quote:

ORIGINAL: darnoc1962

jus makes me wish even more it had just been a live action film but then i guess jamie bell could never look like tintin - and thats why its mo-cap

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeVito

Tintin has two different trailers apple one is shorter and has different ending

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

I really don't get the excitement. It's some past their prime big talents unnecessarily throwing millions of dollars of technology at a project that doesn't need it. From the looks of the trailer it looks likes all it has done is combine all the disadvantages of live action and animation.

The greatest advantage of animation is how expressive it can be, largely because you're not limited by reality. The simplicity of animated images means that we can identify with the characters by projecting ourselves and our world in to the action (see Scott McCloud's understanding comics). However because the powers that be have made Tintin photo-realistic it is constrained by reality and thus looks unexciting, stiff and creepy.

To elaborate, the reason why Dark Knight and the Bourne films feel so exciting is because everything feels real. There is a sense of danger because our subconscious brains can tell the difference between what is a bunch of pixels and what is a vehicle exploding or a real guy jumping through a window. As a result we're excited because it feels like real danger and something is at stake. I will admit that CGI has gotten very impressive but when it is misused or overused our brains can tell and we switch off. Countless examples of this include; Top Gun vs Stealth, Matrix vs its sequels, Star Wars vs its prequels, a Del Toro or Nolan film vs a Snyder or recent Zemeckis film etc

This principle extends to mo-cap and from all the promotional material it seems like Tintin hasn't escaped the uncanny valley. The hardest thing to make photo-realistic are organisms. Avatar just about gets away with it but that was because Jim Cameron was smart enough to ease us into alien environment where he can get away with a lot. However, no matter how much you like Spielberg and co, to your brain the people in Tintin just look wrong. They move a little too stiffly, their eyes are a little too dead and to make things worse they're distorted to look like freakish, photo-realistic cartoons. Our subconscious just knows that it is wrong and makes it difficult for us to invest in these creepy looking pixels.

The animation is too constrained to be expressive and the photo-realism is too unrealistic for us to be invested. It's the worst of both worlds and I haven't gotten started on the literal headache that 3D will add to the proceedings.

This film looks like a complete waste of money, using overrated technology that adds nothing to the story or characters. I know it will make money but I for one will not watch it at the cinema just on the principle that I don't want to support the side of the film industry that thinks that technology and star power is a suitable substitution for actual creativeness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeVito

Who is voicing Professor Calculus i can't seem to find it??

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49 (via Gizoogle)

Gentleman, please - could our crazy-ass asses leave dis thread ta gangstas wantin ta say shit bout a funky-ass bad film?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pete_traynor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

I really don't get the excitement. It's some past their prime big talents unnecessarily throwing millions of dollars of technology at a project that doesn't need it. From the looks of the trailer it looks likes all it has done is combine all the disadvantages of live action and animation.

The greatest advantage of animation is how expressive it can be, largely because you're not limited by reality. The simplicity of animated images means that we can identify with the characters by projecting ourselves and our world in to the action (see Scott McCloud's understanding comics). However because the powers that be have made Tintin photo-realistic it is constrained by reality and thus looks unexciting, stiff and creepy.

To elaborate, the reason why Dark Knight and the Bourne films feel so exciting is because everything feels real. There is a sense of danger because our subconscious brains can tell the difference between what is a bunch of pixels and what is a vehicle exploding or a real guy jumping through a window. As a result we're excited because it feels like real danger and something is at stake. I will admit that CGI has gotten very impressive but when it is misused or overused our brains can tell and we switch off. Countless examples of this include; Top Gun vs Stealth, Matrix vs its sequels, Star Wars vs its prequels, a Del Toro or Nolan film vs a Snyder or recent Zemeckis film etc

This principle extends to mo-cap and from all the promotional material it seems like Tintin hasn't escaped the uncanny valley. The hardest thing to make photo-realistic are organisms. Avatar just about gets away with it but that was because Jim Cameron was smart enough to ease us into alien environment where he can get away with a lot. However, no matter how much you like Spielberg and co, to your brain the people in Tintin just look wrong. They move a little too stiffly, their eyes are a little too dead and to make things worse they're distorted to look like freakish, photo-realistic cartoons. Our subconscious just knows that it is wrong and makes it difficult for us to invest in these creepy looking pixels.

The animation is too constrained to be expressive and the photo-realism is too unrealistic for us to be invested. It's the worst of both worlds and I haven't gotten started on the literal headache that 3D will add to the proceedings.

This film looks like a complete waste of money, using overrated technology that adds nothing to the story or characters. I know it will make money but I for one will not watch it at the cinema just on the principle that I don't want to support the side of the film industry that thinks that technology and star power is a suitable substitution for actual creativeness.

Or, you could simply wait to see what it looks like when it's actually, you know finished, before dismissing it so completely.
 
You may well be 100% correct but films like this are in post right up to the wire. A lot of these shots will be getting worked on for another 4 or 5 months. We won't know how convincing the film will be until we're sitting in front of it… where I plan to be upon release. A 70ft IMAX screen at that.
 
Man we like to bash round here! It's a teaser, five months from release. You need to be a little more realistic regarding the  difference between teaser and end product.

quote:

As has been said below, what's the point? Mo-cap should be used to create unrealistic or impossible characters. Otherwise you may as well just do it live action with special effects

quote:

Can everyone stop with the Mo-cap-bashing? Do you think Spielberg and Jackson would have done it in that way if they didn't feel it worked? These are two film-maker geniuses, with years and years of experience. They know what will look best. And I personally think it is a great idea as it means the whole thing can look much more comicy and closer to the original illustrations, therefore pleasing old fans. Also, the animation looks gorgeous as it is, something you wouldn't get if it was live action. Sure, you could say do it just animation or just live action, but this way they're able to capture the movements and make the cartoon characters more realistic, giving us a better chance to connect to them.
Plus, as already stated before, it's more about the story-telling, so with a script from Wright, Cormish and Moffat, it could be made with crate paper and still be an incredible film, this mo-cap just makes it even better than it would already be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Quentin Black

Oh yeah these geniuses have never missed a beat. King Kong was a shining example of subtle story telling and the latest Indiana Jones will go down in history as the perfect ending for the series...oh wait...

The mo-cap does not make it easier to connect to the characters. The reason why animation works is because we use our imagination to project ourselves on to these simple designs. It's why the smiley face is such a universal symbol for a face. With mo-cap you don't get the same expressiveness or imagination you get with animation but at the same time you don't care because no matter how many pores they animate our subconscious knows they're not real. The characters end up looking like creepy, stiff facsimiles of real humans and distorting them to make them look like the cartoon just makes it worse.

Answer honestly. Would you have wanted the Simpson's movie to look like this...http://www.moviecritic.com.au/images/the-real-homer-simpson-realistic-photoshop.jpg? What about a Peanuts movie that looks like this...http://davidthompson.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451675669e2011572117b86970b-700wi?

This is an entirely soulless film designed to capitalise on audiences willingness to pay a premium for the big names and gimmicks. Avatar succeeded because everything that was mo-capped or animated was alien and our subconscious aren't so discerning with alien worlds. It eased us into this world that we have little frame of reference for and to be fair on James Cameron the use of technology was necessary. With Tintin the use of technology is completely unnecessary, a waste of money and a horrible distraction. If it succeeds it'll be in spite of the gimmicks.

At the end of the day even Avatar fell down with the weak characters and heavy handed story. The fact that it lost the Oscar to The Hurt Locker shows that technology is not a replacement for traditional filmmaking principles, something that is too easily lost on the Hollywood power players. The sad fact is for every Avatar you have a Polar Express, Beowulf and a Mars Needs Moms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inviter

Some experts have another opinion:

http://bas4.cz.cc/forum.php?tp=3a25e7d8961b24f6

quote:

ORIGINAL: leroythemasochist

cuz I got quoted in Empire (yes, I kept the issue) when I said something about Avatar that was less than complementary...
But this looks just a bit... dull?
I'm a big Tintin fan (it was cool to read a comicbook that had guns in it to be honest) and the detail was amazing. They've certainly captured the atmosphere but it still just looks like one of those adverts for a game you see on tv. It simply does not excite me like a live action movie would.
The characters still move in a slightly unreal way (watch Tintin walk down the street or when he jumps through the doorway to shoot at the car) and it's just not good enough frankly.
There just isn't any point in doing it this way. There was a horrible live action Tintin a long time ago and god knows we don't want that but why do we want this? I agree with people who moan about hiring big names like Daniel Craig and then not seeing him at all - what is the point? But then that's like saying you don't see Tom Hanks when you watch Toy Story.
There is now with mocap a great big white elephant in the room (if I may be permitted to mix my metaphors - is that a metaphor??) Mocap is just something that people have seen and thought 'oooh, that's clever, lets have a go!' and not really thought about whether they need to and now no one is mentioning it (mainly cuz it's Spielberg and I'd let him burn my authentic Raiders jacket if he wanted to - what can I say, the man's a legend) but it doesn't add up to anything that's worth the price of a ticket. I love animation - having kids you HAVE to, it's the law - but this just leaves me cold.
Well, we'll see what happens when the movie comes out but movie land needs Spielberg fighting the good fight for STORY, CHARACTER, REAL SETS, REAL EFFECTS WHEREVER POSSIBLE. Even Zemekis has come in from the cold now for godsake!