Tintin

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 2949
Joined: October 24th, 2004

Post by GeorgeC » December 28th, 2011, 8:17 pm

EricJ wrote:...But did you SEE it? :?
NOT the question and bears no relevance.

Please shut up and don't steer the conversation away from where it was going.

(See how nice that is???)

********************

Ben,

I think Mo-Cap is just another tool like CGI is.

It's just that it's one of the "newer ones" as far as feature films go -- not really, it's been used in video games for well over a decade-and-a-half now -- and it's been so misused by higher-profile names that it gets an automatic bad rap.

(I could really give a fig about what Cartoon Brew and Jerry Beck think now. They've been wrong on so many issues, dismissive and rude towards many fans and people in the creative community, and frankly sweat the small stuff way too much. We give these guys way more power than they really have or deserve. They have devolved into parody...)

*** WETA knows as WETA does and we'll leave it at that. They are now what ILM was 30 years ago. Leaders and craftsmen. ***

I don't care for Mo-Cap being a sole animation source but it has its place again as an animation tool and seems to have worked well for martial arts video games like Tekken and Virtua Fighter.

Just please don't give us more Polar Expresses and Final Fantasies... Those films looked waxy and eerie! Granted, it wasn't technical failures alone that made the Final Fantasy feature and Zemeckis' Mo-Caps fail...


P.S. -- More people would be dismissive of CGI had the first few Pixar films been more like the cheap direct-to-video CGI features generally are. We'd be saying many of the same things about CGI all the time that are being said about Mo-Cap. It's not the tool, it's how well it's implemented...

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 608
Joined: January 22nd, 2007

Re:

Post by Whippet Angel » December 29th, 2011, 12:34 am

GeorgeC wrote:P.S. -- More people would be dismissive of CGI had the first few Pixar films been more like the cheap direct-to-video CGI features generally are. We'd be saying many of the same things about CGI all the time that are being said about Mo-Cap. It's not the tool, it's how well it's implemented...
Good point.

I had my reservations about the film based on what I saw in the trailers (the mo-cap still looked zombie-esque to me), but I saw it anyway. I really enjoyed it. So much so, that I often forgot I was watching a mo-cap film. The action is what sucked me in, and the work done on this film was some of the best use of the mo-cap tool that I've ever seen. That having been said, I can see why the reviews have been so mixed. As I was leaving the theater I overheard a guy complaining that the film was too long, and "the action scenes just kept going on, and on..." I personally enjoyed every minute, and didn't really want it to end.

Eh, your mileage may vary...

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5764
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » December 29th, 2011, 12:45 am

Indeed, it ended before I wanted it to. I was ready for the next adventure!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 3623
Joined: September 27th, 2007

Re: Re:

Post by EricJ » December 29th, 2011, 3:11 am

Randall wrote:As far as the motion capture debate goes, I sympathize with both sides. I still find it a little bizarro, but Weta certainly does it better than anyone else. I see the motion capture films as interesting experiments, but prefer regular ol' CGI or cel animation (even though I can still enjoy Polar Express, Beowulf, or especially Monster House).

But I agree--- to dismiss a film without seeing it is grossly unfair. And it doesn't matter whether you consider mo-cap to be animation or not. Just enjoy it for what it is, I say. :)
I can't stand mo-cap feature, either on principle or execution, and what can you say?: After a lot of wrong attempts by other people, Spielberg and Jackson Got It Right. :)

One of the things that always went up my spine about Robert Zemeckis was that once he had his new tech-toy to play with, he had absolutely no idea how to block a scene for animation with it.
I went back and rented Monster House last month (just found a new Blu3D rental), and with the Jim Carrey Christmas Carol fresh in the mind, I was suddenly struck by how every Zemeckis IMD film looks exactly alike: Never mind the obligatory rollercoasters, between the old-man's flashback in MH, and the Christmas Present nightmare in DACC, Zemeckis always feels necessary to have marionette-like figures flung at our character for symbolic dialogue, and then pulled as if on strings back into a black background. I was watching Polar Express over the holidays (with relatives who like it), and kept an eye out for the usual RZ tropes--And when we got the scene of the boy in the puppet room talking with the Scrooge marionette, I thought "....Yyyep. :roll: "

Reason I mention this is, Spielberg may have caught the bug for the technology, but he's still a DIRECTOR--Live or digital, he knows what a movie is supposed to look like onscreen, and Jackson's had enough experience using it in live-action films for the novelty to wear off and to know that every gadget is a tool, not a toy.
There's definitely the sense Spielberg knows he's doing the "fifth Indiana Jones movie" here, but since WETA's digital people are more photorealistic, he's setting out to create a live-action adventure where the ante can be upped when you don't have to worry about location, props, or where to put the camera. Although the pirate battle more than a little bit suggests Spielberg wishes he'd done the Pirates of the Caribbean series, just try and film the ending dock-crane battle in live-action and stay within budget....And c'mon, that one-shot chase was just showing off. ;)
Again, like Scorsese playing with 3-D in "Hugo" for directorial sake and showing how not to make it a mere gimmick, Spielberg is playing with mo-cap for directorial sake and showing how to make an actual FILM with it. And like Scorsese, Spielberg is also playing with "important-director" 3-D for the first time, and also knows how to put it to work.
(And that's at least based on seeing the result.)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 8295
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Re: Tintin

Post by ShyViolet » January 1st, 2012, 11:00 am

I really enjoyed it. I loved Tintin's character (there's something just so pure about him) and the action was great. I also never had a problem with Uncanny Valley--I could see life in his eyes. Pretty amazing! :)
Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but if we didn’t have ears, wouldn’t we sort of look like weasels?

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 164
Joined: April 13th, 2009
Contact:

Post by ELIOLI » January 15th, 2012, 9:22 pm

All I can say is..HECK YES... Won best animated feature at Golden Globes! Maybe it's the Academy awards yet, but hey, that's pretty good!
......
Prepare for crapstorm on Cartoonbrew..
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 5764
Joined: October 23rd, 2004
Location: SaskaTOON, Canada

Post by Randall » January 15th, 2012, 10:23 pm

:)

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 16th, 2012, 4:09 am

GREAT NEWS!

I was watching an interview with Jamie Beard a couple of weeks back and he said that on Tintin, unlike other mocap films that simply translate the actors' data to the digital characters, their process was to use Spielberg's mocapped data AS PRE-VIZ.

That's really the best way to describe Weta's handling of mocap. While Sony and Zemeckis apply the dots to their puppets, Weta takes that data (and uses the audio, natch) only as a guide to what the director wants to see.

There's a reason the likes of Christmas Carol was shot and released within a year and the likes of Tintin took two months to shoot and over a year in animation alone. In fact, you could say Tintin was a hybrid kind of film: mocap reference but full animation too.

At anyrate, I'm super pleased its achievement has been recognized. I loved the film, but even if you didn't like it, it can't be argued that it isn't something different in animation as opposed to talking animals and inanimate objects come to life.

I hope it does just as well at the Oscars! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 164
Joined: April 13th, 2009
Contact:

Post by ELIOLI » January 16th, 2012, 8:47 am

Speaking they is was held by the Foreign Press, people assumed it was given the award. Of course, people are saying Rango should have one, which is ok. The whole issue was it's category placement and the fact that it had "motion capture". I believe a certain amount had to be animated for it to be in the category...BUT even so...
Anyway, people can't do anything about it. Not sure about the Oscars. I would love for it to win, but due to the minor success here, I don't know. I think more people will be up in arms if that won as well. Floyd claimed that animation is now dead. Geez..
and people are getting this crazy idea that now that it won, mo-cap is suddenly going to be the future of animation. wouldn't want it that to happen, nor do I think it ever will happen. I have never seen so many opposing sides to this. Rango may have been the favorite for most, but only because they didn't want Tintin to win. I have seen both. I guess Rango was trying to be..too weird ...as odd as I am anyway. Haha.
http://www.elioliart.com/

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 126
Joined: December 8th, 2011
Contact:

Post by laughingoctopus » January 16th, 2012, 1:55 pm

I was hoping for Rango, or at least Puss In Boots. I still haven't seen Tintin, but if Rotten Tomatos is any indication of quality, then Rango is the best with Puss right behind it.

EDIT: Arthur Christmas was nominated, and had the best reviews with a score of 94%

User avatar
AV Founder
AV Founder
Posts: 19820
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » January 18th, 2012, 5:48 am

Well, now BAFTA have thrown the cat amongst the pigeons, nominating Tiintin for Best Animated Film AND Best Visual Effects...!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: Tintin

Post by LotsoA113 » January 18th, 2012, 8:45 am

I'm genuinley begging to wonder if Rango's early date may cost it the Oscar this year. Either way, a more mature and fun type of film is gonna win Best Animated Feature this year...which can only bring good things to this industry! :mrgreen:
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: Tintin

Post by LotsoA113 » January 24th, 2012, 8:55 am

MAJOR SNUB ALERT!! Tintin was NOT nomminated for BEst Animated Feature, despite 5 slots and critical and audience acclaim. This and Spielberg being left out of the Best Director race has me thinking there may be a bit of anti-Steven conspiracy going on. Regardless, it's a pity this quality film didn't get any recognition. :cry:
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

AV Team
AV Team
Posts: 5615
Joined: February 8th, 2005
Location: The US of A

Post by Dacey » January 24th, 2012, 9:35 am

I doubt it's Steven hate, Lotso ("War Horse" got a Best Picture nomination, after all). I think it's just anti-mop cap. That's really the ONLY reason I can think of for them snubbing it. Or maybe the Academy just wanted to look "smart" by nominating two foreign films that the general public has never even heard of (and even most of us know barely anything about them, and we're an animation site!).

I'm even more heartbroken about "Arthur Christmas" being shut out than I am about "Tintin," however. This marks the second time that Aardman hasn't been nominated for a great animated film that they've done.
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today is a gift--that is why it's called the present."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 376
Joined: March 19th, 2010
Location: Probably Cinemark

Re: Tintin

Post by LotsoA113 » January 24th, 2012, 1:06 pm

Agree about Arthur. Supet charming and great movie that. And yes, it being mo cap is a good reason for it. The Academy has Long been very old fashioned, hence why more "hip" films like Drive and MI4 don't he the recognition they deserve. God knows Oscars could use more variety that something like Tintin could've brought. Oh well. At least Rango has literally nothing stopping it now
I love all things cinema, from silent movies to world cinema to animated cinema to big blockbusters to documentaries and everything in between!

Post Reply