Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New TinTin trailer online!

Mathieu Ghekiere

Mathieu Ghekiere

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
715
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Location
Belgium
Website
www.productionsofthe3rdkind.com
A new trailer of Tintin appeared online!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNSXxIH_uRI&feature=player_embedded


I'm a big Spielberg-fan, but I really disliked Indiana Jones 4. From what I can see from this trailer, it seems to very much have the magic of the old Indiana Jones movies. And although the whole motion capture technique is new for Spielberg (and I'm not too big of a fan, to be honest) there seem to be a lot of very typical 'Spielberg'-shots in the trailer.
Very excited to see this after this trailer.
 
...for robert zemeckis not to learn from his mistakes is one thing, but i thought at least everyone else could.

though it is certainly in some ways beautiful, it looks both too close and yet not close enough...
 
Why make this animated??? I did not see one shot in that film that could not have been done live action with humans.

If you are making a movie about aliens or talking lions or super heroes, or maybe like the Japanese, if you simply don't have the budget to film something live action, then yes, animate it. But the movements of these humans looked clunky. Why bother with animation?
 
I am glad it was animated. Have you read the originals Tom? I have very fond memories of reading several as a kid and could not see them done any other way. I think the same should be done with Asterix!

I think it is much more complicated than aliens and talking lions vs. easy things to shoot like dialogue. It is the tone, the characters, the subject... and more.
 
Tom Lowe said:
Why make this animated??? I did not see one shot in that film that could not have been done live action with humans.

If you are making a movie about aliens or talking lions or super heroes, or maybe like the Japanese, if you simply don't have the budget to film something live action, then yes, animate it. But the movements of these humans looked clunky. Why bother with animation?
Click to expand...

...Why should it be live action? Why not animation? Why judge if it should be live action rather than animation from the looks of a trailer...?? I'd hate to think that Pixar as an example is making animated movies because they feel that the limitations of telling their stories in live action leaves them no other choice. Animation is also an art form - just like live action filmmaking can be. It could be argued countless times that a lot of animated stories could perhaps have been told as live action features. The same could perhaps also be said about live action features. Thankfully they weren't.

Going mocap on these movies (more are coming) is to me a perfect creative choice. The film is based on a comic book that has it's own specific world and realism - so this just seems to me like the logical next step of evolution. The books were always consistent in both their own unique style and looks - so will this new series of adapted animated features also be, whether you like it or not ;)

I'm sure that Spielberg and Jackson have perfectly good reasons to make 'em like this, and I'm really looking forward to seeing these movies.

Btw. I'm happy Spielberg didn't make E.T. as an animated feature because he was telling a story about an alien...! And to think that Chris Noonan once made a live action film about talking animals called BABE ... why did he bother? ;)
 
[tangent]I am getting sick from waiting for a studio to do Robotech: The Macross Saga, which was a cartoon.
But I am willing to wait till it can be done photorealisticaly, and capturing the original's style in the massive
amounts of VFX necessary. I think 150M by 2014 should be about right. Man, I can't wait for that!!![/tangent]

And I can't wait for this either:

 
Nuka Wølk said:
...Why should it be live action?
Click to expand...

Because the look of the film is essentially trying to mimic live action? Except, the motion of the characters looks phony. The characters themselves also look phony. Seems easier to use a real actor than to go through the incredibly tedious and expensive work of animation and performance capture to basically do the same thing?

There are few people who love good animation more than I do. But this seems unnecessary, IMO. It just seems "off" to me for some reason.
 
But you could say the Tintin characters have a healthy dose of comedic 'phony'. Look at the way the jeep is off the ground on the cover of Destination Moon.

I think the 'phony' Tintin characters really work with the grand adventures they go on. Much like Indiana Jones, only they are not 'Jones' characters.

Have you read any of the books Tom?
 
Indiana Jones was live action and worked perfectly. This looks like a straight period piece. In the trailer, there appeared to be no special use of animation as a format. It seemed to mimic live action very closely, so why not use live action? Just my two cents.

Keep in mind that I was one of the few people here saying that THE HOBBIT should have been done mainly with CGI and performance capture. In the case of THE HOBBIT, 90% of the characters (Hobbits, Goblins, Dwarves, Dragons, etc) are non-humans. And the entire world of Middle Earth is fictional and stylized. So I think performance capture, animation and CG made perfect sense for HOBBIT.
 
I totally agree with Tom. Herein lies the problem...

450px-Mori_Uncanny_Valley.svg.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

I would have loved for this to be animated... or live action with cgi! oh well.
 
Tom, of course it did. I didn't say that Indiana Jones didn't work, I am saying they are different types of characters. Indiana Jones is improbable, but plausible enough for us to believe we could be him, or meet him. And he was set in our world. Tintin isn't really. Though I can still identify with Tintin when he is surrounded by more out-there characters than himself.

Do a quick Images search for Tintin and you'll find lots of pages from the books that portray over the top movements and physical comedy. You will also find exaggerated motion or cars stopping on a dime, people getting hit with things, etc... we can't tell exactly how Spielberg took that on from one trailer, but even without the comedic violence I see these characters as out-there cartoon-types, and not real people. In fact, if I have a problem with the way they were done it will be because they were too human-like! I certainly don't want to see someone with a little spiked wig trying not to ruin the character too much. That would piss me off.
 
TinTin.jpg


this style of animation is natural and clean, looks amazing, though simple. if animated correctly... beautiful.

tin_tin_trailer_180.jpg


this style was technically amazing 5 years ago... but that's it.

and we're really not seeing a discrepancy?


i think they should have either kept the original style (though I'm not sure it would have lent itself considerably well to a feature length film) or gone live action. pretty simple.

i don't think tom or i have a problem with this film being animated rather than shot live action, just the manner and style in which it has been implemented. just like if they'd done it in a limited japanese style, this style in the 'uncanny valley' detracts from the medium.

and just to clarify, nothing wrong with motion capture/performance. it's all about how it's used (just like capuring HDR).
 
As a long time and hard core fan of Tintin, I agree that live action would be difficult to pull off in a style that would be faithful to the original books. I think mo-cap is an interesting option to bring the world of Tintin, as many of us imagined it as children (and today still), to screen. But for those interested in a live-action version well they tried one, not so successfully, in 1961.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2rtV8Fug30

Gaël
 
hey that guy is not haddock.. bet true haddock should be somewhere else really upset
 
I agree with Tom 100%. There is a reason why most artists stopped making photo-realistic paintings with the advent of photography. If you just want to capture reality, just take a picture. If all you want is to create realistic human characters, film human beings. Otherwise you get a $200 million movie about glassy eyed dolls.

I believe that animation is most successful when it creates a stylized reality (The Incredibles, Up, etc), rather than just mimicking reality (Polar Express, Final Fantasy, Beowulf).
 
Tintin has been adapted for live action a couple of times before with disastrous (catastrophic) results. It just does not work. Do read one book - you will know what we mean. The characters are so goofy - they would just be laughable as photorealistic humans, no matter how good the acting. Motion capture was the right choice, but I am not sure if this was the right direction. They got some of the details right, but I won't make a judgment off 2 minutes of Youtube clips. I am still looking forward to it, as a huge fan of Tintin and also Spielberg.

Next up is apparently Prisoners of the Sun. I thought they would avoid that and Flight 714, seeing how those have already been adapted (OK, heavily inspired) as Indiana Jones! Indeed, if you want live action Tintin, watch Indiana Jones!
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Tintin has been adapted for live action a couple of times before with disastrous (catastrophic) results. It just does not work.
Click to expand...

There were dozens of crappy live-action Batman and Superman movies before Donner and Nolan did them right. Just because a book or franchise has never been properly filmed before does not mean it's impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top