Ladies and gents, tell me. Which looks more appealing, this:
or this:
EDIT: Geez, SecretFawful, lighten up.
EDIT2: And while I personally believe the models to look, well... less-than-stellar, I think I'll reserve judgment until I actually see it in motion. A good animator can save a mediocre model, but a good modeler can't save bad animation.
EDIT3: And yes, I know this is motion capture. You still need animators for motion capture, though.
The comparison makes it obvious how this is a terrible idea. The shadow that THEY provide, along with the original shadow they are mimicking, show how disparate the silhouettes of these characters are. Cartooning requires a strong, recognizable sillouette. To deny that sillouette is to deny the design identity of the character, and in that way they basically lose any advantage an animated film would have.
Doing a film with motion capture CGI is an attempt to capture the benefits of CGI and the benefits of animation, but the problem is that(in practice) it just brings the weaknesses of both to light.
There's a reason this is ridiculous and should not be the basis of a major motion picture.
I give up. You're right and they're right. It sucks. I won't watch it. Tintin is ruined for me. I can never watch the animated series or read the books again from how ruined it is. I can't enjoy the movie now. Spielberg is a hack. Jackson is a hack. Herge was a hack. Wright is a hack. WETA is a disappointment. And all that is proven from two stills. Why should I give a damn about Tintin anymore; it's been ruined forever and it can never be repaired. I'll never watch another Spielberg, Jackson, or Wright film because I won't ever support those Tintin-ruining buttheads ever again. Because of those stills. I'm going to go drown my sorrows in a mixture of oxycodone and heavy alcohol.
oh yup you sure got me.
Look, ugly is ugly and appealing is appealing. I don't give a damn who makes it, as long as it's appealing. Right now they look like lifeless zombies, which is quite frankly insulting to the original source material.
Since you missed the joke, I'll let you know there is one truthful part of my above post
It's the part where I gave up
. I'll let you figure out which one it is. Needless to say, I'm done with this argument and I just don't care to continue defending two pictures. It's a waste of my time. It's been a waste of my time since I started and it's just destroying the topic.
Needless to say, when Tintin comes out all of the naysayers will eat crow. They'll go cry in a corner and shoot their heads off. And I'll laugh. Laugh in the theater when the names Spielberg and Jackson appear followed by The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.
Normally Secret Fawful shows taste and style. Whilst i think the boat is looking good, especially the Haddock screen is yelling that it's just awful and wrong. It also might help considering what Hergé's ligne claire stands for.
The way this is screwed up in the stills reminded me of the link once provided on grumpy gamer about the american Akira version.
Opinions based on 2 pre-release stills and a mocked up cover shot. :rolleyes:
And is stating a fact 'belittling' now? Or is this thread not actually filled with moaning after all?
Generally speaking, pre-release stills are supposed to represent the final product. Otherwise, they'd either mention that it was a work-in-progress or, more likely(for a major Hollywood production) not release it. If you're saying that it's likely that the entire look of the feature is going to drastically change between these two images, I think you're hopes are a bit too high. And I doubt the "cover shot" is any more "mocked up" than the rest of the film. If it is, then we're in trouble, because the "mock-up" shouldn't feature all of the weaknesses of mocap and really should have gone for a more similar posture and look compared to the source image. More than that, since people have been perfectly allowed to say how excited they are and how incredible these shots are without any objection whatsoever, I highly doubt your objection comes from forming an opinion without basis. That I think I can fairly safely assume is more of an excuse, formed afterwards, after seeing a viewpoint and attitude that didn't distinctly match your own.
If the use of the word "moaning" didn't imply it enough, the use of "fanboys" was meant as derogatory to a set of people with a certain viewpoint. "On the internet" is meant to imply a lack of importance. "Whod've thought" is meant to make you sound like you're inherently right and better than the rest of everybody else somehow.
It's the epitome of the internet dick post. It contributes no content to the conversation, and instead goes for the low blow of "it's on the internet so it doesn't matter"/"it's by 'fanboys' so I can ignore it and not face it directly"/"I'm better than most people on the internet"/"It's moaning because I don't like it"
It is literally one of the worst kinds of posts a forum user can make. If you think that "on the internet" has no value, then don't post here. Some of us do so recreationally, though, and we don't find the idea that it's "on the internet" to be any reason to stop discussing. Some of us have different opinions than other posters. Some people want to be able to say what they think about a thing without that being considered invalid and stupid because other people think something different. And last I checked, we are all fanboys because we are posting on a niche video game company's official forums. A niche company in a niche genre. Seriously, if you want to go with the argument "Haha, it doesn't matter because nerds said it", maybe you should actually look at where you are saying it and why you are actually there.
Essentially, a mod shouldn't make posts like this. You should be a better example than this. And you're not being one.
@jp-30
Whilst i think that it's completely fine stating your opinion (likes and dislikes), contrary to you some of us actually were stating opinions more based on facts. If you have some understanding of the relevance of Hergé's work then it might be more obvious.
Anyway, i guess we all have our chauvinistic moments, even a niche mod. :O)
If the use of the word "moaning" didn't imply it enough, the use of "fanboys" was meant as derogatory to a set of people with a certain viewpoint.
I don't know, I think we're well past the stage where "fanboys" has an inherently negative connotation. I'm not saying there aren't people who still use it as an attack, but more often than not I see it used as a neutral label.
Yes, the post was dismissive, but I'm sure jp didn't mean it nearly as harshly as you took it. After all, if you can't be sarcastic on the internet, where can you be sarcastic? :P
I agree with Dashing about the phrase "on the internet". I made a post about it a few years back on another forum. It just makes you seem like a huge snob. I especially don't like it when people use that phrase as a sort of defence while arguing (e.g., "oh no, somebody's calling me wrong on the internet, what will I do :rolleyes:").
That being said, I also agree with doggans; I doubt JP was being aggressive at all.
If the movie does include Secret of the Unicorn/Rackam's Treasure, it would be hard for it not to have Calculus in it.
Define "chauvinistic"? I've heard it as meaning "jingoistic" and I've heard it as meaning "sexist" but you seem to be using it in a third way here?
Chauvinism is sort of like patriotism, but not necessarily to do with your nation. It's just where you believe you're better than others because of a factor which is beyond your control and which doesn't necessarily have any inherent value on its own.
Also, if you're using Google Chrome, I strongly recommend getting the "google dictionary" extension, it brings up a definition of any word when you double click said word. It's great
ok i think this is the point. i personally dont give two shits, but im gonna go for it anyways because it was brought up.
I think the main problem is mod status. If it were anyone else, it would have been all "oh it's just some other dude dicking around" but as a mod you're representing the authority of an entire community and that sort of statement is akin to saying "Stop arguing about who's better. It's just a cartoon dog and rabbit." or even "This thread is stupid."
What makes this community better than others is the fact that mods aren't dicks all the time in public. Preferably mods should be genuinely nice and not dicks even while not in public, but that's a bit unreasonable to ask/check for in a semi-anonymous environment. At the very least don't be a dick in public and ill give the benefit of the doubt and think you're nice in person.
Should you enjoy yourself as a commentator? Yeah sure, but there's a point where comments get out of hand, being a mod, and I think this is one of those times. Because even if you were just being sarcastic, it comes off as insulting everyone in the thread and going "DEAL WITH IT".
I never understood what made mo-cap hate so hip. As someone who grew up with the book, I thought The Polar Express looked and was excellent, and I think time will treat it way better than forum bellyachers have. "The kids looked creepy!" Yeah, you know what else looked creepy? Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott award-winning illustrations, which the film does a brilliant job of bringing to life. Really don't get the internet version of this movie's public perception, which I find oddly in contrast with its "real life" counterpart in my experience.
I think fans of Tintin would agree that a hand-drawn 2D animated film would have been the ideal approach. I also think that fans of Tintin are a generally intelligent bunch, and wouldn't need much help in recognizing that the prospect is a completely unrealistic one. (See also: the Bone movie.) Is the dogpile on these initial stills just bitterness about that reality, or is it really and truly an objective critique of what Spielberg and Jackson's team have conjured here?
I think fans of Tintin would agree that a hand-drawn 2D animated film would have been the ideal approach. I also think that fans of Tintin are a generally intelligent bunch, and wouldn't need much help in recognizing that the prospect is a completely unrealistic one. (See also: the Bone movie.) Is the dogpile on these initial stills just bitterness about that reality, or is it really and truly an objective critique of what Spielberg and Jackson's team have conjured here?
It's a critique of this approach in general, that is, it has at most almost no benefits compared to just doing a straight-up live-action film. Generally, doing things that make a live action film look WORSE tend to be done for cost or technology reasons, or incompetence. Considering the names involved, the project should be handled better than this in terms of the broad strokes, and even from these early stills it is obvious that the approach is one that brings nothing of value to the table.
From what I've gathered most people dislike mocap due to the fact you lose some facial realisim, while gaining full body realism. It was like how Silent Hill 2 the team refused mocap and made some of the most realistic facial expressions for games. While 3 used mocap and had realistic body, but lost the facial.
Considering the names involved, the project should be handled better than this in terms of the broad strokes, and even from these early stills it is obvious that the approach is one that brings nothing of value to the table.
Given Weta / Jackson / Serkis' work on Lord of the Rings and King Kong, I have the utmost faith in their utilization of motion capture.
I think it's pretty bold to criticise motion-capture so vehemently in a movie where you've seen absolutely no motion as yet.
From what I've gathered most people dislike mocap due to the fact you lose some facial realisim, while gaining full body realism. It was like how Silent Hill 2 the team refused mocap and made some of the most realistic facial expressions for games. While 3 used mocap and had realistic body, but lost the facial.
I think it's pretty bold to criticise motion-capture so vehemently in a movie where you've seen absolutely no motion as yet.
If they pull a Gollum where they take the mo cap and further exaggerate it, that would be cool. But that doesn't save the modeling. I have no idea what they were thinking with that.
Then I dunno what was up with 3. I just remember with 2 they refused to mocap. I know this because my fiance loves this fact and wants to try mocap at first but eventually never use mocap again. SH2 is her inspiration.
It's a critique of this approach in general, that is, it has at most almost no benefits compared to just doing a straight-up live-action film.
I'm sure the pesky "almost" you threw in there has a smidgen to do with the handful of extra coconuts it might have cost to do a live action Tintin film of comparable scope. You know, the kind of marginal discrepancy in budget dollars that makes the difference between a studio greenlighting a project at all or not.
Also, depicting a North Pole bound locomotive barreling across a frozen lake of ice is very definitely something that could have been done with live action and some complementary CGI with the exact same (or better!) effect for the exact same (or less!) cost. I make these assertions based on years of relevant experience and just plain inherent film production enlightenment that I'd prefer not to be questioned about.
I never understood what made mo-cap hate so hip. As someone who grew up with the book, I thought The Polar Express looked and was excellent, and I think time will treat it way better than forum bellyachers have. "The kids looked creepy!" Yeah, you know what else looked creepy? Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott award-winning illustrations, which the film does a brilliant job of bringing to life. Really don't get the internet version of this movie's public perception, which I find oddly in contrast with its "real life" counterpart in my experience.
The reason why mo-cap gets a lot of hate is that some filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis think it's an excellent shortcut to believable animated performances, when, uh, it's really not. Unless the animators are skilled enough to tweak it and exaggerate the poses, it's going to look real stiff. This is WETA, so I imagine the animation will at least be decent, but at the same time... why not just animate it from scratch? It's really not that much harder or easier.
That being said, my issue has nothing to do with motion-capture: it's the way everything's being rendered. Less is more when it comes to texturing - there is no need at all for EVERY SINGLE PORE ON CAPTAIN HADDOCK'S FACE to be visible.
The reason why mo-cap gets a lot of hate is that some filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis think it's an excellent shortcut to believable animated performances, when, uh, it's really not.
I'd be very interested in seeing that quote. Until I do, I'm forced to stick with my far-fetched assumption that he felt the visual style achieved via motion capture was the best way to realize Van Allsburg's illustrations.
I'm sure the pesky "almost" you threw in there has a smidgen to do with the handful of extra coconuts it might have cost to do a live action Tintin film of comparable scope. You know, the kind of marginal discrepancy in budget dollars that makes the difference between a studio greenlighting a project at all or not.
Also, depicting a North Pole bound locomotive barreling across a frozen lake of ice is very definitely something that could have been done with live action and some complementary CGI with the exact same (or better!) effect for the exact same (or less!) cost. I make these assertions based on years of relevant experience and just plain inherent film production enlightenment that I'd prefer not to be questioned about.
Motion capture is definitely not cheaper than live-action. You're paying not only for the actor's performance, but for all the animators and technical people too.
I'd be very interested in seeing that quote. Until I do, I'm forced to stick with my far-fetched assumption that he felt the visual style achieved via motion capture was the best way to realize Van Allsburg's illustrations.
Okay, just take a look at this. The problem isn't necessarily motion capture, as you don't need motion capture to animate super realistic models.
EDIT: By the way, how come no one has responded to my Mario comparison?
Motion capture is definitely not cheaper than live-action. You're paying not only for the actor's performance, but for all the animators and technical people too.
But you're NOT paying to fly the cast and crew to exotic locations, or to build elaborate physical sets. Depending on the settings required in the story (and keep in mind, Tintin stories have some of the most exotic locales in comics), motion capture can be cheaper than live action.
Now, it might be even cheaper still to shoot live actors in front of green screens. But that has its own set of difficulties.
But you're NOT paying to fly the cast and crew to exotic locations, or to build elaborate physical sets. Depending on the settings required in the story (and keep in mind, Tintin stories have some of the most exotic locales in comics), motion capture can be cheaper than live action.
Now, it might be even cheaper still to shoot live actors in front of green screens. But that has its own set of difficulties.
Motion capture has nothing to do with the sets. Nothing. At all. You can have motion capture on real sets, you can have CGI sets with live actors. All motion capture does is, well, capture motion.
And no reaction about the link I posted? I thought it was pretty informative.
I was a huge fan of Tintin when I was very young and I think this looks promising. Tintin is a perfect comic for a project like this since it has a distinct style while still being fairly realistic looking (in comparison to Simpsons, in respons to "Rather Dashings" link).
Most comics aren't about realism at all, they are about a certain style and appeal, so a realistic look and movements in a comic film also aren't the ideal.
Motion capturing can be used if it's well done and wisely post processed but i simply expect comic like movements in a comic like world and therefore The Incredibles easily beats The Polar Express in every aspect.
Not that i want to tell these guys what to do but Jackson never did something really tasteful and Spielberg, who doesn't seem to be involved a lot, should better make good movies again instead of giving weird performances on game conferences, if he's still doing that.
Comments
or this:
EDIT: Geez, SecretFawful, lighten up.
EDIT2: And while I personally believe the models to look, well... less-than-stellar, I think I'll reserve judgment until I actually see it in motion. A good animator can save a mediocre model, but a good modeler can't save bad animation.
EDIT3: And yes, I know this is motion capture. You still need animators for motion capture, though.
Doing a film with motion capture CGI is an attempt to capture the benefits of CGI and the benefits of animation, but the problem is that(in practice) it just brings the weaknesses of both to light.
There's a reason this is ridiculous and should not be the basis of a major motion picture.
oh yup you sure got me.
Look, ugly is ugly and appealing is appealing. I don't give a damn who makes it, as long as it's appealing. Right now they look like lifeless zombies, which is quite frankly insulting to the original source material.
Since you missed the joke, I'll let you know there is one truthful part of my above post
Needless to say, when Tintin comes out all of the naysayers will eat crow. They'll go cry in a corner and shoot their heads off. And I'll laugh. Laugh in the theater when the names Spielberg and Jackson appear followed by The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.
Me on December 28 of 2011:
The way this is screwed up in the stills reminded me of the link once provided on grumpy gamer about the american Akira version.
Who'd've thought...
Who'dve thought...
And is stating a fact 'belittling' now? Or is this thread not actually filled with moaning after all?
2 pages of tintin?
I'm just sayin' it's ugly.
And yes, I would call your post belittling. If the use of the word "moaning" didn't imply it enough, the use of "fanboys" was meant as derogatory to a set of people with a certain viewpoint. "On the internet" is meant to imply a lack of importance. "Whod've thought" is meant to make you sound like you're inherently right and better than the rest of everybody else somehow.
It's the epitome of the internet dick post. It contributes no content to the conversation, and instead goes for the low blow of "it's on the internet so it doesn't matter"/"it's by 'fanboys' so I can ignore it and not face it directly"/"I'm better than most people on the internet"/"It's moaning because I don't like it"
It is literally one of the worst kinds of posts a forum user can make. If you think that "on the internet" has no value, then don't post here. Some of us do so recreationally, though, and we don't find the idea that it's "on the internet" to be any reason to stop discussing. Some of us have different opinions than other posters. Some people want to be able to say what they think about a thing without that being considered invalid and stupid because other people think something different. And last I checked, we are all fanboys because we are posting on a niche video game company's official forums. A niche company in a niche genre. Seriously, if you want to go with the argument "Haha, it doesn't matter because nerds said it", maybe you should actually look at where you are saying it and why you are actually there.
Essentially, a mod shouldn't make posts like this. You should be a better example than this. And you're not being one.
Whilst i think that it's completely fine stating your opinion (likes and dislikes), contrary to you some of us actually were stating opinions more based on facts. If you have some understanding of the relevance of Hergé's work then it might be more obvious.
Anyway, i guess we all have our chauvinistic moments, even a niche mod. :O)
If the movie does include Secret of the Unicorn/Rackam's Treasure, it would be hard for it not to have Calculus in it.
Define "chauvinistic"? I've heard it as meaning "jingoistic" and I've heard it as meaning "sexist" but you seem to be using it in a third way here?
I wonder if it'll retain that "We just didn't know better at the time" brand of racism that sort of comes across as charming.
*waits to be called a bigot*
Chauvinism is also known as the belief in the superiority of the own group.
That would explain why it could develop such different connotations depending on who's using it.
I don't know, I think we're well past the stage where "fanboys" has an inherently negative connotation. I'm not saying there aren't people who still use it as an attack, but more often than not I see it used as a neutral label.
Yes, the post was dismissive, but I'm sure jp didn't mean it nearly as harshly as you took it. After all, if you can't be sarcastic on the internet, where can you be sarcastic? :P
This.
That being said, I also agree with doggans; I doubt JP was being aggressive at all.
Chauvinism is sort of like patriotism, but not necessarily to do with your nation. It's just where you believe you're better than others because of a factor which is beyond your control and which doesn't necessarily have any inherent value on its own.
Also, if you're using Google Chrome, I strongly recommend getting the "google dictionary" extension, it brings up a definition of any word when you double click said word. It's great
I think the main problem is mod status. If it were anyone else, it would have been all "oh it's just some other dude dicking around" but as a mod you're representing the authority of an entire community and that sort of statement is akin to saying "Stop arguing about who's better. It's just a cartoon dog and rabbit." or even "This thread is stupid."
What makes this community better than others is the fact that mods aren't dicks all the time in public. Preferably mods should be genuinely nice and not dicks even while not in public, but that's a bit unreasonable to ask/check for in a semi-anonymous environment. At the very least don't be a dick in public and ill give the benefit of the doubt and think you're nice in person.
Should you enjoy yourself as a commentator? Yeah sure, but there's a point where comments get out of hand, being a mod, and I think this is one of those times. Because even if you were just being sarcastic, it comes off as insulting everyone in the thread and going "DEAL WITH IT".
It's not something I do on a regular basis (that may be the first time since becoming a mod I've said something so flippant).
I'll be more careful in future, I promise.
Edit: Actually, before someone calls me on it, I have indeed said "this thread is stupid". But, you know, it really was.
back to topic.
yeah i think haddock looks very convincing. but where's the loch lomond bottle in the picture??
oh! right there in the left! must be. it's empty.
I think fans of Tintin would agree that a hand-drawn 2D animated film would have been the ideal approach. I also think that fans of Tintin are a generally intelligent bunch, and wouldn't need much help in recognizing that the prospect is a completely unrealistic one. (See also: the Bone movie.) Is the dogpile on these initial stills just bitterness about that reality, or is it really and truly an objective critique of what Spielberg and Jackson's team have conjured here?
Given Weta / Jackson / Serkis' work on Lord of the Rings and King Kong, I have the utmost faith in their utilization of motion capture.
I think it's pretty bold to criticise motion-capture so vehemently in a movie where you've seen absolutely no motion as yet.
fun facts, they didn't mocap the faces.
If they pull a Gollum where they take the mo cap and further exaggerate it, that would be cool. But that doesn't save the modeling. I have no idea what they were thinking with that.
Then I dunno what was up with 3. I just remember with 2 they refused to mocap. I know this because my fiance loves this fact and wants to try mocap at first but eventually never use mocap again. SH2 is her inspiration.
I'm sure the pesky "almost" you threw in there has a smidgen to do with the handful of extra coconuts it might have cost to do a live action Tintin film of comparable scope. You know, the kind of marginal discrepancy in budget dollars that makes the difference between a studio greenlighting a project at all or not.
Also, depicting a North Pole bound locomotive barreling across a frozen lake of ice is very definitely something that could have been done with live action and some complementary CGI with the exact same (or better!) effect for the exact same (or less!) cost. I make these assertions based on years of relevant experience and just plain inherent film production enlightenment that I'd prefer not to be questioned about.
The reason why mo-cap gets a lot of hate is that some filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis think it's an excellent shortcut to believable animated performances, when, uh, it's really not. Unless the animators are skilled enough to tweak it and exaggerate the poses, it's going to look real stiff. This is WETA, so I imagine the animation will at least be decent, but at the same time... why not just animate it from scratch? It's really not that much harder or easier.
That being said, my issue has nothing to do with motion-capture: it's the way everything's being rendered. Less is more when it comes to texturing - there is no need at all for EVERY SINGLE PORE ON CAPTAIN HADDOCK'S FACE to be visible.
I'd be very interested in seeing that quote. Until I do, I'm forced to stick with my far-fetched assumption that he felt the visual style achieved via motion capture was the best way to realize Van Allsburg's illustrations.
Motion capture is definitely not cheaper than live-action. You're paying not only for the actor's performance, but for all the animators and technical people too.
Okay, just take a look at this. The problem isn't necessarily motion capture, as you don't need motion capture to animate super realistic models.
EDIT: By the way, how come no one has responded to my Mario comparison?
But you're NOT paying to fly the cast and crew to exotic locations, or to build elaborate physical sets. Depending on the settings required in the story (and keep in mind, Tintin stories have some of the most exotic locales in comics), motion capture can be cheaper than live action.
Now, it might be even cheaper still to shoot live actors in front of green screens. But that has its own set of difficulties.
Motion capture has nothing to do with the sets. Nothing. At all. You can have motion capture on real sets, you can have CGI sets with live actors. All motion capture does is, well, capture motion.
And no reaction about the link I posted? I thought it was pretty informative.
Motion capturing can be used if it's well done and wisely post processed but i simply expect comic like movements in a comic like world and therefore The Incredibles easily beats The Polar Express in every aspect.
Not that i want to tell these guys what to do but Jackson never did something really tasteful and Spielberg, who doesn't seem to be involved a lot, should better make good movies again instead of giving weird performances on game conferences, if he's still doing that.