Haha, this trailer launched an hour long office discussion on whether or not it's worth it to animate films that can be done in live-action. Animated CG films are labeled as a family genre. I'm a big fan of any new films that challenge that notion.
I'm totally in the camp of why not? Why can't an animated movie just tell a story, regardless of its setting and characters? Why not have an animated Usual Suspects for instance? Or Good Will Hunting? Or Shawkshank Redemption? Sure you could just shoot it live action? You could also shoot "Up" live action with FX mixed into it (like Cats and Dogs). US animated CG films are stuck within that family film box and that's why animation has become a genre here. Like you said, it's the family genre. It's as if live-action movies would only produce romantic comedies. How boring.
agree, but i fear the movie itself (storywise) will suck. too many action !
Two words: why bother.Why bother taking the extra time, expense and effort to animate a film so that it looks as much like a live action as you can make it.Pointless.You can either make an animated version of Tintin that looks like the comic books, or make a live action adaptation with well-cast actors.I'd be happy with either.Congratulations to all the talented artists that worked on Tintin, but I question why we needed it in this form in the first place.
From the director's POV:One word: Control.
why paint a portrait, if you can take a picture with DSLR ?because they can ! ;)
Does that imply photography, a form of art, is better than another?Movies are as much a visual experience as they are about the story. Take away the visuals and you have a book...CG and traditional film are two valid forms of art.
Post a Comment