The Adventures of Tintin

[dark_b]

but they didnt meant real in every possible way.

the owls look like real owls in Snyders Guardians. but of course its not like watching a movie about real talking animals filmed with a camera.

come on guys.

 

[JAK®]

but they didnt meant real in every possible way.

the owls look like real owls in Snyders Guardians. but of course its not like watching a movie about real talking animals filmed with a camera.

come on guys.

I'm not complaining.

But I think what they described is sort of an oxymoron. The textures are photorealistic, but the cartoonish proportions immediately tell you it's not real. You can't really have one with the other.

I like the idea behind it, always have since years ago when these kinds of movies started being made, but every time one comes out I believe in them less and less.

 

[dark_b]

Guardians had photorealistic textures.

 

[JAK®]

Guardians had photorealistic textures.

Did I dispute that?

 

[Timstuff]

I'm not complaining.

But I think what they described is sort of an oxymoron. The textures are photorealistic, but the cartoonish proportions immediately tell you it's not real. You can't really have one with the other.

I like the idea behind it, always have since years ago when these kinds of movies started being made, but every time one comes out I believe in them less and less.

The reason why "performance capture" films for the most part don't really work, as I've said many times before, is because it's the result of live action film directors wanting to enter the animation medium without actually working with animators, or at least not give them credit when their contributions get lost with all the hype about the "performance capture" utilized. Their approach to production with these movies is the same as with their live action films but with slightly more stylistic liberty taken, and frankly I see that as a waste.

Pixar and Dreamworks dominate the animation reason for one simple reason: they have darned good animators. Good animators do not just draw or manipulate puppets-- they are heavily involved with the story process as well, and the story process on a good animated film is usually a lot different from a live action one. The problem with live action directors trying to make animation is that they often can't adjust to those differences, and as a result the film ends up being "shot from a script" rather than emerging out of hundreds of hours of story room meetings between the writing department and the art department. With live action, you have a script, you make storyboards from it, and then you shoot based on the storyboards. In good animated films though, the process is rarely that straight forward, and I think that that's what frustrated Robert Zemeckis when he first started looking into animation, which ultimately made him more interested in "performance capture."

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Are some of you ACTUALLY complaining about the look of 3 hours of film footage based on like four pictures!? Let's say the film is rendered at 30 frames per second, that means altogether there are about 324,000 pictures throughout the film! There are still 323,996 more frames to see!

Furthermore, if you've ever read the books or seen the show, you would know that it would be impossible to get a realistic Tintin that still looks like the Tintin in the books...

Seriously guys? It looks great.

 

[JAK®]

Are some of you ACTUALLY complaining about the look of 3 hours of film footage based on like four pictures!? Let's say the film is rendered at 30 frames per second, that means altogether there are about 324,000 pictures throughout the film! There are still 323,996 more frames to see!

Furthermore, if you've ever read the books or seen the show, you would know that it would be impossible to get a realistic Tintin that still looks like the Tintin in the books...

Seriously guys? It looks great.

We're talking about the medium itself. As far as I'm concerned they've accomplished everything they said they would. The textures are photorealistic, the characters look like the books, etc. I have no problem with that.

But I'm having my reservations on whether combining photorealism with cartoons is actually a good idea.

 

[dark_b]

more pics are in the magazine. we need scans.

 

[Spider-Steve]

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

And offcourse in Belgium the same! I really hope the world premiere of this movie is in Belgium!

Hergé is Belgian, so i guess it's pretty obivous to have the premiere here and not in USA!

 

[Timstuff]

Are some of you ACTUALLY complaining about the look of 3 hours of film footage based on like four pictures!? Let's say the film is rendered at 30 frames per second, that means altogether there are about 324,000 pictures throughout the film! There are still 323,996 more frames to see!

Furthermore, if you've ever read the books or seen the show, you would know that it would be impossible to get a realistic Tintin that still looks like the Tintin in the books...

Seriously guys? It looks great.

You don't need to have seen the movie to be skeptical about the concept. The only difference between Spieberg's approach to mocap and Zemeckis's is that Spielberg is throwing more money at it, and frankly I don't think Spielberg really "gets" what is fundamentally wrong with mocap movies since he does not come from an animation background. If he was not hyping this movie as being "perfomance capture" and was simply talking it up as an animated film, then maybe I wouldn't be as skeptical, but the fact that he's emphasizing that this is "actors performing through a digital world" tells me that pretty much everything that's wrong with Zemeckis's movies is probably going to be wrong with this one, too, except it will look more expensive. It's yet another live action director trying to shoehorn his creative process into a another medium that it is incompatible with.

 

[dark_b]

i think part of the reason they are talking always about mocap is that those directors are used to work with actors. they want to work with actors .

 

[Timstuff]

I agree, and that's part of the problem. In most animated films, voice actors are only one small component of what it takes to bring a character to life. The bulk load of the acting is done by the animators. There is an old saying in the animation field that "animators are actors with pencils." Nowadays, that should be modernized as "animators are actors with pencils, mouses and tablets," however it is still true. Great animators know exactly how to bring a character to life through their medium, but with actors doing motion capture, they treat it more like being in a low budget stage play. They are out of their element and are forced to use their imaginations to interact with their environment much moreso than on a regular film set, and frankly most actors are not very good at that.

Simply put, I would not hire an actor to paint a portrait of me, so I don't really understand why people would hire actors to animate other than because trying to make animators work under the auteur system is very much akin to cat wrangling. Artists like to collaborate and improve upon the assignments they are given, but under the rigid system of live action film there isn't much room for that, and thus for a director like Spielberg, making an animated film is probably not the best idea.

 

[Dr Lee]

Have to say, i thought this was live action... so i almost snapped my neck at the double take i made when i saw the images...

but i think it looks great, Haddock looks awesome....he may not be an EXACT replica, but i think he looks like a good conversion from the 2d drawings.

this just jumped up my 'excited for' list

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You don't need to have seen the movie to be skeptical about the concept. The only difference between Spieberg's approach to mocap and Zemeckis's is that Spielberg is throwing more money at it, and frankly I don't think Spielberg really "gets" what is fundamentally wrong with mocap movies since he does not come from an animation background. If he was not hyping this movie as being "perfomance capture" and was simply talking it up as an animated film, then maybe I wouldn't be as skeptical, but the fact that he's emphasizing that this is "actors performing through a digital world" tells me that pretty much everything that's wrong with Zemeckis's movies is probably going to be wrong with this one, too, except it will look more expensive. It's yet another live action director trying to shoehorn his creative process into a another medium that it is incompatible with.

Dude, let him say what he wants... if he gave you an amazing burger and called it a taco, would you rant at how it's not a taco? Just eat the amazing burger and be happy - because frankly I'd rather have the amazing burger than a half-decent taco.

 

[Timstuff]

It's more like being handed the hot, greasy play-doh that McDonalds calls hamburgers, and then being told it's just as good as Five Guys even though you know deep down it's not. If the ingredients suck, and the people who made it don't actually know how to make hamburgers, or simply don't care, then why should you expect it to be as good as Five Guys?

Spielberg has produced some great animated projects before, like many of Don Bluth's better movies and the Tiny Toons and Animaniacs TV series, but in those cases he had a more hands-off role. He gave his stamp of approval and let the people who knew the medium and knew it well do the rest. With his attempt at directing an animated feature though, he is trying to apply the live action approach to filmmaking to the animated medium, and have as little "interference" from actual animators as possible. And then, he and Zemeckis try to protect their films from unfavorable comparisons with Pixar and Dreamworks by saying these aren't really animated films, but rather "performance capture" films, or "digital props, sets, costumes and makeup for live actors."

There's no historical precedent for movies that have taken the same approach as Tintin being anything more than passably decent, at least when compared to animated films made by people who actually know what they're doing. I don't see any reason to believe Tintin will be any better than any of Zemeckis's attempts at making animated films, because he's not doing anything differently. Zemeckis's films had problems that extended well beyond their technical issues, and it's because he was trying to make an animated film through the live action creative process. Spielberg is doing the same thing, and he's going to run into the exact same problems.

 

[Crockett]

Since I didn't have internet for awhile I missed a lot of news, including this.
But god damn finally we've got to see some stills from the movie. It has this surreal realistic look and at the same time Spielberg and Jackson did want to bring Hérge's drawing to life and I think they have accomplished that. Tintin, Haddock and Milou looks great and can't wait to see Red Rackham and Thomson and Thompson although I'm worried, has they mention if Professor Caculus is going to be in the movie? I'm mean he should be in it but then nobody has been cast as him so.

 

[Electrofarce]

more pics are in the magazine. we need scans.

Why hasn't somebody posted these yet?!

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Is the magazine out already? I want to see more pics!

 

[Crockett]

It came out yesterday, but the scans will pop up eventually.

 

[batfan1028]

I found scans but only for a few pages and they are not the best quality.
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8694/numrisation00035.jpg
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6499/numrisation0012.jpg

 

[terry78]

Bad. Ass.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Badass. Anyone else getting a Raiders of the Lost Ark vibe?

I really think this will turn into something special next Christmas. I like that it's the underdog movie. I really think it's going to surprise people.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Wow. I really am getting a film noir vibe from that last shot. It's nice to know that The Crab with the Golden Claws is being adapted into the film as well as The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

It's more like being handed the hot, greasy play-doh that McDonalds calls hamburgers, and then being told it's just as good as Five Guys even though you know deep down it's not. If the ingredients suck, and the people who made it don't actually know how to make hamburgers, or simply don't care, then why should you expect it to be as good as Five Guys?

Spielberg has produced some great animated projects before, like many of Don Bluth's better movies and the Tiny Toons and Animaniacs TV series, but in those cases he had a more hands-off role. He gave his stamp of approval and let the people who knew the medium and knew it well do the rest. With his attempt at directing an animated feature though, he is trying to apply the live action approach to filmmaking to the animated medium, and have as little "interference" from actual animators as possible. And then, he and Zemeckis try to protect their films from unfavorable comparisons with Pixar and Dreamworks by saying these aren't really animated films, but rather "performance capture" films, or "digital props, sets, costumes and makeup for live actors."

There's no historical precedent for movies that have taken the same approach as Tintin being anything more than passably decent, at least when compared to animated films made by people who actually know what they're doing. I don't see any reason to believe Tintin will be any better than any of Zemeckis's attempts at making animated films, because he's not doing anything differently. Zemeckis's films had problems that extended well beyond their technical issues, and it's because he was trying to make an animated film through the live action creative process. Spielberg is doing the same thing, and he's going to run into the exact same problems.

I'd say it's more like being handed a Five Guys and being told it's a big Mac - even though clearly the guy who made the Burger didn't know wtf he was talking about... Either way, I prefer what's going on now - and when I initially heard it was going to be the Avatar kind of thing I was like "WTF!?".

It's still motion capture - people in suits with dots on their faces - but the animation looks like the cartoon. I'm happy.

 

[dark_b]

the most pure motion capture CGI will be when you copy in CGI a real actor. so for example superman,green lantern,.....
because the CGI model is the same like the real actor there is only small clean up.

but when your CGI model look 90% different then the actor who was doing motion capture then the animators do a lot ........a LOT clean up. and not onyl clean up. they need to by hand interpret the facial movement from the actor and then translate it to the CGI chaarcter.

the face from TinTin looks so different from Bell that if the aniamators didnt spend months on the rig then the movement will look like in a Zeeckis movie.in others words it will fail. i hope i hope that SPielberg listened to WETA and what tehy learned on Avatar.