Escape to the Movies: The Adventures of Tintin

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Damit Bob I could have really used this pick-me-up at lunchtime. I wish I knew what the third story they put it was. Glad I've got something to look forward to after finals, well besides... you know...

MovieBob:
*snip*

I don't suppose we could coax a more detailed explanation from you as to why you think the second Sherlock film sucks? I went to the midnight premiere last night with a friend and we walked away very entertained.(yes I'm aware opinions are opinions but curiosity begs I ask) That's not to say it doesn't have it's flaws and that lots of the humor seems to revolve around Sherlock being a magnificent bastard.

3 thoughts about this. 1, its abit odd that a franch or belgin tin tin has all english actors specking english.

2, sherlock holmes 2 is bad? oh, i was hoping it be good but i'll still see it anyway to see what happends in the plot.

3, i diden't like to much on the first gi joe film. i may not seen much or a fan but it did feel it wasen't taking much faifhly to the sorse material. However, if gi joe 2 is closer to the look of the characters then i'll be thankfull to it (seeing them all wearing black is abit anoyying habit that todays films were going for) thou. you think gobra can get away by taking over the white house or USA might not work. since the hole US democracy thing around? Basicly i'm not sure but i'll see it.

The second Sherlock Holmes isn't good?... thats... lame... seriously, I was looking forward to that.

Well the reason I think bob likes the G.I. Joe trailer is because it actually looks like a G.I. Joe movie instead of a cheap ass knock off. Now it looks some what decent to watch still not holding out hope for it though.

Thomas Guy:
Normally I agree with a lot of what you say Bob but your GI Joe review should have sounded just like your Transformers 2 review. But it didn't. The first Joe film was just awful from beginning to end. Not an ounce of decent acting, bad fight scenes, and bad effects. Now you are excited for ANOTHER ONE. I don't get it.

Not a pro reviewer and I'm sure Bob could express it better but let me take a crack at it.

A change in the director's chair. Stephen Sommers who directed the first film is out. While Sommers is the director who brought a bit of fun with the first two Mummy films he's also the director who gave us Val Helsing. While Jon M. Chu is known for his dance films GI Joe 2 looks to be heavy on the ninja action and if you've watched any of the great kung fu films a good martial arts fight almost looks like a dance. Chu also seems to be giving in to what old fans were asking for unlike Sommers who would not put a hood on Cobra Commander because the character would look too KKK according to Sommers.

While we are still stuck with the world's most boring man Channing Tatum there is a huge shake up in the actors for the film. With the actors who didn't fit their roles or just poor acting gone that give a shot at a better team dynamic. Fun actors for Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow will be back.

At least from the trailer the vehicles don't look too futuristic. Hard to spot with the explosion but one of the screen shots show the Ripsaw which is actually in development for military use.

Could it all still go wrong? Yes it could. But with enough big changes the film actually might stand a chance at being good. Paramount seems to have enough faith in the film that they are giving it their coveted 4th of July release slot instead of shoving it off to the action film dumping ground of August like the first film.

Caramel Frappe:
was there anything from the real world in the movie? Was there an actual actor playing? Just all computer graphics? That's animation, it just got a lot easier to use because the animators acted out to make the characters more 'alive' in the animation rather then doing much more work for less efficient performance. That's all I got to say.

I don't understand the real question. Was there technically anything from the real world in the movie? No. But as for an "actual actor playing," yes, there was. All of the actors actually did (most) everything in the film. Some minor sets were even built so that they could perform everything necessary. It's just that the actors were digitized via performance capture and then inserted into a digitally created world. So, for a scene where a character in the film climbs a ladder (assuming that there is one of those), the actor would be wearing a funny-looking suit, and would actually climb a ladder. The ladder that ends up in the film will probably be a different one, though, that was created digitally. Make sense?

Marter:

Caramel Frappe:
was there anything from the real world in the movie? Was there an actual actor playing? Just all computer graphics? That's animation, it just got a lot easier to use because the animators acted out to make the characters more 'alive' in the animation rather then doing much more work for less efficient performance. That's all I got to say.

I don't understand the real question. Was there technically anything from the real world in the movie? No. But as for an "actual actor playing," yes, there was. All of the actors actually did (most) everything in the film. Some minor sets were even built so that they could perform everything necessary. It's just that the actors were digitized via performance capture and then inserted into a digitally created world. So, for a scene where a character in the film climbs a ladder (assuming that there is one of those), the actor would be wearing a funny-looking suit, and would actually climb a ladder. The ladder that ends up in the film will probably be a different one, though, that was created digitally. Make sense?

I see where you're getting at. But that still would count as animation because they had to input their movements into a digital character, in a digital world with other sorts of graphics. People can say that's not animation, but without these actors getting into character with those funny suits we wouldn't have a movie as great as Rise of the Apes, or Shrek (the first 2.. the others were okay.)

As long as people (when I say that, the animators) place forth a creation, with a virtual character and designing him/her/it to be doing anything the actors do.. it's still animation because they have to animate that with the background which they created through a computer.

Caramel Frappe:
I see where you're getting at. But that still would count as animation because they had to input their movements into a digital character, in a digital world with other sorts of graphics. People can say that's not animation, but without these actors getting into character with those funny suits we wouldn't have a movie as great as Rise of the Apes, or Shrek (the first 2.. the others were okay.)

Shrek didn't use performance capture, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes took place in a largely real background. Are you saying it should be called animation?

And you also have to consider how much computers are used in films in general, live action or not. For example, I'll present you a YouTube video for the film Zodiac. A lot of the shot is animated/CGI. So where do you draw the line, and when does the line honestly become pointless to even think about drawing?

As long as people (when I say that, the animators) place forth a creation, with a virtual character and designing him/her/it to be doing anything the actors do.. it's still animation because they have to animate that with the background which they created through a computer.

But they don't animate the characters. The animations are done for them, and the only thing they need to put the effort into is making the model. Which, if you think about it, is like applying makeup for a live-action film. Not really much different, just that it's done via computer. (I'm simplifying this because it would take too much time/effort to explain, but that's the gist of it.)

Marter:

Caramel Frappe:
I see where you're getting at. But that still would count as animation because they had to input their movements into a digital character, in a digital world with other sorts of graphics. People can say that's not animation, but without these actors getting into character with those funny suits we wouldn't have a movie as great as Rise of the Apes, or Shrek (the first 2.. the others were okay.)

Shrek didn't use performance capture, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes took place in a largely real background. Are you saying it should be called animation?

And you also have to consider how much computers are used in films in general, live action or not. For example, I'll present you a YouTube video for the film Zodiac. A lot of the shot is animated/CGI. So where do you draw the line, and when does the line honestly become pointless to even think about drawing?

As long as people (when I say that, the animators) place forth a creation, with a virtual character and designing him/her/it to be doing anything the actors do.. it's still animation because they have to animate that with the background which they created through a computer.

But they don't animate the characters. The animations are done for them, and the only thing they need to put the effort into is making the model. Which, if you think about it, is like applying makeup for a live-action film. Not really much different, just that it's done via computer. (I'm simplifying this because it would take too much time/effort to explain, but that's the gist of it.)

Darn, I could of sworn they did so for Shrek.

As for Rise of the Apes, they did use a real background because the movie takes place in real life but with animated chimps running about. If they were to animate anything else like the buildings or people for that matter, it would be a waste of time since the background already provided that. I consider it animation still because the time it took to make the apes look shockingly realistic.

Let's look at Avatar. Some backgrounds were in real places, but a lot of it were in CGI. The animals, the Na'vi folk, even the machinery were taken into animation details. Without that, the movie wouldn't of looked ether amazing or as in detail if they would try to make everything with realistic items. Imagine if they replaced CGI with puppets. We'd get some sick stuff here and there like Aliens where the Queen was a puppet, but you're very limited on what you could do with puppets. CGI (animation included) is what makes anything possible. So spite that actors are heavily relied on the figures being able to do anything smoothly, it still takes a great effort and more then half the portion of the movie in Avatar is all digital.

Caramel Frappe:
As for Rise of the Apes, they did use a real background because the movie takes place in real life but with animated chimps running about. If they were to animate anything else like the buildings or people for that matter, it would be a waste of time since the background already provided that. I consider it animation still because the time it took to make the apes look shockingly realistic.

This is the type of thing I'm talking about when I mention "drawing the line." By the logic you're using, something like Transformers is an animated film. Or Iron Man, for that matter, as Tony Stark's suit is CGI. Pointless distinctions, although I didn't think anyone would consider a live-action film with CGI to be "animation." I guess I was wrong.

RanD00M:
The Adventures of Tin Tin isn't even out yet in the US? It's been out here in Iceland for something like a month and a half, if not longer.

Yeah, in Europe as well, it's because ppl here are more familiar with the characters.

Marter:

Caramel Frappe:
I see where you're getting at. But that still would count as animation because they had to input their movements into a digital character, in a digital world with other sorts of graphics. People can say that's not animation, but without these actors getting into character with those funny suits we wouldn't have a movie as great as Rise of the Apes, or Shrek (the first 2.. the others were okay.)

Shrek didn't use performance capture, and Rise of the Planet of the Apes took place in a largely real background. Are you saying it should be called animation?

And you also have to consider how much computers are used in films in general, live action or not. For example, I'll present you a YouTube video for the film Zodiac. A lot of the shot is animated/CGI. So where do you draw the line, and when does the line honestly become pointless to even think about drawing?

As long as people (when I say that, the animators) place forth a creation, with a virtual character and designing him/her/it to be doing anything the actors do.. it's still animation because they have to animate that with the background which they created through a computer.

But they don't animate the characters. The animations are done for them, and the only thing they need to put the effort into is making the model. Which, if you think about it, is like applying makeup for a live-action film. Not really much different, just that it's done via computer. (I'm simplifying this because it would take too much time/effort to explain, but that's the gist of it.)

No.

Motion capture isn't perfect and a lot of what is captured can often be broken and/or feel wrong when directly translated to the characters. A lot of animators are employed just to fix mocap awkwardness alone. Once everything is fixed most animation is changed/emphasized/added to add more personality to what is either lost by the mocap process, does not translate well to the 3D character or would be impossible to act.

Pure mocap dumps simply don't work and as long as animators are NEEDED just to make the mocap animation fixed/believable it is still animation.

Waitwaitwait--G.I. Joe 2? And did that trailer feature Bruce Willis?

Well, damn. I didn't realize I wanted this. Knowing nothing of TinTin, I guess I'll check that out too. But now I want to see the second movie. I don't even remember the first, except for having some fun with it.

And really? More proof that Batman loses? Wasn't that extremely obvious from Bane even being in the damn thing? His only purpose in the comics was to break the Batman. That's it. Brilliant as he was, it's his one call to fame. Nolan has shown that, if nothing else, he likes the concept of Bruce Wayne the man, Batman the idea. Bale's gonna snarl at him, then get bent in half over Bane's knee.

I should also add in my experiences in working with mocap data fixing it alone takes a lot of time/pain and what you get often doesn't work until you eliminate a lot of excess noise to just be able to fix what you have. Afterwards you often have to manually add back any small actor quirks the mocap missed and the camera recording of said mocap picked up. Plus there is everything you may add yourself.

Animators are absolutely needed for a mocap movie even if it's just to get what the actors attempted to do.

I really wish I had of seen this when it was here in Ireland, I jut guess the characters... unsettled me too much. By the way, if it's not too much trouble MovieBob, could you please please please Include a reason for why Sherlocke Holmes 2 is crap (You're brilliant when you do angry reviews)

Aureliano:
Damn it, Bob, I don't care if Sherlock Holmes sucks. There is nothing in this world that can make me watch either Hugo or Tintin, especially not in theater and even more specifically if they involve Scorsese and Spielberg respectively. I literally cannot think of more overrated sellouts than those exact men.

So I'm going to go watch Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law be handsome and phone it in, because at least somebody might get laid there and those guys phoning it in still has twenty times as much heart as Scorsese or Spielberg 'trying'. Also childrens' movies suck.

Can't tell if trolling or just stupid...

I remember watching Tintin as a child but it seems like NONE OF MY FRIENDS DID!
When I heard they were making this I almost peed my pants with excitement. I am really glad they went with a good director.

Oh come on, no props to the writers?

Seriously, Spielberg got Edgar Wright and Steven Moffat to write this thing. I can't think of a another writing duo I'd want more for a movie. I'm slightly disappointed Bob didn't bring this up. But oh well; I've actually been looking forward to seeing this movie myself.

And I have to add in with the rest of the people wanting a longer review of Sherlock Holmes 2. I loved the first one!

tehweave:
Mission Impossible 4: Kinda sucked?

Not surprised. No movie has ever been "great" for the 4th installment, and rarely passes for "good."

Sherlock Holmes 2: Really sucked?

Damn.

Tintin: Actually good?

Imma have to see it then.

Also, I enjoyed the first G.I. Joe movie, so the 2nd one looks pretty good too.

Actually, Sherlock Holmes is certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. 64% of critics quite liked it.

And MI4 "kinda sucked"? It's currently one of the highest rated movies of the year, with a 95% fresh rating and getting rave reviews and lots of accolades praising the newest MI movie as the best in the entire franchise and Brad Bird as one of the best action directors in the industry.

Take that as you will...

Just saw A Game Of Shadows 10 minutes ago and gave it a solid 9/10. What the fuck are you smoking Bob? Tell me Bob. I want some of that stuff Bob. There is no way a movie that good could not influence a person's subjective opinions on the global scale taking away and all freedom to say that is was not the best Bob!

Did Bob even see Mission Impossible? I don't what he's smoking, because it's my favourite movie of the year.

And I'm not alone in liking it - it has 95% on Rotten Tomatoes

Really glad you liked this one. I saw it some months ago when it played here in Sweden, and I loved it. Been looking forward to your review since then. My initial reaction was "woah, Tintin just beat all Pirates movies with a single scene!"
I thought you were gonna mention the delightful way in which the movie seems so realistic at times yet still have the balls to let an airplane be fuled by Haddocs alcoholic breath and otherwise treat physics like old school Donald Duck cartoons.

Scarim Coral:
Wait, Sherlock Holmes 2 suck? You got to do a review on that next week explaining why it suck!

Also danm I knew that film is worth checking, well I think I still got some time left to see it.

Do you have to even ask? Watch some trailers. It's low quality is self-evident.

If you want some good Holmes, watch the recent BBC series, Sherlock.

i'm a huge fan of tintin, i have all the books (including the tintin chez les soviets, which is kind of stupid), and i was afraid when i saw the trailer because they took 3 books to do one movie. From what i see from bob comment and comment from europeans, i might go see it (it's out last week here, first place in north america yeah !).

When bob say that there's no origin story, it's actually normal, since tintin have no origin. he just start as a reporter and we know nothing of him. at no point in any book we see his family, or why he became a reporter.

it's also funny to note that in the first half of the books, milou is actually a talking caracter. he can talk and tintin can understand him, and when haddock get there, milou became a very intelligent but regular dog.

Zoroastres:

Scarim Coral:
Wait, Sherlock Holmes 2 suck? You got to do a review on that next week explaining why it suck!

Also danm I knew that film is worth checking, well I think I still got some time left to see it.

Do you have to even ask? Watch some trailers. It's low quality is self-evident.

If you want some good Holmes, watch the recent BBC series, Sherlock.

Yes, Cumberbatch and Freeman make the perfect pairing in that series. Ritchie's efforts just look like a PotC knockoff.

I understand that he does more "cynical" entertainment reviews rather than metric reviews, and understand that it's largely opinion, but I'm really beginning to doubt his credit as a reviewer. And I've been watching him ever since his first reviews here.

First Red State apparently became one of the worst movies of all time, despite being one of the freshest adaptations to film we've seen in a while, yet he loves Sucker Punch. This kind of cycle has been repeating for the entire time that he's been here.

I don't know, it's just been bugging me how (for lack of a better word) wrong he's been about some of these movies.

I'm gonna watch the Sherlock Holmes movie next week, and if it's decent than I think I'll have officially lost faith in him. Just a small little rant.

Zoroastres:

Scarim Coral:
Wait, Sherlock Holmes 2 suck? You got to do a review on that next week explaining why it suck!

Also danm I knew that film is worth checking, well I think I still got some time left to see it.

Do you have to even ask? Watch some trailers. It's low quality is self-evident.

If you want some good Holmes, watch the recent BBC series, Sherlock.

What's low quality about it? I've seen the trailers, and it actually seems to be the exact opposite of that.

Great visuals, great acting, plenty of action, and an above par story (judging from the last one).

Sure, not that great to the source material, but in terms of entertainment value, much more interesting.

yea, i felt the same about the gi joe trailer. I grew up with tintin

i was really surprised with tintin. was pretty true to the comics. or as i know it in german "tim und struppi".
me and my wife had a good time watching it. i agree with bob that it has some minor flaws, but you really can overlook them.
looking forward to part 2. :)

i had a feeling sherlock holmes 2 will suck. already part 1 sucked. this is not the sherlock i know.

GI trailer looks nice. might watch it. already enjoyed part 1.

Marmooset:
How on Middle-earth is The Hobbit aimed overwhelmingly at audiences outside of the United States?

(And please, somebody say because of the author. I dare ya.)

It isn't, but The Hobbit is not the movie Bob was talking about. In the review he said that the second of the films aimed overwhelmingly at audiences outside of the United States would be directed by Peter Jackson after he had completed The Hobbit. From this I can assume that he is talking about a different movie, though I do not know what that movie is.

Mission Impossible was actually pretty fucking great. Maybe because the previous 3 sucked balls, but seriously, Ghost Protocol=great film.

Still interested in Sherlock though...

Marmooset:
How on Middle-earth is The Hobbit aimed overwhelmingly at audiences outside of the United States?

(And please, somebody say because of the author. I dare ya.)

okay, because of the fact that Tolkien is the author, lol :-p

Cobra in charge of the US government? Seems like a step up in the right direction. No way cobra could treat us worse than our current government.

Looks like i will like the new GI Joe movie.

Bob, You HAVE to check out "Alois Nebel".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here