The Adventures of Tintin

[Monsieur Xavier]

What's wrong with this picture, the guy looks like Tintin.

 

[DarkKnight88]

What's wrong with this picture, the guy looks like Tintin.

Looks like a guy at a costume party dressed as Tintin.

 

[Electrofarce]

What's wrong with this picture, the guy looks like Tintin.

No he doesn't. Tintin does not have these facial features and no human has the facial features of Tintin (who is extremely stylized). Therefor, CGI makes more sense and looks much better in the long run

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

To each his own I guess but the characters in the live action Tintin movies aren't that bad as some make out to be.
If you want to be a purist, Tintin should be in 2D, CGI or classic drawing and respect Hergé style ( clear line / La ligne claire ).

 

[Timstuff]

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

I agree. It looks decent, but it looks like CG, and does not come close to passing for photo-real under my eyes-- in some ways, less so than Beowulf. The real test will be to see it in motion, but I think I already know pretty much what to expect as far as that is concerned since this is being hailed as a "performance capture movie"-- aka, an animated movie made with minimal involvement from those pesky animators.

No he doesn't. Tintin does not have these facial features and no human has the facial features of Tintin (who is extremely stylized). Therefor, CGI makes more sense and looks much better in the long run

I wish people could learn how to use their imaginations for once instead of complaining every time a stylistically drawn character does not 100% match their live-action counterpart. Robin Williams does not look anything like the Popeye cartoon character, but whenever I watched him as Popeye as a kid, I always thought "he's Popeye." He got the voice, he had the big arms, and he was wearing the sailor suit. I had an imagination, so I bought it. It never pops into my mind while watching the Popeye movie "This would be way better if it was CG performance capture." Popeye is not a real person, so there is plenty of room for interpretation as far as choosing an actor goes. Heck, look at Scott Pilgrim for crying out loud!

No-one in that movie truly looks 100% like their 2D counterpart, but I don't care. They still played the characters and played them well, and my imagination did the rest. That's where the real magic of movies is.

If people are going to look at 2D cartoon characters and say "the only way to do a movie out of this is with CG," then I'll fire right back and say that the best way to do it would be in their original format of 2D. Why is it that a comic like Tintin has to be done in CG? Why can't they just make a high quality, 2D hand-animated film? Wanting CG because "it's more realistic" is no less shallow than wanting live action because "it's more realistic." Either way, you are moving the characters out of their original element and into something different, whether it's with CG or real people.

 

[Electrofarce]

I agree. It looks decent, but it looks like CG, and does not come close to passing for photo-real under my eyes-- in some ways, less so than Beowulf. The real test will be to see it in motion, but I think I already know pretty much what to expect as far as that is concerned since this is being hailed as a "performance capture movie"-- aka, an animated movie made with minimal involvement from those pesky animators.



I wish people could learn how to use their imaginations for once instead of complaining every time a stylistically drawn character does not 100% match their live-action counterpart. Robin Williams does not look anything like the Popeye cartoon character, but whenever I watched him as Popeye as a kid, I always thought "he's Popeye." He got the voice, he had the big arms, and he was wearing the sailor suit. I had an imagination, so I bought it. It never pops into my mind while watching the Popeye movie "This would be way better if it was CG performance capture." Popeye is not a real person, so there is plenty of room for interpretation as far as choosing an actor goes. Heck, look at Scott Pilgrim for crying out loud!

No-one in that movie truly looks 100% like their 2D counterpart, but I don't care. They still played the characters and played them well, and my imagination did the rest. That's where the real magic of movies is.

If people are going to look at 2D cartoon characters and say "the only way to do a movie out of this is with CG," then I'll fire right back and say that the best way to do it would be in their original format of 2D. Why is it that a comic like Tintin has to be done in CG? Why can't they just make a high quality, 2D hand-animated film? Wanting CG because "it's more realistic" is no less shallow than wanting live action because "it's more realistic." Either way, you are moving the characters out of their original element and into something different, whether it's with CG or real people.

Very valid argument. Personally, I feel that Tintin would look rediculous in live action simply because of the style. Scott Pilgrim was modern and that's why it worked. Tintin is old fashioned/unrealistic and real people dressed like that would just look silly imo

 

[Dr Strange]

Tintin does not have these facial features and no human has the facial features of Tintin (who is extremely stylized). Therefor, CGI makes more sense and looks much better in the long run

But we have only seen his facial features as dots and black lines. We've never seen Tintin with real features before. I think we need more pictures of him before we begin to criticise too much.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'm thinking this is gonna be a great film. I have a good feeling about this. Especially the moments between Pegg and Frost. I think they'll have very subtle British humor that's gonna be great. This could be Spielberg's best in a long time. The irony will be that it's CG.

 

[Timstuff]

2x post

 

[Timstuff]

Like I said, until I see it moving I am unsold on it. Robert Zemeckis was a great director before he started making mocap movies, too, and look at what happened when he got into CG. The thing he and Spielberg have in common is that they both want to approach the animation medium the same way they approach live action-- show up on set, film the actors doing their thing, and then start on post production. They don't have the patience to do animated films through the traditional process, and unfortunately for Zemeckis, you can see it in the disappointing quality of the animation.

Granted Tintin is probably a lot more expensive than Zemeckis's movies, but that doesn't change that Spielberg is approaching the medium the same way Zemeckis did-- with the attitude of "I want this to work the same way as my other movies, and the fewer of those darned animators that come between me and my movie, the better." While there are directors who can transition between animation and live action quite successfully, in the case of guys like Spielberg and Zemeckis there's sometimes just too many years of habit and too much ego for them to conform to the way animators make movies.

 

[Secret Fawful]

I recently got proven wrong on another board that no actors could possibly play Tintin.

See for yourselves.

That's from the 60s though, so I still stand by my thoughts that no current actors fit the bill.

 

[Lone]

You forgot Tron Legacy. Nearly perfect:

That's a bad example. It doesn't even look like a young Jeff Bridges. Benjamin Button was perfect.

 

[Spidey_62]

Too much complaining in this thread, it looks great!

 

[dark_b]

That's a bad example. It doesn't even look like a young Jeff Bridges. Benjamin Button was perfect.

is this an opinion?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That CGI Bridges looks like **** too me. Hot stinky ****. I'm sorry but I just had to post that.

EDIT:

I mean it just looks freakin scary and all sorts of awful.

 

[Octoberist]

The Young Jeff Bridges does look..off. I mean, in the context of the movie, I think it's okay because he's a computer program. Then I thought about the 'flashback' scene (with young Sam) in the trailer..then I was like 'eh'.

It feels (thus far) like it's tech that's not there yet.

 

[spidey-dude]

I agree. It looks decent, but it looks like CG, and does not come close to passing for photo-real under my eyes-- in some ways, less so than Beowulf. The real test will be to see it in motion, but I think I already know pretty much what to expect as far as that is concerned since this is being hailed as a "performance capture movie"-- aka, an animated movie made with minimal involvement from those pesky animators.



I wish people could learn how to use their imaginations for once instead of complaining every time a stylistically drawn character does not 100% match their live-action counterpart. Robin Williams does not look anything like the Popeye cartoon character, but whenever I watched him as Popeye as a kid, I always thought "he's Popeye." He got the voice, he had the big arms, and he was wearing the sailor suit. I had an imagination, so I bought it. It never pops into my mind while watching the Popeye movie "This would be way better if it was CG performance capture." Popeye is not a real person, so there is plenty of room for interpretation as far as choosing an actor goes. Heck, look at Scott Pilgrim for crying out loud!

No-one in that movie truly looks 100% like their 2D counterpart, but I don't care. They still played the characters and played them well, and my imagination did the rest. That's where the real magic of movies is.

If people are going to look at 2D cartoon characters and say "the only way to do a movie out of this is with CG," then I'll fire right back and say that the best way to do it would be in their original format of 2D. Why is it that a comic like Tintin has to be done in CG? Why can't they just make a high quality, 2D hand-animated film? Wanting CG because "it's more realistic" is no less shallow than wanting live action because "it's more realistic." Either way, you are moving the characters out of their original element and into something different, whether it's with CG or real people.

agree 98%

the 2% is I always imagined scott pilgrim with a button nose, not that horrible hook that monstrosity cera has

 

[dark_b]

this is what happens when a comicbook fan is directing movies and has a ''nose vision''

 

[Grillz]

If the face looks like I think it will I bet a lot of people will react negatively to it.

Wow JAK®, you were right on target when you said that. It's about two whole pages going crazy. I can't help but thing about 2008 when a lot of people said "Brokeback Joker".

 

[JAK®]

As someone who didn't follow Tron: Legacy's production I was completely fooled by the CGI Bridges when the trailer came out.

 

[JAK®]

Wow JAK®, you were right on target when you said that. It's about two whole pages going crazy. I can't help but thing about 2008 when a lot of people said "Brokeback Joker".

Yep, people weren't prepared for the cartoonish proportions.

 

[jesusmagicka]

The Young Jeff Bridges does look..off. I mean, in the context of the movie, I think it's okay because he's a computer program. Then I thought about the 'flashback' scene (with young Sam) in the trailer..then I was like 'eh'.

It feels (thus far) like it's tech that's not there yet.

"context of the movie"

That's a lame excuse that people always use for horrible CGI. It doesn't even make sense within the context of Tron Legacy, because no one else looks like fake CGI and they're computer programs within the same world too.

eyeroll.

 

[spidey-dude]

Yep, people weren't prepared for the cartoonish proportions.

its not the proportions that are annoying me its all the spielberg and jackson fans who are claiming that other than the proportions its practically life like and you cant tell its cgi - simple not the case

it has got time to improve however

i just think it would have looked better in a traditional cgi style - but hey i can still be converted in a years time

 

[dark_b]

who said that it looks like a real human with different proportions?

 

[JAK®]

who said that it looks like a real human with different proportions?

Isn't there a quote which literally says "they look like real people, but real Herge people!"

In fact, here it is:

Jackson said WETA will stay true to Remi's original designs in bringing the cast of Tintin to life, but that the characters won't look cartoonish.

"Instead," Jackson said, "we're making them look photorealistic; the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people --but real Hergé people!"