The Adventures of Tintin

looks like a fun movie, but they still can't make humans look real.....maybe that's the point???

Already have the 3d version pre-ordered. Loved the movie. Though It helps that I loved the comics since I was a kid.

Unlike the Polar Express, the characters in Tintin aren't supposed to look exactly like a human. Their features are very exaggerated, like they were in the comic. Had this been live action, everyone would have had to wear heavy prosthetics. Nobody wants another Popeye. I also find it much easier to suspend my disbelief during an animated film. And Tintin definitely requires that.

The human characters didn't bother me the way they did in Polar Express, Beowulf, etc. This is one of the first motion capture films that I was able to enjoy without being distracted and put off by zombie humans. I will definitely pick up a 3D copy when it comes out.

awesome movie. i just dont understand why it does not get any love in the USA.

i will get the 3D version of it as well.

The "The Adventures of Tintin" BD contains the animated cartoon series from the 1990s.

Not to be confused with "The Adventures Of Tintin: The Secret Of The Unicorn" CGI film.

Not really, thats just one way of doing it. Do the Batman movies look like a replica of the comic book?

Would it be that american audiences somewhow don't relate to the character and his adventures very much? I don't mean that in a bad way. Tintin the character is very european so to speak. I remember when Batman came out in 1989 the hype was very small in France compared to the US. Batman and superheroes are part of the american culture but in Europe not so much. People thought yeah batman so what? Since then of course things have changed a lot but back to Tintin perhaps the character's appeal is not that big. (I haven't seen it by the way, but I'm sure I'll buy it - 2D)

Depends on the Batman movie. Notice the good ones have villains that look rather different than the comics? Do I really have to point out that what works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen?

And I'm pretty sure most Tintin fans don't want a realistic take on the characters. We already had our live action crapfest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ETaPoVwb34 Nobody wants another one.

Long-time Tintin fan - movie was OK. A lot of it was pretty. I saw in 2D, but it was obviously intended to be 3D with lots of "effects". Yeah, worth the watch for a Tintin fan, but keep expectations low.

I saw the 3D version and the use of 3D was extremely subtle, with only a couple of moments where it was really obvious. I'm in the bad habit of periodically lifting up the glasses to see how much 3D is on the screen at a given moment, and in this case, it seemed like half the time there were no 3D effects at all. Now that was just a subjective impression and I'm sure that more than half the film has some 3D going on, but Avatar or Hugo it ain't.

that is what i dont understand morpheo. since Tintins story have a big USA influence.

first ever story of Tintin was Tintin in America. then there is Tintin on the Moon. to me Tintin looks like somebody working in Orsen Welles Citizen Kane newspaper.

about Batman. here in Europe. Marvel was always bigger then DC comics here. that is why Batman first didnt do so well is my guess.

same as green latern bombed hardcore here. since we hardly know green latern. then again Green latern bombed everywhere.

also i am still mistified why noone has ever tried to get the movie rights for the comic Storm.

i am not talking about the marvel female storm. i am talking Don Lawrence storm.

i dont think anybody has ever heard of storm outside of the Netherlands and UK i think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_(Don_Lawrence)

but it is like tintin + avatar + farscape + buck rogers + conan the barbarian.

done right you would have box office gold. i imagine the rights are cheap as well.

anyway i get carried on again. lets talk about tintin

D3code link is no good. the Tintin movie I so it in IMax 3d I thought it a great have fun moive.

Looking forward to see it again it was great at the movies and Im sure it will be great at home.

The movie was great in 3D,Mate.You should buy 3D pack for future upgrade.

I saw it in 3D was very good. Im just sticking with the 2D version for the time being.

Saw in 3d and love so definitely will get it

This disc is a marvel. Perfect audio and video. This is one that kept dropping my jaw with one sight after another, and it takes a lot to do that anymore. After 1200+ discs, you do get just a hair jaded. Tintin is the type of disc that reminds me why I love what this format can do, plus the movie was a crazy amount of fun.

My review is live:

http://www.doblu.com/2012/03/01/the-...tintin-review/

Well going by what I saw at the cinema I wasn't surprised that the blu ray will have perfect video. Though I'm glad the audio is too.

I watched the 2D Blu-ray release over the weekend. Never saw it when it was in theaters so this was a first time viewing for me, plus I have a very marginal knowledge of the comic strip. Yes, the video quality is pretty much top tier, no doubt about that. However, I thought the audio was almost exclusively restricted to the front and center channels with almost no rear channel activity. At one point early in the movie I actually stopped and checked the settings on both my receiver and the playback of the disc but that's how the audio seemed to be mixed.

Although the movie is certainly worth a viewing and maybe a blind buy for those interested in at least eye candy for their home theater, I can't say this movie really connected with me on any level. I'm just not a fan of this style of CGI animation (also in Polar Express) where the level of detail in surroundings and characters seems to strive for realism just short of an actual live action film.

Oh no I hope they didn't mix it that way. Top pq but a let down in the Aq.

with the disappointing box office numbers in the USA I wonder if plans for the Peter Jackson directed sequel have been put on hold or cancelled altogether

I wonder how it did in Europe? I don't think many people in the states were aware of Tintin comics.

but the movie seemed to fail (box office wise) based on its own merits...whether people knew about the comics or not shouldn't have played that big of a role in whether people went to the theaters to see it...there must have been something else which turned people off

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-pipeline.html

Going by this looks like there will be a number 2. Looking forward to it.

I thought number 2 was always a certainty? Steven Spielberg directed the first; Peter Jackson is to direct the second. It's the third they put a big question mark over, depending on the success of the first two.

It was a mostly fun movie.

BUT, I think the "camera can go anywhere in CG world" overwelmed Spielberg a bit, and he went super crazy with camera movements.

The 3D version has SOOO much camera movement all the time it almost makes you seasick. And I normally never complain about that in 3D! lol

Perhaps the second will do better at cinemas due to home video sales, streams and rentals of the first. The Jason Bourne effect, as it were. That's about their only hope for a third, really.

It's grossed nearly $373 million worldwide on a budget of $135 million. The sequel is a no-brainer. Toss in disc sales & on-demand & you have quite a financial success. The U.S. box office is becoming less relevant as most films haul comes from over seas viewing. Can't wait for my copy to arrive, this will be a stunner on Blu-ray!

My whole family liked it quite a bit. I feel like it was what Indy 4 should have been, adventure movie wise.

None of us had any more than marginal familiarity with the original comic, though.