New Polar Express Trailer...

[KingMob]

link seems to be down :(

[slime]

The music by Allan Silvestri is awesome.
I will go to see it. The new trailer is almost the same footage as the previous one. The flying waiters still look a little cheesy but overall I think is fantastic :)

[BlueMouse]

I'll be going to the theatres for this one. I've always been a sucker for CG eye candy.

It's interesting to me that the conductor character is based on Tom Hanks' actual appearence. Does anyone know any details about this?

[andy_maxman]

superCool!
Link worked fine. View source and you get the link there too.

[rotaryman]

First my apologies to all those people who worked hard to make this movie happen, I know a few of them and my hats off to the wonderful work they've done. HOWEVER!! I have said this in the past and I still hold my ground on it to this day, there Facial animation is HORRIBLE, I mean come on, the face is the most important element to any character, its what we focus on 80 percent of the time during an acting performance. FF:Spirits within anyone?? I get the impression that 90 percent of thier budget was allocated to rendering and look development, and then they realized, "Oh Crap!!! we don't have any more money left for animation!" Seriously, I am no animator, but with the amount of money and technology they threw at this picture and with Zemeckis on board, you would assume there would be a higher regiment of quality control regarding character animation, I am serious dissapointed about it. Nonetheless, I am going to go see it, I hope it does well, help it make the moolah to keep CG movies comin and jobs here in the US.

my 2 cents

Greg

[Madyeti47]

I'll be going to the theatres for this one. I've always been a sucker for CG eye candy.

It's interesting to me that the conductor character is based on Tom Hanks' actual appearence. Does anyone know any details about this?

Tom Hanks actually does the acting form most of the characters I guess. I know sure he does the conductor, a bum and the boy.

As for the facial animation, I know it was all motion capture from Tom Hanks face. They put all those little bally thingys on him and had him say the lines. Now if anyone thinks the animation is awful, do you think it's the technologies fault, or are they not working hard enough tweaking the motion capture data?

I did see one scene at Siggraph with the bum on top of the train talking to the boy and I thought it looked really good.

[clockwerkz]

I don't think the animation is totally awful. Agreed, it does look a bit lifeless, but seeing this new trailer I think it's looking pretty decent. I wonder if in the performance capture technique they use, if they ever went in and hand animated any of it?

The visuals are very nice.. I love those shots of the train. I'm now looking forward to see it on the big screen.

cW

[titaniumdave]

Polar express = zombie hanks and the dead kids

Thanks but no thanks, in November I'll watch the incredibles instead.

[mattmos]

The little boy's face does look a bit... wooden, for want of a better word. Lacking the subtle eye movements and expressions that bring something to life - maybe on the big screen it will read better, I do hope so.

[Dennik]

Sorry, my apologies, i'm sure many very talented people have worked on that one, but, the facial animation has failed to deliver lifelike results. Thats what happens when you let the machines do the job. :shrug:

[noxy]

I recently saw the Sony bit from the Electronic Theater at SiggraphLA, Although the design and rendering quality of Polar Express looks quite good, the people just come accross as slightly off. They showed Tom Hanks speaking his lines and the bum in the movie speaking, and there was a weird disconnect. It almost looked like they were using Valve's technology from Half Life 2, where you put in a line of dialogue and the character automatically tries to say it.

Maybe it's just the fact that these characters exist somewhere between real and stylized, but all the dialogue felt like the sync was a couple frames late. I typically enjoy Zemeckis' movies so I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt, but this animation technique seems a bit iffy.

Noxy

[lanedaughtry]

All the facial work is horrible imo and frankly I just don't care for the art direction in this. Its hard to quantify but something is very off-putting about it.

Which is a shame because clearly a TON of work went into it.

-L

[JeroenDStout]

I really dislike this trailer... it looks like a sick mix of Disney 'classics' and christmas stories done in pretty bad 3d (if you look at the characters! Come on!)... and something gives me the impression it's going to have a real bad story...

I'll pass.

Big time.

[FloydBishop]

Why is this film CG?

[rotaryman]

As for the facial animation, I know it was all motion capture from Tom Hanks face. They put all those little bally thingys on him and had him say the lines. Now if anyone thinks the animation is awful, do you think it's the technologies fault, or are they not working hard enough tweaking the motion capture data?

Well depends on the technology, I seriously am hesitant on the use of most performance capture technologies on the face, only because most of the movements that the face makes are subtle and are somewhat lost in translation. The problem with using point reference performance capture is you need a bumload of them to get accurate reading. However iDisney feature animation worked on a project called Gemini man, which uses the entire face rather than a handful of dots to capture the motion of the face. The performance they were able to extract from the actor was simply amazing. If you were able to catch the facial animation course at Siggraph this year, you know what I am talking about. What was even more interesting was that they were able to transfer the data to other faces that did not have the same proportions, flawlesly! What strikes me is that Disney did all this about 3 years ago, and have yet to really put it into a production.

Ah well,

Greg

[hobbes17r]

Why is this film CG?
I'll second that - So far it gives the impression that its sense of stylization hasn't been pressed enough. I recall reading that the goal was to make this picture read like a 'living oil painting'; On stills, I would say that it often looks great (particularly the environments), but in motion - that is, in the way it will actually be experienced - it just doesn't seem to add enough to the characters to make up for the life lost in their acting.

Another point of interest: This movie is scheduled for release just one week after Pixar's 'Incredibles'. Guess we'll see clearly just how audiences respond to the different animation approaches...
- i

[Dennik]

.....Well depends on the technology, I seriously am hesitant on the use of most performance capture technologies on the face, only because most of the movements that the face makes are subtle and are somewhat lost in translation....
Well how hard is that to believe for those tech gurus working at Polar Express? I mean it only takes the experience of someone to model a human face, to realise how a vertex pushed or pulled slightly, may give a total different shadow and turn an ugly face to a pretty one.
And they expect to capture the nuances of facial expressions, with a few dozen moving dots? Its like trying to play the piano with box gloves on. :shrug:

[blankman]

At first, I wasn't very excited to see this one either. I read this article the yesterday that made me wonder though...

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/550/550116p1.html

Also, I don't understand why everyone says the facial animation is so bad. I think there are some very nice subtleties (especially around the eyes) that we've never seen before in cg animation. I saw the video clip they showed at Siggraph from this movie and was very impressed. What did other people think of that clip?

[msouthan]

Blankman.. You so obviously work for Sony, it's not even funny.

[msouthan]

At first, I wasn't very excited to see this one either. I read this article the yesterday that made me wonder though...

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/550/550116p1.html

Also, I don't understand why everyone says the facial animation is so bad. I think there are some very nice subtleties (especially around the eyes) that we've never seen before in cg animation. I saw the video clip they showed at Siggraph from this movie and was very impressed. What did other people think of that clip?
Come on! This movie's gonna suck and everyone knows it.

[agreenster]

The music was good.

The animation was so stiff.

I don't know why studio's believe in using mocap sometimes. Animation is supposed to be an exaggerated, stylized form of movement--not a replication of it. The closer you push it to realism, the more unbelievable it looks. There needs to be that charming bit of fantasy in the execution of the character design, AND their movement to make it entertaining. That's why Pixar is so successful.

Technically, the faces dont hit extreme poses, and they looked like they were made out of rubber. The sets, however, were beautiful.

[fattyLees]

I agree with Floyd Bishop...Why is this all CG?

-Fatty

[Jackdeth]

The word on the street was that the movie was suppose to be all CG beacuase of a 3D oil painting shader effect that they werre going to do over the entire film to look like the book. But after lots of reseach, I had heard that it would take way too much time to "comb" every surface normals for the oil painting effect...so they scrapped it.

...but who really knows....

[amygdalae]

I agree with Floyd Bishop...Why is this all CG?

-Fatty

This is a silly question. How would it not be CG?

Ok let's say all the actors were live action, which is what I'm assuming you're suggesting. Wouldnt everyone then be criticizing the fact that a big CG train pulls up to a real house? It's so CG looking! That slide across the ice-lake looked so CG! God the skiing thing looked so CG! Look at the compositing! Oh god I think that composite looked kinda blurry! There was this edge blur thing when he jumped across the thing!

You guys are great at nitpicking, this is afterall a computer graphics forum. But damn, you could rip any movie to shreds with that kind of attitude. Go look at all the garbage mattes showing through on star wars in many shots on DVD even now.

If this movie didnt have CG characters, it would just be like Christmas Sky Captain. I dont really see the benefit of having real actors composited into environments that for the purpose of the action end up having to be almost entirely CG anyway. Unless you're supposed to build an entire or partial actual train and then deal with matching it to a CG one? The story takes place almost entirely in motion over hundreds of miles of terrain. Do you go shoot that on a real train in real snow and composite in a CG train? Real partial train on a blue screen blowing fans at people and comping it all together later? Even asking this question as though you're suggesting a practical alternative shows your ignorance.

This isnt a flame or anything, but I would like to point out that this movie isnt for you guys. It's a kids movie based on a childrens book, not Lord of the Rings. Take it or leave it, it is what it is.

[Jackdeth]

Silly answer: A talented groups of artist could make a CG train pull up to a real house without it looking "CG."

I don't see how you compare bad effects with a reason to do humans in CG. Those things have nothing to do with each other. Good characters can be real or CG, just as any object can be real or CG. Using your logic, all movies should be CG becuase there might be some "garbage mattes" showing up on DVD... Right?

With some talent and time, you can make effects flawless enough that 99% of people will never now.

You are saying these other people are "ignorant," but I find you statements just as "ignorant" to assume that you couldn't have shot this film with real sets and actors. Do you really think this is the only movie that has taken place over "hundreds of miles of terrain?" Your own example of LOTRs undermines your whole point.

I'm not trying to slam you, but I just want to point out that maybe everyone needs to chill out a bit.

I think doing CG characters that look "photoreal" is a mistake unless there is a really good reason for it. Such as Gollum or Hulk. Doing CG for the sake of CG is a bad idea.

Now about this movie.... the jury is still out for me. Its not my type of movie, but I'm sure the kids will like it.

[amygdalae]

My point was that even nice combination of CG and live action would still be 'CG looking' to this crowd. Everyone's a critic.

My point about old movies was that they are not perfect, not to slam them. I'm just saying that everyone seems to be such a little bitch these days because they're running cracked maya or max at home. Maybe if everyone had a dykstraflex and a bluescreen cyc back in the day it would have been a similar situation.

My point about hundreds of miles of terrain was referring to the fact that the set is moving for nearly the entire movie. It wasnt to imply vastness to compare with lord of the rings. It's just that it's about a train that's moving throughout the movie... The environments would have been CG almost any way you would want to slice it.

Anyhow, think what you like.

[AWAKE]

I'll go if it has one of these in it......


http://www.delorean.com/wallpaper_images/0804-640-p.jpg

http://www.delorean.com/wallpaper_images/0404_640_p.jpg

[Redz]

Why was Snow White animated? Geesh, if no one took any chances in life we would still be living in caves. Its easy to sit back in your chair and bash what you dont aggree with. I hear a lot of misconception about motion capture in these forums. Has anyone actually worked with mocap data? I have, and I can tell you it is not as easy as "letting the machines do the job". That idea is what I would think our parents believe we do, or the sales ppl in our companies. Like there is just some make grafix button or somthing.

It just seems that it makes you popular or something here if you can flame other ppls work, while turning an opinion into "fact".

Don't worry folks, I don't think motion capture will put us out of work. Polar Express is just a big expensive kid's movie, get over it.

[titaniumdave]

Who cares about bad cg when you don't get the animation right? The biggest problem is the lack of expression.


I'm just saying that everyone seems to be such a little bitch these days because they're running cracked maya or max at home.

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've seen posted ever.

[Redz]

I agree that the expressions are not where they should be, and unfortunately the principles of animation are lost. But I don't think that amygdalae's comment is invalid, there are a lot of ppl who are full of opinions that should be paying attention to their own work. I won't rule myself out on that one either. There is always room to improve, and this movie "could" be one of them. It has not even made it out yet, lets leave our judements till then. Let's just try and be civil here, I hope that there could be some sense of community between all of us in our field.

[deanbutton]

It reminds me a bit of, 'the SnowMan...'

It's CG, because CG sells ? It could have been 2D...?

D.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.