The Adventures of Tintin - Page 4

Bernie. He was animated by hand and people constantly thought he was live, one woman even had sex with him!

Show me someone who would mistake a photographed character for real and I'll show you someone simply uneducated about/inexperienced with cinema in general. They're just different visual storytelling means. Neither of them are "real", but they each have distinct qualities that make them able to express certain aspects of life in more "realistic" or resonant ways.

Crazy people can always make their own reality.

Now you're just using semantics to avoid the issue. You can't name an instance where people can't tell the difference between film of a real person and an animated character and you know it.

Avatar comes to mind, and no im not talking about the Na´vi.

I wouldn't contest that assertion, but I also have no idea what it has to do with the question at hand. Photographed people and drawn/CG/puppet/whatever-animated people are both artificial and look artificial to the familiar eye. Finding one more "realistic" than the other depends upon how you prioritize which qualities of reality are the most important to represent with fidelity and whether literal or figurative suggestions of these qualities are more resonant with you as an audience. This is all subjective and, thus, a matter of opinion, not of fact.

I think no one disputes the fact that both forms are just a representation of reality, therefore none of them is real. BUT, the animated medium suits more certain types of stories, the same for live action. @movieswede, I don't think anything can be made into an animation. Technically yes of course, but does it work all the time?

...Tintin was made for live action decades ago, and the film was not very good (Tintin and the Golden Fleece, 1961). Popeye too in 1980 (with Robin Williams!), the film just sucked. Certain characters are animated, others not. Indy is not. Tintin is perfect for the animated world.

Once again, you're avoiding the issue by choosing to talk about the limitations of photography. It's apparent that the animators who made Tin Tin worked their asses off trying to make the movie look more like film of real people, so they obviously know what it is they're shooting for, even if they know they can never get there.


Well said.

The usually reason why something fails when its moved to another medium is how you approach the transition to the new medium. There are infinit ways of doing this, that it often fails are not evidence that it cant succeed.

Just look at the different take on Batman, you got the entire scale from Adam West campy to Christian Bales serious, with Keaton somewere in the middle.

I'm not avoiding anything. You and I simply see "the issue" in different places. Which, again, speaks to the subjective nature of this question of opinion.

You tried to equate the limitations of photography with the limitations of simulating real people with animation. Once again, an attempt to confuse the issue.

It's not an attempt to confuse the issue, buddy; it's an honest expression of the way I see the issue. I'm sorry if you are confused, but I'm not trying to confuse you and I'm not trying to avoid or obfuscate anything. I see a line in one place and you see it in another. As far as I'm concerned, this just speaks to my point that this question is all subjective and you can't attribute statements of fact to it.

You were saying?

Davy Jones doesn't have human skin, that helps. Look at Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy, was his virtual younger self convincing? not 100%. And the effect was amazing btw, but not truly convincing. Back to Tintin, the animation is jaw-dropping, but you never forget you're looking at an animated movie. That's fine as far as I'm concerned, it's just that it can't be said that these characters look as real as a live action person...

(btw, Davy Jones is really one of the best looking CGI characters ever conceived)

Whether or not an animated character can be made to look as "photorealistic" as a live-action character is beside the point.

Have you ever seen a woman without her makeup?


You also have Terminator Salvation. Some angles look better then other. But I do believe it can be done right. Its the details that will make the difference.


To be fair, they were never intended to look 100% real life. But a mix between the comic look and real life look.

ok so I posit that an image of a person is not a real person -


now that it's been established, IN MY OPINION, Tintin is more suited to the animated world, and Indiana Jones is more suited to the live action world.

and they succeeded.

What are you saying? It's obvious he isn't real.

I think the near-universal reaction to an animated Indiana Jones movie would be that it's a significant "reduction" from live action.

how about gollum?

Most people, myself included, thought it was the actor in a suit + makeup and perhaps just the tentacles on his face were enhanced.

Truth is, the entire character is CG with the on set footage of the actor used as reference...it wasn't mo-cap and even his eyes are CG.

It wasn't supposed to. When you first see him you're supposed to realize something is "off" about Sam's father.

Or are you referring to the "bedtime story" version in the beginning where they pretty much kept him in shadow?

While one of the two new Snow White coming out may be good movies, it's hard to imagine them supplanting the Disney version in the minds of the public.


Toy Story was used as an example to challenge the claim that was put forth: Using real people and real locations will always trump animation, no matter how much those fascinated with technology for its own sake proselytize otherwise.


Are you defining success as artistic, critical, or by financial gain? In the short and non-exhaustive list there are examples that would meet any of those standards.


Yes, Disney markets their animated product to a specific audience. But that shouldn't be taken as proof that animation can only be made for children. Some of these films have a large crossover audience.

Take the movie Up, for example. Do you really think that the prologue was aimed solely at children? Are they fully capable of understanding and appreciating the life-long bond that Carl and Ellie shared?

As for Beauty and the Beast, that goes back to the question of what defines success.

Scott

Tintin was a really entertaining movie, I enjoyed it

Where did this argument come from?

The purpose of cinema isn't necessarily to be a factual display of reality. The kinds of films were talking about are all fantasy, whether animated of shot in the real world. The key is the story and how the combination of visuals and soundtrack combine to create an experience that absorb the audience in that story.

Back to my earlier question, do the same standards also apply to other visual art forms? Photography of real people or real locations are always considered vastly superior to those that are drawn or hand-painted? After all, they would be more convincing. We don't live in a world consisting of oil and canvas.

Scott

That would all depend on the quality of the animated production. Like it was high art from Lucas in the first place, let alone Harrison Ford. Harrison can't do it anymore in any case, he's too old....maybe he could be in a dad role like Connery was.

So, exactly where does Batman fit in then? He started as a comic book character. By your logic above, was he meant to be animated? There are some Batman films that worked well as live action features. Does that diminish the animated material?

So, which is it? is Batman meant to be a live action character or an animated one?

Success hinges on the story and execution. There's no reason why a live action Tin Tin couldn't work, just as there's no reason why an animated Indiana Jones movie couldn't work.

Scott

It came from your notion of animating Harrison Ford to deal with the fact that he's too old to be Indy.


The Toy Story characters aren't real people; they're pure fantasy (an animated talking toy can hardly be equated with a real person), so that example doesn't work.