeckis animators do almost no clean up.
so TinTin can only work if SPielberg was smart enough to use as much animators as possible to do clean up.

The irony is that the reason why Robert Zemeckis wanted to make "performance capture movies" instead of animated movies is because there has been a push for many years inside hollywood to make traditional animators "obsolete." That's bad news for me, since I am an animator, but the good news is that whenever they try to demonstrate how great their "automatic" processes are, like Zemeckis, they only demonstrate how bad mocap looks when you don't have real animators there to clean it up.

Avatar looks amazing, because James Cameron didn't set out to prove that performance capture is better than real animation. He set out to make the movie good, and he worked with hundreds of animators to do that. Zemeckis only worked with the animators who were crappy enough to find the prospect of doing some minor cleanup and animating a few things that they couldn't motion capture, like running horses or creatures or whatever.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with Tintin, but "Weta is doing it" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to look great when its moving. If Spielberg is entering this production with the same "animators are obsolete" mentality that Zemeckis had with his movies, there will be problems with the animation. The fact that this is being billed as a "performance capture" movie is a red flag to me, because that tells me right away that the director either doesn't want to acknowledge that animators worked on the characters' movements, or that there simply were not very many animators involved.

Either way, billing it as a "performance capture" movie signifies that this is not meant to be an animated film like what Disney and Dreamworks make, but rather a showcase for the latest in animatorless animation technology. Add in the fact that the directors who make these types of movies pretty much never come from an animation background (and no, Steven Spielberg producing a couple of Don Bluth's movies doesn't count), but rather a live action one, and as such they want the animation process to more similarly resemble the process involved with live action. I'm not saying that Tintin will be bad, per-say, but I am saying that my expectations are significantly lower than for a regular animated film because I know the mindset behind it, and I know why it has never worked in the past.

 

[spidey-dude]

how can you tell if the plane looks fake? there's not even enough pixels to determin that! it's simply to far away and the texture of the water is fine the only problem i have is that it looks kinda green which will probably be fixed later.

it looks plasticy just like the clothes

 

[Secret Fawful]

it looks plasticy just like the clothes

Are you honestly going to try to tell me that THAT looks like plastic?

 

[dark_b]

nothing from CGI in the last 4 years looks like plastic anymore. because they god rid of a specular cheat . now they use physical correct reflections.

plastic hehehehe.

 

[Jonny_Billboard]

It is nice that some pics finally arrive. I wonder what more will be revealed in the next Empire issue. I have heard that pics of Thompson and Thompson as well as some sets are to be revealed. It is hard to tell what to think judging by these pics... Tintin himself really has a "Pinocchio-wibe" to him... Oh well, time will tell if it's good.

 

[spidey-dude]

Are you honestly going to try to tell me that THAT looks like plastic?

different picture genius!

but i dont think that looks real either

you can tell its cgi, its the wrinkles that make it look more plasterciney than real

if it fools you guys thats fine, but it looks cgi to me, it looks okay just nowhere near as good as i was expecting, im just disappointed sorry for having an opinion

 

[DarkKnight88]

Is it ever supposed to look "real"? Or capture the essence of the comics? Because I think Spielberg (and Jackson) are going for the later. There's a reason they didn't shoot this live-action.

Observe this monstrosity.

You want to talk about looking "plasticy".

 

[Electrofarce]

Is it ever supposed to look "real"? Or capture the essence of the comics? Because I think Spielberg (and Jackson) are going for the later. There's a reason they didn't shoot this live-action.

Observe this monstrosity.

You want to talk about looking "plasticy".

That looks like pure s**t. I'm glad they are making photo-real translations of the characters!