The Adventures of Tintin - Page 3

Saw it last night, it was good, not great for me. This is the first 3D movie that has given me a real and deep headache. The camera movement is sometimes too much for my taste and I believe over the top.

I'm sorry I didn't see it theatrically, massive fun.

Disc,(2D version), was excellent.

The overall level was fine, so is dynamics, however surround coverage was very limited, and it has nothing to do with the MV setting. This is how it was mixed, very front heavy. I did watch this close to reference levels, like I do with most films. Bass was a little light too, but not overly so. Compare this to Shrek 4 which also suffered from weak bass, but it's surround coverage was top notch, yet Tin Tin had far more action scenes.

Finally received my copy will watch tonight.

Yes I would, but I forget the nanny attitude of the Valenti rating system...to me G is whatever you can watch on tv...and that list of activity is on regularly without restriction...but then I don't believe in rating systems in the first place. Especially not Jack Valenti's vision...

Well, G means "General", meaning appropriate for any audience and no adult supervision is required. I hardly think CSI, Southland (which was on NBC) or Desperate Housewives is appropriate for all audiences - and those are not rated TV-Y, which is the TV equivalent of of a G rating. There are plenty of TV-MA shows out there and they are rated that way for a reason.

PG is "Parental Guidance", meaning parents are encouraged to view the movie with their children to answer any questions or quell any fears. It doesn't mean young children can't see the movie - it just means - in the theater - an adult must be with them.

That's kind of what I said.

There's no adult supervision required, though many theaters require at least someone older to be with them for security reasons.

The thing is, it's a tough call as to how much cartoon violence is too much.

How many times has Wiley Coyote been blown up, flattened and dropped off a cliff over the years - then got up again to get some more?

I am on the fence with this one, would love to watch with the kids (4 year old girl, 7 year old boy) but not sure it's appropriate. Read another members comments that there is stabbings and other killings...

I agree. The lure of the new camera movement freedom seemed to be a bit to much to resist. While it could be a cool feature when used with restraint, I thought he went overboard in many of the sequences.


Are you referring to the lens flare? I found it distracting in the movie. Yeah, I know they wanted to give it some grounding in reality, but to add digital lens flare? Unnecessary .


That may have been my problem. I was completely underwhelmed by the surrounds, even wondering if they were on. But, I was listening at our normal volume settings. Dialog was very clear, so it never occurred to me that it may have been set to low. I'll have to remember to crank it higher the next time I watch it.


You know, watching this movie, it sure did have that Indiana Jones feel. I couldn't help but think how cool it would be to use this technique to make a new Indy film. That way, we could have Harrison Ford lend his voice and body movements to give us another story set in 1930's or 40's. The stunt work could be handled by a younger actor, but we'd still get the essential essence of Ford in the character. These films are much easier to shoot quickly, so sequels could be done quickly if successful, but I digress.

The film was entertaining enough to consider buying in the future. There were some fun moments, and it was a good setup for the character. I'm looking forward to the sequel, and it'll be interesting to see where Jackson takes the story.

Watched this last night, and thought it was fun. I, too, got a bit of an Indy vibe in the Moroccan chase scenes especially. However, I wouldn't start making Indiana Jones movies into cartoons.

Shhh!

For godsake, don't give Spielberg any ideas! Crystal Skull was atrocious and a digital Indy movie like Tin Tin would be the death knell to the franchise, if it wasn't killed off already.

Why? This was one of the first motion-captured animated movies that had an actual feeling of "real-worldliness" to me. Exaggerated, but still relatable, with facial animation that had some feeling to it.

The stories have been adapted and expanded in novels, comic books, video games, and a TV series. Why the predudice against animation?

I could easily see it applied to the Indian Jones franchise. The action, environment, and time period could all benefit from the this developing medium.

Scott

They're already working on another Indy movie. Again, why animating a story kill the franchise?

One of the criticisms of the fourth movie was Ford's age. This would be a way of eliminating that problem.

Scott

That was a fairly minor criticism. There were other far more glaring problems than that. Don't get me started, I could be here all night.

Animation is an alternative to live action, not a substitute for it. Animating Ford would be as silly as coming up with a cartoon Connery for the next Bond film.

+1. It works great for Tintin but Indiana Jones is not an animated character. That said my wife watched Tintin for the second time last weekend and this film is immensely enjoyable. The Spielberg trademarks are funny to watch applied to the anime world. The motion capture and animation/visual quality are delightful on Blu-ray.

So, the two can't coexist? Connery lending his voice to an animated Bond may appear silly now, but that's at least partially due to the public's acceptance of other actors that have assumed the role. Bond has eclipsed Connery. That's not true of Indy.

The animated Clone Wars has done a wonderful job of extending the Star Wars universe via a beautifully and highly-stylized TV series. Even given the visually dissimilar works, they certainly portray the same characters and worlds.

Perhaps an even better example would be Batman: The Animated Series. Produced after the live-action serials of the 40's, the campy Adam West version from the 60's, and the Tim Burton movies made in the 80's, the series may very well be the best adaptation of the Dark Knight in any moving art form.

I don't understand the knee-jerk resistance to an animated Indiana Jones film, especially if done in the pseudo-realistic style of Tin Tin. The key would be an entertaining and compelling story, not the format of the film.

This thread probably isn't a discussion that necessarily fits in with Tin Tin, so I'm hesitant to pursue it here, it's just that the look and feel of the two worlds have such a similar feel that one could easily lead to the other.

Scott

Batman originated as a comic book; George Lucas made the Star Wars movies more and more cartoon-like over time. Tin Tin is a comic book. Don't see Bond or Indy as a cartoon. The idea is silly.

I agree.

And Bond originated as novels and short stories. . . So what?

This is fascinating to me. The way a property is first presented to the public is the only way that it will ever work? Someone needs to tell Disney pronto, before they waste any more money on producing animated versions of stories that were previously shot as live action features. How many more failures can they endure, such as:

Beauty and the Beast
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Aladdin
Tarzan
The Jungle Book
Hercules
Robin Hood

You'd think they'd be long bankrupt with all these creative and financial debacles by now.

Does this same rule preclude animated movies being redone or re-imagined as live action movies? Then the Lord of the Rings movies shouldn't have worked, since they were already produced as animated films. It also bodes ill for the upcoming Hobbit movies.

Maybe you only see animation as being appropriate as a medium for children? But, that would dismiss such works as Waltz with Bashir, Akira, American Pop, Waking Life, Beowulf, Heavy Metal, Renaissance, A Scanner Darkly, and many others.

Scott

Quite the contrary; the live films are generally considered vastly superior to the animated stuff. Using real people and real locations will always trump animation, no matter how much those fascinated with technology for its own sake proselytize otherwise.

OK, so it's just your own personal bias against animated material. Now I understand.

Can't say I would agree with it, though. I'd find it hard to imagine live action remakes of the Toy Story movies to be superior to what Pixar has already done. Same thing with Disney and Snow White. It seems like success or failure is much more dependent on how well executed they were.

In the case of the Lord of the Rings movies, I'd consider the Bakshi and Rankin-Bass versions to be failures (interesting, but still failures). That isn't to say that they couldn't have been successful, though. I would have loved to see animated films based on the look of the Brothers Hildebrandt paintings, for example. Combine that with a script closer to Tolkien's, and you have the potential for a film series that could have outdone Jackson's works. The key is the content and execution.

Out of curiosity, do the same standards also apply to other visual art forms? Photography of real people or real locations are considered vastly superior to those that are drawn or hand-painted? Or does applying motion to a narrative somehow flip those standards?

Scott

For the Bond character, I read most of the Fleming books after I saw the first movies my dad took me to (Dr No and From Russia With Love). If someone could make a good movie version with modern tech I'd definitely be interested...but the production standards would have to be pretty impressive due to the base that's been laid out so far. It's certainly beyond Connery these days in any case (altho he is my favorite....but I've only had a problem with Roger Moore otherwise, loved him as The Saint, but Bond not so much).

Anything Lucas wrote is pretty much probably suited more for cartoons than anything else, tho.

Snow White? I think we had numerous live action versions already no? And a new one on its way with Kristen Stewart.
As for Pixar, maybe a few reasonably intelligent people over at Disney or Pixar (or another studio for instance) would find it hard to imagine too - because it would be silly! It all comes down to the concept of the story, would it work in a live action film? Would it work in a animated film? I don't think it would, Indiana Jones is Harrison Ford no matter what, and Bond is....a lot of people lol but he's still 'live'. Their stories belong to the real world, even when said stories make no sense (the fridge)

Of all the titles you mentioned, I could be wrong but the adult ones were not exactly resounding successes, some of them reached the cult status but I guess if Lucasfilm produced an animated Indy they would have more than 'cult movie' in mind in terms of profits... The Disney titles were successes *because* they were made for children. Otherwise do you think the 20-40 year olds would have run to the theaters to see it? Nope. Cocteau's Beauty And The Beast is still the best version of the story by far.

Anything can be made into an animation. If everyone put their best effort into making the movie, then noone will care once the film starts playing, because a real good movie captures its audience with its magic.

As for Tintin, I wasnt that pleased with the movie, the old cartoon movies captured the spirit better. The 3D cinematography destroyed some of the 2D experience.

No, it's not merely my "bias" to say that animated representations of things aren't as convincing as the real things themselves. It's a simple fact. Actually, it's more than that--it's a tautology to say that reality is real and cartoons aren't. We don't live in Roger Rabbit land.

It's not a fact; it's an opinion. And the distinction in question is not between animated representations of things and the things, themselves; it's between animated representations of things and photographed and photo-manipulated representations of things. Animation and live action cinematography are each better than the other at representing certain different aspects of "reality" and of artifice.

Name ANY animated character that's EVER been mistaken for someone real. Failure to do so would be a fact, not an opinion.