Escape to the Movies: The Adventures of Tintin

Recommended Videos

Xman490

Doctorate in Danger
May 29, 2010
1,186
0
0
I wouldn't call this point in film history as a "Revolution". It's more of a "Renaissance" because the first classy motion pictures were international, according to my Survey of Motion Pictures class. Silent films, especially with their comedians, were made popular by international audiences.

Oh, and it's not a surprise how bad Sherlock Holmes is. All I see from the trailer is the filmmakers screaming "WE MADE AN ACTION FLICK IN 19TH (19th, right? That's what I guess.) CENTURY BRITAIN! WOOOOOO!"
 

Melkor-III

New member
Sep 28, 2009
6
0
0
Excited about the GI Joe movie? Seriously? I had hoped that the glee Bob felt about that first horrible, boring, artistically void, pointless mess of a film was a temporary lapse of judgement, but no, apparently not. GI Joe was so bad that Transformers beat it in both action and personality and that says a lot.

Titin seems nice, but I feel that animation cannot truly capture the Ligne-Claire Style that makes Titin what it is. Perhaps cell-shading should have provided an interesting adaptation of this comic style, but that is pure speculation. ;)
 

GeorgW

ALL GLORY TO ME!
Aug 27, 2010
4,806
0
0
Aiddon said:
GeorgW said:
Wait, what didn't you like about Sherlock? I know he mentions it in the column, but it has spoilers. Could someone fill me in?
Basically Guy Ritchie gives Robert and Jude NOTHING to work with so the best part of the previous films (the chemistry between the two) is GONE. Noomi Rapace is also given jack friggin' crap to do. They also decide to repeat that "Holmes Time" slow-mo sequence again. And again. And AGAIN. And finally, the action is also just plain boring.
Wow. What a waste.
Thanks for the info!
 

Draconalis

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2008
1,586
0
41
I just got back from watching Sherlock Holmes, and I didn't really think it sucked.

I will admit it wasn't as good as the first one, by far... but I enjoyed it.
 

Filiecs

New member
May 24, 2011
359
0
0
What do you mean America doesn't appreciate Tintin, I've been waiting for this movie for so long! I loved the Tintin comics as a kid, I used to check out stacks of them from the library.

SupahGamuh said:
Also, didn't Tintin's dog was named "Milu" or something like that, instead of "Snowy"?
No, it's always been Snowy.
Hehe, now I can't stop thinking about when Snowy got in Haddocks stash of booze...
 

iniudan

New member
Apr 27, 2011
538
0
0
Eruanno said:
Two things:
1. Wait, Tintin isn't out in the US yet? It's been out for over a month in Sweden! What is this madness, we're usually the ones who have to wait a shitload of time for no apparent reason other than "Durr, we can't plan ahead for a worldwide release at the same time because we're not very intelligent".
Not like it unusual for them when a movie doesn't target them. For the Millennium movie trilogy they were airing the first movie while most of the rest of the world was up to the third one.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
maxben said:
swimon said:
Also apparently Milou is called snowy in english... That's just weird. I mean sure it's always kinda weird to translate names on the other hand tho maybe Milou is hard to pronounce to native english speakers? Being swedish I wouldn't know but Milou is like the most iconic dog ever, it's like finding out that Lassie is called brownie somewhere just, weird.
Yeah, the French "Milou" is difficult, both the M-short(i)-l (we use double-l to round out the sound, unless its French origin such as Philip) and the French "ou" are rare and painful for North American English speakers.
But we would just translate it as Milo (pronounced My-loe), so I have no idea why they called the dog snowy.
Maybe it appealed better to kids or something.
It has always been Snowy in the English Translations.

I'm a little disappointed there is no Professor Calculus (Tournesol) but I will hold out for the second film, I just hope they show him doing his rusty savate...Hopp!. The casting of Pegg and Frost as Thompson and Thomson is inspired (I can never remember if the p goes first or not).
 

Gigatoast

New member
Apr 7, 2010
239
0
0
Two questions.
One, the f**k was wrong with Sherlock Holmes 2? The first one was great and I don't expect they changed much. Is it because the series has a very similar feel to Pirates of the Caribbean, another franchise you inexplicably despise?
And two, how exactly am I supposed to take your "professional opinion" seriously if you're hyped for a G.I. Joe sequel?
 

KeyMaster45

Gone Gonzo
Jun 16, 2008
2,846
0
0
MovieBob said:
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.
 

BlackWolf100

New member
Oct 15, 2010
30
0
0
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.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
The second Sherlock Holmes isn't good?... thats... lame... seriously, I was looking forward to that.
 

jecht35

New member
Jul 2, 2011
92
0
0
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.
 

Ashley Blalock

New member
Sep 25, 2011
287
0
0
Thomas Guy said:
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.
 

Marter

Elite Member
Legacy
Oct 27, 2009
14,276
19
43
Caramel Frappe said:
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

Elite Member
Legacy
Oct 27, 2009
14,276
19
43
Caramel Frappe said:
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 <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8KkYouTube>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

Elite Member
Legacy
Oct 27, 2009
14,276
19
43
Caramel Frappe said:
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.
 

Sammaul

New member
Nov 25, 2009
115
0
0
RanD00M said:
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.
 

magma

New member
Jul 21, 2010
77
0
0
Marter said:
Caramel Frappe said:
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 <url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8KkYouTube>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.