Motion capture has nothing to do with the sets. Nothing. At all.
I wasn't referring to the motion capture process itself, I was referring to "motion capture movies" as a whole--IE, a CGI movie that captures performance with motion capture. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
What I was trying to indicate is that CGI can be cheaper than live action, and using a motion capture base can be cheaper than animating from scratch. Now, to look really good it still requires animators to enhance the performance, but that can be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
you can have CGI sets with live actors.
Yes, I addressed that. You CAN shoot the entire movie with actors on greenscreens, and that might be even cheaper (depending on how much you pay your compositors). But some directors don't like the way human actors look against fake sets. To them, a motion-captured mannequin at least looks like it belongs with its background. It may not look good, but at least it looks consistent. :P
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.
Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.
Jackson is my idol, I love every movie he has ever made from Bad Taste to The Lovely Bones. Spielbergs work varies IMO, everything from extremely good to totally uninteresting. I'm excited to see what they will do with Hergés characters.
What I was trying to indicate is that CGI can be cheaper than live action, and using a motion capture base can be cheaper than animating from scratch. Now, to look really good it still requires animators to enhance the performance, but that can be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
Don't forget though that it's a LOT easier (thus cheaper) to shoot real locations, than to create real looking locations digitally... not to mention natural effects like water (if we take that screenshot as an example) which "creates itself" when shooting it for real, while digital water still requires a lot of work. I think that pretty much evens out the costs between an animated-movie (even when mocapped) and a live action film.
Don't forget though that it's a LOT easier (thus cheaper) to shoot real locations, than to create real looking locations digitally...
Yes, if you have access to said locations. I still say if you're using the variety of exotic locales usually seen in a Tintin story, cast and crew transportation can be pricey, and physical set building is still more expensive than digital set building.
But, you're right, the overall budget is probably about even either way.
Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.
Really? Seriously? If we're talking about style, Tintin seems to me much less realistic than, say, Thorgal (to take another Belgian comic example) or for the US, most Superhero comics.
Really? Seriously? If we're talking about style, Tintin seems to me much less realistic than, say, Thorgal (to take another Belgian comic example) or for the US, most Superhero comics.
That's my point, it's stylistic enough to motivate the point in making an animated movie instead of a live action one (a comic like Thorgal is more suited for the later) but it still resembles the real world close enough to strive for photo realism (something that for example The Simpsons do not).
I see, you mean it's enough in the middle to have a "in the middle treatment".
Well after reading the reasoning behind the way it's done, I have to say I dislike it. I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie either way, but they're basically not getting either the advantage of it being completely animated (keeping what's exaggerated and impossible in real life, posture-wise mostly) or of live action (not looking weird and kind of creepy) and on top of that, looks like it's also costing them more to paste CGI over real people (okay, that's not how it works, but sounds like a good enough way to phrase it to me), when I don't see what it ads and I can see what it takes away.
...How could you come to the conclusion of photo realism from this?
I can't say I follow your reasoning here. After all Hergé more or less created the style ligne claire (clear line) which among other things is a mix between realistic and exaggerated features.
I think if the CGI went for photo-realism it would've lost it's magic. Just like doing a live-action. If they went for photo-realism, you know how lame TinTin's hair would look like.
Not at all characteristic as in the comic books.
Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.
Jackson is my idol, I love every movie he has ever made from Bad Taste to The Lovely Bones. Spielbergs work varies IMO, everything from extremely good to totally uninteresting. I'm excited to see what they will do with Hergés characters.
I have many comics which look a lot more realistic than Tintin. What Tintin a.o. stands for are the clear lines, no hatching, decent cautious choosen colours, a certain style, simplicity and abstraction. Contrary to the simple drawn characters, the backgrounds often get a lot more detail but still following the rules mentioned before. I don't see this style, he is also famous for inventing, beeing preserved in the stills in some way. Instead i see a rather ugly new look.
The realistic movie they did many years ago looked more convincing. It kind of reminds me of when kids are enjoying music without knowing the original version(s) anymore which often sounds even better or without knowing the background to the music.
As for Jackson, in my opinion there are tons of other directors who made way much better films than him. Without the TLOTR trilogy, which also wasn't top notch, nobody would know him and there is a good reason for that. As for Spielberg i agree he made the whole range from great to boring movies.
As for Jackson, in my opinion there are tons of other directors who made way much better films than him. Without the TLOTR trilogy, which also wasn't top notch, nobody would know him and there is a good reason for that. As for Spielberg i agree he made the whole range from great to boring movies.
A. Everyone knows Braindead. If they don't they're Braindead. B. King Kong was a great remake. Oh sure you could pick on that opinion by saying "oh all he has besides Braindead and LOTR is a remake wooo" Well then you would be an idiot who would be saying as much as "oh all Christopher Nolan has is the Batman films and Inception and outside of that he'd be a nobody." When does picking apart the list of movies someone directed make them sound like a bad director? Look at Spielberg. The man has over 40 movies under his belt. So I'd like to see you sit here and pick apart his list. You could, but you would be wasting your time because all you would be proving is that you don't like his movies. C. You're picking on a director who doesn't have a lot of movie titles by using a common tactic of picking out his most famous movies and saying "so without these well durr he's a hack durrp". I'm sorry but what point does that make? In an alternate reality where these movies weren't made Jackson sucks? He still has one of the greatest horror movies of all time. Or were you trying to say LOTR made Jackson? Yes, I agree it made him, but it wouldn't have if they were bad movies or badly made. I would like to hear your reasoning about why they aren't top notch though. I really would. D. I left this topic because I didn't want to fill it with argumentative discussion but I changed my mind when I saw this post. The next person who complains about my lack of taste and style gets a picture of a hairy ass sent to them in a PM. I'm not here to be genteel I'm here to discuss what I want to discuss how I want to discuss it.
As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.
As for Spielberg well he made good and bad ones. As you don't want a list i luckily can spare myself the time... :O)
In my opinion the work of some directors is generally adoreable whilst others disarm you with one film already. There exist many examples but for instance Werner Herzog's films are mostly interesting to me (Aguirre, Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man, Rescue Dawn, ...), then Mike Nichols blew me away only with The Graduate. Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.
I also prefer if people speak up what they're thinking if it comes from the heart and has something to do with the topic. I also don't mind if insults are flying around then as well. That's normal and is part of healthy heated discussion. I welcome this ten times more than the pseudo police consisting of some half grown ups playing better people in the virutal reality.
As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.
I felt more or less the same. I walked out of the theater thinking "Huh. That was cute." It wasn't exactly intellectually INSULTING, but it wasn't really stimulating either. It was okay. Less a sci-fi film and more a heist film with a sci-fi twist, though.
Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.
So you've not seen any of his pre-Lord of the Rings stuff?
I've seen Braindead and i didn't like it and i'm sure most people don't know the movie as well. If you want to decrease the percentage even further, ask femals.
As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.
As for Spielberg well he made good and bad ones. As you don't want a list i luckily can spare myself the time... :O)
In my opinion the work of some directors is generally adoreable whilst others disarm you with one film already. There exist many examples but for instance Werner Herzog's films are mostly interesting to me (Aguirre, Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man, Rescue Dawn, ...), then Mike Nichols blew me away only with The Graduate. Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.
I also prefer if people speak up what they're thinking if it comes from the heart and has something to do with the topic. I also don't mind if insults are flying around then as well. That's normal and is part of healthy heated discussion. I welcome this ten times more than the pseudo police consisting of some half grown ups playing better people in the virutal reality.
So go ahead! :O)
Well...damn. I'm all ready to tear your reply apart and you go and throw a ringer like that at me.
Hey come on, i hope we're still friends, you like it, i don't, that's okay for me. :O)
No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch. Nah just kidding we're cool. I've never come out of an argument hating anyone, except Comrade Pants who is a filthy bastard who makes me rue the day he was born, and I don't REALLY question someones intelligence as much as I question what they're saying, except for Comrade Pants who frequently spouts gibberish in another language. "Bourgeois", what kind of gibbering is that?
Oh, to keep this post on topic, I think this topic should be renamed to 'Kuifje revealed'.
No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch. Nah just kidding we're cool. I've never come out of an argument hating anyone, except Comrade Pants who is a filthy bastard who makes me rue the day he was born, and I don't REALLY question someones intelligence as much as I question what they're saying, except for Comrade Pants who frequently spouts gibberish in another language. "Bourgeois", what kind of gibbering is that?
You know, if you had just said my name once I could have been summoned to the material realm! Oh well, you *did* summon me to this thread at least.
Telltale has done such a great job of creating episodic downloadable graphic adventure games and has access to some of the greatest IP ever (Sam & Max, BTTF, Jurassic Park, Wallace and Grommit).
I think Telltale should start work on a Tintin computer game series. It could be so fantastic!!
Regarding the desert screen. I love it when they primary care about the sun. Everytime i was in a sand desert my main issue was the wind and the sand in my hair, my eyes, my mouth, my ears my under... you get the idea. Still i love the desert!
Comments
I wasn't referring to the motion capture process itself, I was referring to "motion capture movies" as a whole--IE, a CGI movie that captures performance with motion capture. Sorry, I should have been clearer.
What I was trying to indicate is that CGI can be cheaper than live action, and using a motion capture base can be cheaper than animating from scratch. Now, to look really good it still requires animators to enhance the performance, but that can be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
Yes, I addressed that. You CAN shoot the entire movie with actors on greenscreens, and that might be even cheaper (depending on how much you pay your compositors). But some directors don't like the way human actors look against fake sets. To them, a motion-captured mannequin at least looks like it belongs with its background. It may not look good, but at least it looks consistent. :P
Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.
Jackson is my idol, I love every movie he has ever made from Bad Taste to The Lovely Bones. Spielbergs work varies IMO, everything from extremely good to totally uninteresting. I'm excited to see what they will do with Hergés characters.
Yes, if you have access to said locations. I still say if you're using the variety of exotic locales usually seen in a Tintin story, cast and crew transportation can be pricey, and physical set building is still more expensive than digital set building.
But, you're right, the overall budget is probably about even either way.
Really? Seriously? If we're talking about style, Tintin seems to me much less realistic than, say, Thorgal (to take another Belgian comic example) or for the US, most Superhero comics.
That's my point, it's stylistic enough to motivate the point in making an animated movie instead of a live action one (a comic like Thorgal is more suited for the later) but it still resembles the real world close enough to strive for photo realism (something that for example The Simpsons do not).
Well after reading the reasoning behind the way it's done, I have to say I dislike it. I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie either way, but they're basically not getting either the advantage of it being completely animated (keeping what's exaggerated and impossible in real life, posture-wise mostly) or of live action (not looking weird and kind of creepy) and on top of that, looks like it's also costing them more to paste CGI over real people (okay, that's not how it works, but sounds like a good enough way to phrase it to me), when I don't see what it ads and I can see what it takes away.
I can't say I follow your reasoning here. After all Hergé more or less created the style ligne claire (clear line) which among other things is a mix between realistic and exaggerated features.
Not at all characteristic as in the comic books.
The realistic movie they did many years ago looked more convincing. It kind of reminds me of when kids are enjoying music without knowing the original version(s) anymore which often sounds even better or without knowing the background to the music.
As for Jackson, in my opinion there are tons of other directors who made way much better films than him. Without the TLOTR trilogy, which also wasn't top notch, nobody would know him and there is a good reason for that. As for Spielberg i agree he made the whole range from great to boring movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHZ8BuTr4U&feature=related
A. Everyone knows Braindead. If they don't they're Braindead.
B. King Kong was a great remake. Oh sure you could pick on that opinion by saying "oh all he has besides Braindead and LOTR is a remake wooo" Well then you would be an idiot who would be saying as much as "oh all Christopher Nolan has is the Batman films and Inception and outside of that he'd be a nobody." When does picking apart the list of movies someone directed make them sound like a bad director? Look at Spielberg. The man has over 40 movies under his belt. So I'd like to see you sit here and pick apart his list. You could, but you would be wasting your time because all you would be proving is that you don't like his movies.
C. You're picking on a director who doesn't have a lot of movie titles by using a common tactic of picking out his most famous movies and saying "so without these well durr he's a hack durrp". I'm sorry but what point does that make? In an alternate reality where these movies weren't made Jackson sucks? He still has one of the greatest horror movies of all time. Or were you trying to say LOTR made Jackson? Yes, I agree it made him, but it wouldn't have if they were bad movies or badly made. I would like to hear your reasoning about why they aren't top notch though. I really would.
D. I left this topic because I didn't want to fill it with argumentative discussion but I changed my mind when I saw this post. The next person who complains about my lack of taste and style gets a picture of a hairy ass sent to them in a PM. I'm not here to be genteel I'm here to discuss what I want to discuss how I want to discuss it.
As for Spielberg well he made good and bad ones. As you don't want a list i luckily can spare myself the time... :O)
In my opinion the work of some directors is generally adoreable whilst others disarm you with one film already. There exist many examples but for instance Werner Herzog's films are mostly interesting to me (Aguirre, Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man, Rescue Dawn, ...), then Mike Nichols blew me away only with The Graduate. Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.
I also prefer if people speak up what they're thinking if it comes from the heart and has something to do with the topic. I also don't mind if insults are flying around then as well. That's normal and is part of healthy heated discussion. I welcome this ten times more than the pseudo police consisting of some half grown ups playing better people in the virutal reality.
So go ahead! :O)
So you've not seen any of his pre-Lord of the Rings stuff?
Well...damn. I'm all ready to tear your reply apart and you go and throw a ringer like that at me.
Secret Fawful disappointed.
No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch.
Oh, to keep this post on topic, I think this topic should be renamed to 'Kuifje revealed'.
You know, if you had just said my name once I could have been summoned to the material realm! Oh well, you *did* summon me to this thread at least.
Politician! Bashi-bazouk! Pockmark! Carpet-seller! Vegetarian! Buccaneer! Blackamoor! Harlequin! Hydrocarbon! Aborigine! Polynesian! Gyroscope! Anthracite! Coconut! Fuzzy-wuzzy! Cannibal! Anthropithecus! Blackbird! Kidnapper! Marauder! Bandit! Brute! Billygoat! Anacoluthon! Invertebrate! Liquourice! Vampire! Swine! Gangster! Toffee nose! Jellyfish! Savage! Aztec! Inca! Toad! Iconoclast! Vigilante! Sorcerer!
Not to mention my favorite day of the year.
Oh god, look at these 'wacky' individuals who celebrate the Comrades day.
And by 'wacky' I mean 'tossers'
It's Andy Serkis if I remember rightly.
Yeah I don't know why anyone would see anything in Comrades Day at all.
I like how, according to the article, it was first celebrated years before Pants was even born.
Badass-
Telltale has done such a great job of creating episodic downloadable graphic adventure games and has access to some of the greatest IP ever (Sam & Max, BTTF, Jurassic Park, Wallace and Grommit).
I think Telltale should start work on a Tintin computer game series. It could be so fantastic!!