The Adventures of Tintin

[Sawyer]

I cant wait to see Thomson and Thompson.

 

[dark_b]

I think Tintin is designed for CGI where as Beowulf is not. Why? Because the human characters are just human where as Tintin takes place in a more surreal or cartoony, timeless universe.

bingo.

plus the problem with Zmeckis is that he is using fake CGI impossible camera work that takes you out of the movie.

lets hope that the simulcam and WETA's animators will do a good job.because from what i understand the facial capture technology is teh same like on Christmas Carol.

 

[Octoberist]

I forgot that Edgar Wright did a rewrite on the script!

 

[Octoberist]

bingo.

plus the problem with Zmeckis is that he is using fake CGI impossible camera work that takes you out of the movie.

lets hope that the simulcam and WETA's animators will do a good job.because from what i understand the facial capture technology is teh same like on Christmas Carol.

That's the problem with some of the 'impossible' camera work in Zmeckis' movies. They kinda broke the rules of 'film' so it felt like a video game in certain scenes in Beowulf and A Christmas Carol.

 

[CGHulk]

I was expecting something more realistic! Oh well lets hope there's life in the performances, unlike the Zemeckis films!

 

[Secret Fawful]

I see what you're saying, but I'm just annoyed at the details. This is like right in the middle for no reason than to just be in the middle. The spectrum I'm looking at is like this:

Live action end of the spectrum (Casting actors that sort of resembles the characters and be in some makeup but still have the actors own look)

This Neither looking like the actor that's playing the part OR looking like the comic book original... instead just some horrid mutation...)

Completly CGI (Doing a faithful cgi version of the comic book characters look)

I mean, they got THIS *thumb and pinky* close and just missed it. Why? Is my question.
I know its nitpicking, but it wouldn't be SHH without nerdy nitpicking now would it

I see where you're coming from though. However, I just think the only way they could make it look exactly like the original and make it look good is if they made it 2d animation. And then what would be the point? What could Spielberg and Jackson (man that phrase sounds so cool!) do that the animated series didn't do already in 2D? I like where they have it now; and hopefully when the trailer comes we'll all be saying "CGI? What CGI?" Spielberg and Lucas have Indiana Jones, and now Spielberg and Jackson (man I love saying that!) have Tintin. (I kind of wish they had more movies together just so I could say Spielberg and Jackson all the time cause it sounds so cool.)

 

[.Rorschach.]

looks perfect

 

[Octoberist]

I just wanna have a fun movie.

 

[Timstuff]

Honestly, my expectations for this are pretty low. Robert Zemeckis thought he could match Pixar for quality by using mocap, and he couldn't. Jackson and Spielberg seem to think that it can be done if they throw enough money at it, but I think once again they are going to be proven wrong. If you try to make human characters with mocap you run into uncanny valley, and if you use mocap with highly stylized characters then you end up with a very stiff looking cartoon.

 

[Dr Strange]

I need to see a clearer image of the face before i make a decision but i think the designs look great. It is difficult to say at the moment because Tintin has button features, so seeing him with real eyes and a real mouth and human features is difficult to comprehend because we haven't seen it before. I have faith in this film.

 

[Secret Fawful]

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.

The Polar Express-

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

 

[Octoberist]

Honestly, my expectations for this are pretty low. Robert Zemeckis thought he could match Pixar for quality by using mocap, and he couldn't. Jackson and Spielberg seem to think that it can be done if they throw enough money at it, but I think once again they are going to be proven wrong. If you try to make human characters with mocap you run into uncanny valley, and if you use mocap with highly stylized characters then you end up with a very stiff looking cartoon.

BUt the thing is that this IS Jackson and Spielberg, AND WETA that we're talking about here.

I think Zemeckis' heart is in the right place, but I don't think he had the right vision and resources to do his films justice. Like what I said before, James Cameron destroyed what Zemeckis was trying to do in the past decade with Avatar (regardless if it's meant to be real or just CGI)

 

[Octoberist]

my definition of the uncanny valley is when it looks off-putting.

 

[Timstuff]

The thing is, we haven't seen the movie in motion yet. That is going to be what either makes or breaks it in terms of whether or not the motion capture characters are convincing. After all, Beowulf's stills look pretty impressive...

But when you see it moving, it looks like garbage. When you use motion capture with realistic characters, if the motion capture is not pretty much perfect it's going to look off, and to get it that good you have to spend A LOT of money, not just on using the equipment but also on the animators who have to perform the tedious task of cleaning it up. And if you use it with stylized characters, regardless of how realistic they look, it's generally going to make them look stiff because stylized characters need stylized movement to be convincing. Our perception of "realisim" for things that don't look like real people is always going to be a bit different, and having "real" movement with a cartoonish character actually makes it look more fake than if it was done by hand.

 

[Octoberist]

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.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

Wow more mo-cap zombies.Those faces look lifeless.

 

[BLACK-SPIDEY]

wait, wait, wasnt the point of this making the characters look real? not cartoonish?.........if thats the case then why in god´s ******** are you complaining about them not looking like in the comics?

Its like Avatar after the teaser trailer came out, but worst, cause it only 3 pictures now, jesus christ......theres no salvation for this world.

 

[Sentinel X]

Whats the point of cgi:ing the movie if they are not making the characters look like they look in the comics?

Not one of those pics are remarkly similar to what they look like in the comics and wasnt that THE WHOLE FRIGGIN POINT!?

case in point:
Cap. Haddock:

Not Cap. Haddock

nose is all wrong and effs up the overall look.

Are you joking? ...sometimes its hard for me to tell sarcasm on the internet.

 

[Sawyer]

Are you joking? ...sometimes its hard for me to tell sarcasm on the internet.

No sarcasm. Just insanity.

 

[Spideyfan93]

Are you joking? ...sometimes its hard for me to tell sarcasm on the internet.

I agree because he looks pretty spot on! lmao

I really love the pictures for now. They do have a good abundance of time to make the animation better. Looks great if this is the final product though.

 

[spidey-dude]

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.

The Polar Express-

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

have to disagree, while not to the extent of the last few pics the tintin ones totally have that uncanny valley effect - it is not on the same level as the others

that tintin picture just screams cgi - whereas the others were believable

 

[Secret Fawful]

have to disagree, while not to the extent of the last few pics the tintin ones totally have that uncanny valley effect - it is not on the same level as the others

that tintin picture just screams cgi - whereas the others were believable

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

 

[Spideyfan93]

AVATAR will be hard to top. That was as real to life as we are going to get aside from Tintin.

LOTR and POTC had(most of the time at least) real sets with their CGI characters. The lighting was incredible for both as well as the characters. Davy Jones, I thought was real until a couple years ago. Gollum, while still great looking, seemed to become a little dated...not much though.

Tintin looks top notch.

 

[ironwez20]

I remember tintin from long ago in the 90s when i was just a kid. This movie looks really good but its so far away.

 

[unknownuser]

Looks great
Tintin has been a big part of my childhood and will be watching this on the first day