PDA

View Full Version : New Pic's of Garfield


roger
12-30-2003, 05:21 PM
I think this one looks REALLY good.......:drool:

LINK (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=3231)

http:///www.joblo.com/newsimages1/picgarfield1.jpg

Bulldog
12-30-2003, 05:37 PM
looks awesome!

thats the cutest 3d model ever :D

Neil
12-30-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Bulldog
looks awesome!

thats the cutest 3d model ever :D

Uh... Jennifer Love Hewitt isn't 3D. :D

Bulldog
12-30-2003, 06:02 PM
She is not! ???, whats so special about that image than?

:P

no seriously I thik garfield is going to rock , i know i am one of the minority who thinks that but cant go wrong with a cute model like that and bill murray doing the voice.

Dearmad
12-30-2003, 07:09 PM
Am I really so alone to think garfield is ugly, poorly written (the strip sure us!), a subject that should be locked behind closed doors, and NOT made into a CG film for crying out loud!?!?

Maybe it's 'cause a fatty orange cat already lives in my house, but DAMN, Garfield is creepy looking and the script is going to make Cat in the hat look good.

The CG part is done well, but it's like making good CG of poop or something- I mean really! Great technical skill went into it, but keep it AWAY from me! :cry:

Jackdeth
12-30-2003, 07:42 PM
This picture is not how it will look in the moive. Look at the shadows. Look at the photoshoped softness to them. This is a PR photo, dont believe it.

Just look at the trailer to see how the "real" Garfield will look. Not very good in my opinion. Its just like Scooby Doo, all orange with very little contrast. There is no real highlights or shadows that match the real dog next to it.

wierd...

flipnap
01-01-2004, 01:25 PM
yeah, this photo (JLH one) is exteremly "GI".. now if they could maintain that throughout the course of the film, THAT would be something to rage about (wonder how much it would cost to hire a legion of rotoscopers?) .. Everyones waiting for the next best advance in CG filmaking (ie, hair, realistic skin with SSS, etc) how bout going for that kind of compositing for the entire look! man, now that would be worth watching:thumbsup:

beaker
01-02-2004, 01:28 AM
GI isn't usually done on fur. The cost in rendering is way too expensive, especially for a main character like this.

Jimmypop
01-02-2004, 10:09 PM
Regardless of the CG quality, you've got admit, Bill Murray is casting genius!:thumbsup:



Jimmypop

Jackdeth
01-02-2004, 11:57 PM
Huh? Judging by that trailer with the terrible one liners, it could have been anyone doing the voice. I really like Bill Murry, but I could care less that he is in that piece of cat poop.

Phearielord
01-04-2004, 08:33 AM
that looks sooooo much like my cat, it's creepy! :D

anyway, i'm a garfield fan, so I'd like to see the movie :)

rwijaya
01-04-2004, 08:50 AM
looks well done so far. but imho judging in my experience working, most movies trailer, especially teaser mostly some early percentage of the whole movies that they done. meaning, it will still go for alot of aprovall for the shot to makes to the final shot.
so i would before wait to see the final product rather then judging something from its trailer or especially teaser.
so i can't say anything this far . . :)

Pin_pal
01-04-2004, 01:14 PM
Man, this is just going to ruin my imagination of what Garfield would really be like. This movie is going to be horrible, guarantee it. Is it just me, or does that not even look anything like Garfield?!

This seems like a case of, just because we can do 3D, doesn’t mean you should!

Ah... ok... enough bitching...

bluemagicuk
01-04-2004, 01:23 PM
Yeah I agre with you pinpal

This is what garfield looks like
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/2004/ga040104.gif
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/2004/ga040104.gif

Just seen the trailer and he is waaaay to energetic for garfield.
I mean all garfield ever does is eat, sleep and occasionally beat the
crap outta fido his doggy chum. So far I havent seen either.

edit
Saying that I wouldnt mind seeing it sometime ... mabye on video
if its really bad.

Double edit
Dont mean to come across in a negative way lildragon, I am a
fan of garfield. Im sure it will be a good film. But I dont see any
likeness in character to the garfield I used to read as a kid.

cg looks fab

lildragon
01-04-2004, 02:59 PM
I think they're doing a wonderful job thus far, blending reality with cartoony. The only thing truly different is his nose and the lightness of his stripes which should be more black, I mean they even kept the same oblong eyes.
But overall he looks great, I just don't get why peeps here have their panties in a bunch over a fictional character. Is it the cool thing now to playa hate and be negative?

I'm quite sure Jim Davis has some say into what should and shouldn't be with his famous cat.

Get some cat nip guys it'll relax those tensions.

-lild

Jackdeth
01-04-2004, 06:39 PM
There is a difference between a fictional charactor, and a bad looking render.

I could give a rat's ass about the movie, but I'm just dissapointed in the look of him. If they weren't going for a photo-real look, then make him a cartoon like Roger Rabit then. But don't do a half-assed photoreal character ...especially when it's standing next to a real dog!

ZEROSKULL
01-04-2004, 10:49 PM
w00t jennifer still looks gorgeous. Lucky garfiled!:bowdown:

Breinmeester
01-05-2004, 01:01 PM
I'm really bummed their doing this film. Apart from all the technical stuff, which should be inferior to plot always, it just makes no sense to put Garfield in a real world as a CG character, especially when you decide to do Odie as a real dog! Either choose to make it all a real world thing, or go for complete animation. This mixture doesn''t do any good to the original characters of the Garfield comic. Beauty of Garfield is his extreme lazyness and sarcasm and the überstupidity of Jon. I don't see that in the trailer. This film surely is a waste of good humor.

Raymonkey
01-05-2004, 03:29 PM
Bill Watterson made some good points about not licensing Calvin and Hobbes that I believe apply to this argument somewhat:

Check it here (http://www.reemst.com/calvin_and_hobbes/?page=author&topic=license)

It also throws up the possibility that Jim Davis has had little control over how Garfield looks in the movie, and possibly doesn't even care.

I'm not looking forward to this one particularly, but I hope to be proved wrong.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Lorenzo Music voiced Garfield in the animated cartoon version and also voiced Peter Venkman in the Real Ghostbusters, and now Bill Murray is voicing Garfield....spoooky :p

CGTalk Moderation
01-17-2006, 01:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.