PDA

View Full Version : CG humans, after Santa Claus the Nazis?(MOD EDIT: ANNE FRANK 3D MOVIE)


puch
09-05-2005, 05:21 AM
I just bumped in to this. It the teaser trailer of a 3D movie inspired on the story of Anne Frank and the Holocaust...
I knew that something like this was going to happen sooner or later...

Check it out:

http://www.dearannemovie.com/

mmkelly011881
09-05-2005, 05:29 AM
speechless...

why 3d?

Jaycee77
09-05-2005, 05:40 AM
The trailer looks amazing. I am thouroughly impressed by the detail that seems to be featured in the scene there. I ama sucker for just about anything CG so I will definitley be checking this out. That aside from the fact that this is a story that everyone shoudl know of growing up so we never forget what happened. CG has come a very long way in a very short time IMO, looks very promising on that aspect alone to me.

SheepFactory
09-05-2005, 05:46 AM
I think the characters look as dead as polar express characters. So i have to echo Matt's "why 3d"

This is a story that can easily be told with live action.

Congrats to all who worked on it though , on the technical side it looks gorgeous.

thematt
09-05-2005, 06:51 AM
I heard about it long time ago, Jon foster was doing some design on it , I was wondering how they would style the human being..I guess they didn't..it sure going to be an impressive movie..but the point of doing it in 3d..is .well very obscur to me.

good for our job if it works.it looks great anyway, can't judge on the animation right now will wait for some acting shot. Congrats to all the crew.

cheers

Breinmeester
09-05-2005, 07:25 AM
O my God! Are they going to Hollywood the Anne Frank history? And in CG too? My stomach turns!

thematt
09-05-2005, 07:49 AM
O my God! Are they going to Hollywood the Anne Frank history?

no it's done in Italy, and i beleive they will stay true to the story..at least I really hope so..

Prost :)

ColinCohen
09-05-2005, 02:12 PM
My guess the point of doing it in 3d is to recreate the character as she actually looked.

laureato di arte
09-05-2005, 02:19 PM
My guess the point of doing it in 3d is to recreate the character as she actually looked.
looks amazin

baby
09-05-2005, 02:33 PM
I don't get it...

as for Collin comment, you think if Spielberg had decided to do Schlinder's list all CG to match Oskar Schindler face it would have been a good reason ?

looks like a demo for some nice Vray render + totally "expressions less" character...

I respect the work...although I think some people have too much money to waist...

hope the result would be good...but a teaser should show the best you can do...

I predict good results in Italy but a failure abroad...unless the story and direction is really amazing.

I don't get it...

jeremybirn
09-05-2005, 02:46 PM
This is actually something that's been going on a long time in animation: people who don't feel they have the budget to film a "real" movie, make animation.

We've seen lots of educational and bible stories (especially the bible stories that involve crowds and battles), and even a cheap version of Lord of The Rings, done as animation because people thought animation would be a cheaper way to tell the story. I guess nowdays that same thought process leads to 3D.

-jeremy

Carles
09-05-2005, 03:03 PM
speechless...

why 3d?

Hello there!
I'm the enviroment supervisor in Dear Anne - The gift of hope -

I have another question... why not? :)

Carles
09-05-2005, 03:22 PM
This is actually something that's been going on a long time in animation: people who don't feel they have the budget to film a "real" movie, make animation.

We've seen lots of educational and bible stories (especially the bible stories that involve crowds and battles), and even a cheap version of Lord of The Rings, done as animation because people thought animation would be a cheaper way to tell the story. I guess nowdays that same thought process leads to 3D.

-jeremy

Well, the Director's idea is not to save money doing the film in 3D.

We're doing that film in 3D for several reasons:
First at all we're 3D artists (director included) so the film should be done in 3D either, Anne Frank related history or just another.

I think 3D bring us the posibility to use the faces of the characters instead just actors, so we can see Anne Frank when 3 years old, 11 years old, 13 years old and even in a future time she never had the chance because she lost her life in 1945 at Bergen-Belsen.
We can also navigate Amsterdam just like it was in the 40's, with his cars, trams, boats and the nazis presence in those places...

I think we don't need to justify why we do that in 3D, we just do it.

I only hope, that all of you will be able to enjoy the film when released as much as we enjoy creating it.

Thanks alot for all the comments.

Carles

baby
09-05-2005, 03:23 PM
it's not a why...
it's a I don't get it...


but if the only justification of doing this movie is "why not"
damn I'm scared and i'm sure you can find better reasons...


I think :

huuugge productions with looot of $$$ have failed at this :
- Zemeckis on polar express...lot of non CG people told me how bad they though the character were. dunno if it brought a lot of $$...but it was US and Zemeckis...
and the universe was more aimed to CG...
- final fantasy...it's old now but it looks better for the moment than this teaser...again it was
big SF flick...

but here it's human tragedy...

so for the interest :
- why trying to match reality ? (unless the Colin reason is the real reason), it means no real artistic vision or exploration and more like Jeremy said we can't do it live let's do it CG.
you'll bring much more emotion in a well stylized character than a not so perfect human.

- this story is about human tragedy...feelings...will the cg characters do a favour to that (I can't find the right word) ? will the public attach to the characters if they are not perfect and leads to say...wooo the way she cries is weird...shit the hair are strange...ect...


for the moment results at box office have shown that success of a CG feature was :
- big funny flick
- great stories (pixar)


the only thing I can say is good luck guyzzz...I guess you'll do your best...dunno how far you are in the process...usually european productions fail in the last months when they realize there is no more time and no more $.


there is one shot with not very good frame...the far one where she walks from right to left...too much space above her head...really weird shot...

need to see what the director has done before...


I can say, if the direction is amazing then, good good...otherwise you might come and go withtout nobody noticing like lot of CG european features of the past years.

baby
09-05-2005, 03:31 PM
I think 3D bring us the posibility to use the faces of the characters instead just actors, so we can see Anne Frank when 3 years old, 11 years old, 13 years old and even in a future time she never had the chance because she lost her life in 1945 at Bergen-Belsen.
We can also navigate Amsterdam just like it was in the 40's, with his cars, trams, boats and the nazis presence in those places...


true true


let's see...
good luck guyzzz...

but remember it's all about story, acting and feelings...not about nice raytrace reflections or skin shader !!! ;)

baby
09-05-2005, 03:39 PM
Carles I always been a huuuge fan of your cg scenes...
so when I say it's not about raytrace reflections I hope you get my point :)


come on people write here...I feel like I'm doing a too long monologue :)

ThomasMahler
09-05-2005, 03:53 PM
Hey, Martin worked on this one, right?

I think it looks great - I mean, sure, there's again this "corpse-feeling" when you're looking at her, but I think it's good for the whole industry that there are companies that do movies like that. 3d is still in it's infancy, I think it'd be great if such a film would be a big success.

And, come on, you can't compare Polar Express and Final Fantasy with this one - Because both Polar and FF had serious lacks when it comes to story. This one here could feature some great story telling.

I personally don't care what medium they're using, if they're doing life-action or not, I just think that - at the moment - doing such a movie in 3d is a huge pain in the ass. If they did a good job though, and I don't mean on the technical side (when doing a 3d movie, that's always the icing on the cake), then I'm with them. 3d is not a cartoons medium, 3d is a new artform that will rise and shine in the 21 century.

visionmaster2
09-05-2005, 04:41 PM
Very Good trailer ! ( except the "american voice" )

lightings and camera work are impressive.

i'm sure it will be an amazing Movie !

congratulation to all Dario Picciau's Crew !

lightblitter22
09-05-2005, 04:47 PM
This does look interesting. Congrats for trying your hand at a more serious narrative with CG, guys. Was getting tired of the talking toys/animals films. Best of luck.

P.S.: Skip the 'deep throat' voiceover in the next trailer. That deep trailer announcer voice annoys the hell out of me and a lot of other people I know. :wip:

Carles
09-05-2005, 04:48 PM
Carles I always been a huuuge fan of your cg scenes...
so when I say it's not about raytrace reflections I hope you get my point :)




Sure! :)

Greetings,
Carles

baby
09-05-2005, 05:28 PM
the director web ?

http://www.dariopicciau.com/


seems he's a great artist...

When I was speaking about stylisation I was not speaking about cartoon only of course... Luovo is very very very nice and is a good example of stylisation...(even if iit's seems to lack emotion in faces)


makes me more confident...seems a lot of big talents are united on this movie...
I really never heard about this project before... I hope it will be great...

strangelife
09-05-2005, 06:32 PM
Looks promising. The story of Anne Frank is powerful and most are familiar with it, so I think you have a leg up on some of the other CG disappointments. I'm intrigued.

siquier
09-05-2005, 11:58 PM
When I was speaking about stylisation I was not speaking about cartoon only of course... Luovo is very very very nice and is a good example of stylisation...(even if iit's seems to lack emotion in faces)
We´re doing this movie with a big amount of stylisation, because the artists are working with full freedom of expressing our artistic sense, we try to make a believable but beautiful reality.

ShadowHunter
09-06-2005, 02:37 AM
I have huge doubts about this one. Dunno about you, but an emotional story played by zombies seems like financial suicide to me.

Don't get this wrong. Technically this looks fantastic. However, people are more forgiving when it comes to say orcs, dragons or cartoon characters. I've to cringe every time I see those creepy stiff movements, immobile face, and lifeless eyes. The smile towards the end looks more like a grimace. The slightest imperfection on an unstylized human being wreaks havoc on suspension of disbelief.

chalbers
09-06-2005, 03:25 AM
Hello there!
I'm the enviroment supervisor in Dear Anne - The gift of hope -

I have another question... why not? :)

Because, unless you guys are the first ones to proove you can bring over the necessary emotions of realistic looking people in 3D as for now only real humans actors can, this is very prone to flop horribly. The story of Anne Frank deserves mothing less then that.

I hope you guys will prove it is possible. But it's not been done yet.

Frank

Gentrifier
09-06-2005, 04:09 AM
Looks like a fun project (emotional content aside). Good luck to all involved!

Breinmeester
09-06-2005, 07:11 AM
The trailer has no edge. It doesn't tickle me at all. The CG and the animation look unconvincing. I feel it's a shame that such a delicate history goes to waist.....
But I wish you guys the best of luck none the less.

jason-slab
09-06-2005, 07:18 AM
Hey, Martin worked on this one, right?


yeah, i recall M K mentioning this movie too?

i think it looks great, love the lighting!
_jason

Geta-Ve
09-06-2005, 07:48 AM
yeah, i recall M K mentioning this movie too?

i think it looks great, love the lighting!
_jason

Yup definatly! I wanna know what MK modeled :)

This looks really good to me. The outdoor scene seriously blew me away.

edit: btw, anyone else notice the door number on the outside? ;)

Reinier
09-06-2005, 08:13 AM
edit: btw, anyone else notice the door number on the outside? ;)

Yeah? That's the place where she lived... Prinsengracht 263

~ reinier

baby
09-06-2005, 08:15 AM
Juan tambien trabaja en esta pelicula...

damn...

olijosman
09-06-2005, 08:49 AM
3d (animation) is not only to do cartoon comedies films ...really really congratulations :thumbsup:

baby
09-06-2005, 09:05 AM
Juan 263 links...(nice new web)

waa lot of talented people...I do hope you have as many really good animators as you have great modelers and lighters...

gunslingerblack
09-06-2005, 03:45 PM
im speechlessly impressed with the environments but i think the character of anne frank is suffering from what, if i might quote the making of the incredibles, is "the closer you get to real humans the harder it is to fake because, we see real humans every day"

i think the reason they look so fake is that the people are trying so hard to make them look real. if that makes any sense

i guess u can put it this way, when asked why the dinosaurs in jurassic park were so blurry all the time stephen speilberg said " when something moves past camera it blurs, if we kept the dinosaurs in perfect focus people would know they were fake"

i think now that we have the technology to make these close to real looking humans it's time to start "unfocusing the lens"

slaughters
09-06-2005, 06:17 PM
...I think we don't need to justify why we do that in 3D, we just do it...Quoted for agreement!

I mean why, oh why do you have to "justify" it?

It's like some people beleive that CG is not good enough for certain material. That you have to use some kind of gimick if you want to use it.

Good luck with the production - stick with your current attitude.

P.S. I did like the mood you set with the trailer. The background environments are very textually "rich".

Nemoid
09-06-2005, 07:58 PM
I'm not a huge fan of photorealistic characters especially if they're used to tell such a story. BTW i'll try and see this movie however! :)

i congrats all the artists that did the models and so on, but i simply think that 3D has way more possibilities using characters which don't completely emulate reality.
They can be more expressive. also think how the Spiegelman's Maus characters are more expressive than if he used human - like characters.

in this case the chars could be less realistic. so more expressive. i do hope they will be greatly animated, but so far i never seen incredible results with photoreal characters especially for facial animation. and, at the end even if u possibly reach perfection, u'll get the same results u could get from an actress. how silly is that? :)

the only thing i like is that's an italian 3D movie, but i personally don't love these choices.
I say this because here in Italy not much astonishing quality CG animations are made.especially involving characters. With some great exceptions like Marco Spitoni's ones (www.cee-gee.net (http://www.cee-gee.net))

Incidentally : the director of Anne Frank is the same of another CG film : L'uovo (the egg) anyone know/saw it ? :)

paulo3d
09-06-2005, 08:06 PM
Well, all I can say is good luck to all involved!

But I think is going to be another movie, that only CG people likes ... Hope I'm wrong :)

KolbyJukes
09-06-2005, 08:09 PM
Glad to see a non-comedic CG movie coming out...

Looking forward to seeing more of AmbientWhisper's work.

-K.

Bulldog
09-06-2005, 08:10 PM
You dont need to justify it to us , by all means do whatever.

When the time comes and the audience doesnt connect with the characters and then the executive producers go "hmm..what happened here?" cause you have another Valiant in your hands , then you will have to justify it :)



I wish they took the more stylized route. But thats just me.

enbee
09-06-2005, 08:17 PM
I'm with Nemoid about the photorealism, I just don't think the technology is there yet to do a feature film in that "style". I am very glad to see a more serious cg film being made. Although some might be a bit touchy about such a serious event being told with what they think is a "childrens medium". I hope it is received well, I am very interested in seeing feature length cg films branch out into different genres.

FunkyCowie
09-06-2005, 08:30 PM
Most of the trailer looked beautiful... the movement/expression lets it down (Except the walking which I presume was mocaped) she did look zombieish like people have mentioned, theres no emotion in her... I feel if this is the best you are achieving animation wise, this will be the cast of Night of the Living Dead playing characters in Anne Frank minus the gore.

Good Luck and prove us wrong! :)

EDIT: It would have been interesting if it wasn`t advertised as a CG film... see if you can fool people... but... alas...

mangolass
09-06-2005, 09:12 PM
I'm with Nemoid about the photorealism, I just don't think the technology is there yet to do a feature film in that "style". I am very glad to see a more serious cg film being made. Although some might be a bit touchy about such a serious event being told with what they think is a "childrens medium". I hope it is received well, I am very interested in seeing feature length cg films branch out into different genres.

Animation can be a serious medium. I don't think any film will find an audience if it is all a total downer ~ everything needs its lighter more human moments, its hopes, its comedy to engage people ~ but nothing wrong with taking on something more serious for a change.

The stiff~looking face in the trailer didn't look as if it could hold an audience or be believable as a human performance, though.

Unless somehow they are going to make some cutting~edge new developments in facial animation, I'm worried it will be like final fantasy/polar express zombies, only with a depressing story. Maybe they will amaze us by leaping forwards in animation technology and making the first really expressive realistic human facial animation and do justice to the story ~ or maybe it will flop ~ we will see.

LT

ivanisavich
09-06-2005, 09:22 PM
Technically it looks fantastic....but I still can't understand why they decided to do Anne Frank of all things...I mean...come'on!

williamsburroughs
09-06-2005, 09:34 PM
Art is about communicating a message to an audience. The medium is not the message, and I think so many forget this simple fact.

The piece looks to be interesting and I am sure your team will pull through in the end to produce something compelling and interesting to view.

As far as justification...I'd just leave this forum and get back to work and forget all of this noise...because that is all it is...noise from opinionated people who don't understand your larger vision.

In the end all that matters is that you followed through with your intent on the film. If it fails in the market, then it fails...but if it succeeds, well, it just goes to show, that good art stands on its message, not on it's technique.

Cheers.

Reality3D
09-06-2005, 09:44 PM
My best hopes! :)

Clanger
09-06-2005, 09:47 PM
Well I'll definitely be seeing this one, I love watching photo realistic CG animation. If the characters end up looking a little zombified I can forgive them that it's so difficult to do.

I celebrate any studio that has the gut's to attempt such a thing, one day they will crack it maybe with this film who knows? I can only hope.

Dennik
09-06-2005, 10:18 PM
Well, i wish you the best luck with the rest of the production and release of your movie (if you make it there) because realistic style is going to require huge amounts of work from your team. I think it would be better if you made a more cartoony style just to dodge the unfortunate zombie effect, which you have proven as a theory once again i'm afraid. :shrug:

At first i thought as well: Why not live action? But then another thought came to my mind. The public need for more mature cg movies. There was actually a thread on that a while back. So i think its a good idea. I just doubt about the result. If that trailer is all you got (probably not) maybe its not too late to go a step back from the real look. Actually a more cartoony character, may prove to be more emotional than you ever thought. :)

ambient-whisper
09-06-2005, 11:38 PM
Technically it looks fantastic....but I still can't understand why they decided to do Anne Frank of all things...I mean...come'on!

because dario picciaus friend ( who is a writer ) wrote a script for it, and dario liked it.
so they just went with it. theres a huge lack of more mature animation movies, so this was hopefully going to fill the void. thats the initial intention ( well one of the intentions, as far as i know. )

for those who were wondering earlier in this thread, i mostly took care of the characters, along with Mauro Gandini. Later down the road we needed more people involved, so Sebastian, and Jonas Thornqvist were helping too. ( sebastian as far as i know took over that task later down the road, after I had left the production ).

{edit}

many other people were involved with characters as well, mostly doing the rough outs, which we could later refine down the road. Carles Piles deserves credit for refining a number of them as well. one thing to remember about this movie though is that the team is very very small. probably less than 15-20 people at the moment?!. correct me if I am wrong though.

mangolass
09-07-2005, 01:43 AM
If the characters end up looking a little zombified I can forgive them that it's so difficult to do.

I wouldn't ~ if people finally try a serious film in CG, and the characters that are supposed to be engaging look dead and stiff and people don't buy it, then that doesn't help the industry at all.

Better to think about what they can do well with their skills and tools ~ or how they can do better and do differently where other have failed ~ than to repeat the mistake of Pallor Express and Final Fantasy. If they want to make CG as a goal itself, then they should cast a real actress to play the girl and use CG for the environments and Nazi armies. Who's going to care about whether a zombie girl who already looks dead gets killed or not?

LT

Nemoid
09-07-2005, 06:04 AM
I'm with Nemoid about the photorealism, I just don't think the technology is there yet to do a feature film in that "style". I am very glad to see a more serious cg film being made. Although some might be a bit touchy about such a serious event being told with what they think is a "childrens medium". I hope it is received well, I am very interested in seeing feature length cg films branch out into different genres.

thanks! however, my opinion is also general. its not that the technology isn't there, because i think that with a very lot of work , stunning quality is reachable, but i wonder why to use CG to replicate humans when non realistic characters can be way more expressive. where there's less, there is actually more in terms of storytelling, expression, emotions evoked.
look to what japan anime reach to make with simple chars, even human-like but not photoreal and simple animations, and you guys can get my point.

Actually i'm not for photoreal characters unless they are creatures , like Gollum, and things which are impossible or very hard and expensive to make with animatronics or other devices.

BTW, a creture is not human, so there's a deviation from human aspect that reaches to add more expression, and storytelling possibilities. imperfections if they're there are less noticeable too. because human eye notice all subtleties when it comes to recognize human shapes.

However : here's where photoreal CG comes in handy and becomes necessary.

i'm looking forward to see this movie, but personally I don't think it will revolution CG at all.

Brettzies
09-07-2005, 07:05 AM
I'm surprised at the number of negative comments about the character here. Mainly because on its own, there isn't enough to even judge. You don't even get a good look at her face without some glowy light, being in shadow, in profile, or defocus effect. For me it fits the style of the trailer. Seems like all comments are being based on past bad experience like Polar and FF the movie. Just seems like everyone is slamming it because everyone knows that all attempts at realistic full cg suck so why should this be any different? I'll reserve my judgment of suck until I see a bit more, until then I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I don't see much point in doing this type of work either, but I don't care if others do it, and there is no stopping it. I don't really want to paint or be a photographer, but there is a place for that as well. Photoreal or surreal or whatever will continue to be pushed until it is acheived or whatever stylistic fashion is desired. It's progress. Just because all past attempts have been fairly stiff and lifeless doesn't mean there won't be a winner at some point. Of course, if there are no attempts then there will be no successes or failures.

Doesn't mean this won't suck, and I'm not a huge fan of this type of thing, but it does seem very popular to be a hater of this type of work. I just don't think there's really enough to make a judgement on this particular film and find it sad so many already have it pegged. Everyone could be right, but I don't see enough from this to prove it.

I will say the cg looked pretty damn good to me. I also don't confuse this with an animated film, though there may be animation in it. Seems more like a hybrid-cg-mocap film.

enbee
09-07-2005, 11:41 AM
I do believe that the current level of technology does allow for realistic cg humans to be created (although I have yet to see one). However it seems to me that the time it would take to achieve this is just too great for a production environment right now. I think a new tool needs to come along before it is actually a practical option. BUT if they can do it, go for it. The trailer there does not seem to suggest that, but if they hope to give such a sensitive topic the respect it deserves the actually film should be better. I HOPE.

edit: ok, after reading my own post some may find a contradiction in that. But hey, i'm trying to be an optimist here....:shrug:

Nemoid
09-07-2005, 12:12 PM
Film like this one, FF and Polar, i see them quite as the Formula 1 of CG. they have to be done however, because often these movies mean research on the field of CG. new propietary tools that at the end arrive to be in mainstream programs and so on.
this will allow to have better tools at our disposal.
that's all, for me.

not that a perfect CG movie with photoreal characters couldn't be done, but it would be an incredible effort at the current level of technology. especially if characters involved are many.

personally i'd like more a movie starting from reality to go surreal or fantastic (but not like Polar) into a positive way.

gabe28
09-07-2005, 03:28 PM
For everyone who's asking "why 3D" I think the answer is easy. It's inevitiable that someone tries something like this because it hasn't been done yet. It's a normal tendency to try and stretch something every which way and explore it's possibilities. 3D animation is definately like that. No one has done an animated movie with photoreal humans yet... Gollum was great but not human thus easier to accomplish... Final Fantasy was an interesting experiment but ulimately flawed. I think there's a natural curiousity to see if we even CAN do truely photoreal humans AND animation. If it does get accomplished I don't think it will become the norm simply becuase it will ALWAYS be easier to just film an actual person. There bound to be some failures to as 3D advances. I thinks that that's OK and everyone should just relax a bit and enjoy the evolution and growth of the medium.

ages
09-08-2005, 07:21 AM
Excellent visuals, this must have been in the making for a while...
Or shelved for the right time.
But I just have to stress when is Hollywood finally going to leave the Germans alone...
I put money next year will be a movie about Munich olympics...

baby
09-08-2005, 07:35 AM
http://www.3dvf.com/

;)

Manimator
09-08-2005, 06:03 PM
On 3dvf.com they call it a "court metrage", or "short film". Does this mean it's not actually a feature-length movie? How many minutes is it?

Carles
09-08-2005, 07:37 PM
On 3dvf.com they call it a "court metrage", or "short film". Does this mean it's not actually a feature-length movie? How many minutes is it?

That's wrong, it's a featured film lenght.

Greetings,
Carles

mangolass
09-08-2005, 08:08 PM
But I just have to stress when is Hollywood finally going to leave the Germans alone...

I don't understand ~ what does this have to do with Hollywood? Did you mean Milan?

LT

mosconariz
09-09-2005, 12:28 AM
I think 3D bring us the posibility to use the faces of the characters instead just actors, so we can see Anne Frank when 3 years old, 11 years old, 13 years old and even in a future time she never had the chance because she lost her life in 1945 at Bergen-Belsen.
We can also navigate Amsterdam just like it was in the 40's, with his cars, trams, boats and the nazis presence in those places...

I agree completely, film-makers have always dreamed in rebuilt a time and circumstance, 3D bring us the oportunity to see something beyond an actor playing Anne Frank; we're watching something really close to the way she used to reflect the light.

I think is a miracle that we're reaching this level, obviously the technique is not perfect, but they're making history! specially cause they're making it outside Hollywood.

Congratulations!

ages
09-09-2005, 12:36 AM
I don't understand ~ what does this have to do with Hollywood? Did you mean Milan?

LT
Most independant film studios are rolled by Warner independant and other subsiduries from hollywood.

mosconariz
09-09-2005, 02:24 AM
Most independant film studios are rolled by Warner independant and other subsiduries from hollywood.

I don't see any american logo in the poster or the trailer

ages
09-09-2005, 02:32 AM
Just wondering how long this guilt is going to go on for...Young germans are made to feel ashamed of their past for far too long.
Nice visuals, i wonder what studio did this and wat software?
I think the same people who did Dark Blue World?

Nemoid
09-09-2005, 07:35 AM
LOl you guys know. there's a quite awful situation here in italy about movie producion in general, and in particular about CG products. so far, there aren't any top notch products on this field. So, it would be fantastic for this movie being well made from this POV.

the idea seems to exploit for another time the facts of shoah and holocaust to get more visibility at an international level and i guess even for financing purposes.
fact is : this theme has been exploited way too much IMO .

There are movies Like Shindler's list, or also Roberto Benigni's "La vita è bella" which end up to be wonderful on this subject.
however this can be good for a first attempt , and if all goes well other movies could be produced based on a more "entertainment" philosophy.

the trailer looks good on lighting, texturing modelling and some movements (mocap), but i'm not a fan of expressions for now. however, it's too short to completely judge an entire work from it.


i have a question tho : just why so many foreign artists and not so much italian CG artists ?there are alot of cool artists here too.

CgPilot
09-09-2005, 08:15 AM
[QUOTE=Nemoid]Film like this one, FF and Polar, i see them quite as the Formula 1 of CG. they have to be done however, because often these movies mean research on the field of CG. new propietary tools that at the end arrive to be in mainstream programs and so on.
this will allow to have better tools at our disposal.
that's all, for me.

not that a perfect CG movie with photoreal characters couldn't be done, but it would be an incredible effort at the current level of technology. especially if characters involved are many.
QUOTE]

I agree to that! Some one has to push the boundaries when everyone else is "afraid" to do so. The industry will learn from it and new tools/techniques will be developed to make the next movies even better. Without movies like FF, Polar en Dear Anne we will be watching "zombie movies" the next 10 years....

Pentagramma
09-09-2005, 12:54 PM
I believe it's a very healthy thing, to have a 3d animated feature not about speaking funny animals (even if I usually like films like that).

Not sure about a few things on the trailer, but it looks great, and I hope all you guys the best of luck on this project.

dbclemons
09-09-2005, 01:52 PM
Hello there!
I'm the enviroment supervisor in Dear Anne - The gift of hope -

I have another question... why not? :)

Indeed. I think that I embrace the effort of artists to pursue this method of storytelling.

However, there's a "wall" that makes it difficult for a viewer to circumvent, one that several people here have been referring to, being the "why not live actors" issue. For example, a filmmaker like Goddard would present a film all live action but with editing tricks and techniques that forceably make the viewer aware of the fact they are watching a film, and not escape into the story. It's deliberate on his part. As a audience we're in the real world and then jolted into the art. In this case we're constantly standing in the art of it, if you will, looking how ALMOST realistic it is, but are constantly being brought back to the artiface of everything. I understand your statement about historical elements, but that doesn't excuse the character's falseness, if you will. I think a story like this has more imapct in the feeling of being there that live actors would convey, but that's an impression I can withhold until I see what you've done.

Noneless I applaud your efforts, and will look forward to seeing more.

mangolass
09-09-2005, 05:12 PM
I hope you make a short with your realistic humans before you go for a full feature film.

In a short you can experiment, try new techniques with "quality" and the first priority instead of "quantity" and work on individual shots until you nail the type of expression you are going for. Once you have started making a feature ~ especially if it falls a few years behind schedule like other indy features ~ you start doing thing just to get it done, finishing shots where the girl looks like a corpse and just putting it in the movie because you need to finish the movie. All the studios that have really pushed computer graphics forwards have proven their techniques with shorts first, before they start mass~production of shots for a full feature.

LT

coboman
09-09-2005, 05:48 PM
Actually a more cartoony character, may prove to be more emotional than you ever thought. :)

In fact, cartoony characters evoke a much more emotional response than realistic ones. This is a fact.
People empathize more with the "cute" characteristics of a cartoon, because it has the characteristics of a baby animal. The round face, big eyes, desproportionally big head trigger in us an instinct to protect and respect that creature.

This is an evolution trick that allowed the cubs of different species to be respected by other species, so that they could become adults, and then fight as equals.

Disney knew this. That is why some of the most emotionally scarring films of all time is Bambi. That is why people laugh more, and cry more at cartoony characters. Much more than with humans or human-like renderings.

tufif
09-09-2005, 08:52 PM
Disney knew this. That is why some of the most emotionally scarring films of all time is Bambi. That is why people laugh more, and cry more at cartoony characters. Much more than with humans or human-like renderings.

That's why people don't want to go out and hunt the deer, and then they jump out in front of my car, and then I have to buy a new car. And to think, all of this could have been prevented by one drunk redneck with a gun! :hmm:

DDS
09-09-2005, 10:44 PM
- final fantasy...it's old now but it looks better for the moment than this teaser...again it was
big SF flick...

I don't think so. When Final Fantasy characters tried to be expressive, like Anne is being in this teaser...they sucked much more than her, which last expression is amazingly delightful.

I think this, at least, equals FF realism. Final fantasy looked REAL in action scenes with a lot of motion blur, when characters didn't appear on screen or when they had those cool helmets that covered the face, while Anne looks much more alive in all the teaser.

My 2 cents.

Nemoid
09-09-2005, 11:14 PM
non realistic/ simplier characters are more iconic.
that's why people can identify more with them. if u waych what emoticons are u clearly see like a circle with some points in it can evoke alot of emotions. that's what iconic is.
since non realistic characters aren't exactly human they can be more expressive, evoke emotions better : they don't have the limits of real human shapes. they haven't necesarily to be "toons" but photorealistic neither. they work better for sure.

having said this, i think anne's movie will traet things into a different, delicate way, sorta like the fantastic world of amelie movie. and for that reason it could end up to be a good movie too.
a similar kinda movie would use photoreal characters at least into a good way.
so i hope this movie will end up good.

i dunno if they'll reach a fantastic quality on expressions and evoking emotions since it will be a feature lenght movie.an huge work, especially if many characters are involved.
if it was a short i'd have no doubts about it. technology is there, artists are there and they're good, and surely a job like this can be made now. :)

Boone
09-10-2005, 01:24 PM
As long as the characters don't break out into song and dance - I look forward to it. :lightbulb

Gentle Fury
09-10-2005, 02:35 PM
I couldn't get the trailer to work, but this is an exciting prospect! I really hope it comes out nicely! Animation is a widely underappreciated dramatic medium, and I with more people would realize this! Anyone that doesn't believe this should really check out Grave Of The Fireflies:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1562197290.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

One of the saddest freakin movies ever!

Something I would REALLY love to see as an animated movie is Maus by Art Speigelman. That was an amazing graphic novel about WWII.

http://www.heritagebks.com/wwii/nf11080.jpg

ThomasMahler
09-10-2005, 03:59 PM
Man, I've seen Grave of the Fireflies only one time, but I never want to see it again. Not because it's a bad movie, but because it's so dramatic and immersive.

CGmonkey
09-10-2005, 11:02 PM
I can't physicaly see Grave of the fireflies, 10 minutes in I lay in a puddle of tears with cramps. It's THE most emotional film I've ever seen (tried to see).

Nemoid
09-11-2005, 10:56 AM
I think Maus is a comic book - art masterpiece.

It doesn't really need to be animated.

However, I'd like more a Maus CG movie than a photorealistic CG movie on this theme.

Yav
09-16-2005, 11:41 PM
at least alter the title of the movie..."The gift of hope" is easily one of the worst things anyone can call their film, unless of course, it's a saturday night soap, involving a cancer patient, a nun and a few sentimental doctors.

To be honest, 1 hour and 30 minutes is waaay too long for this project. The audience will have too much time to analize all of the characters and naturally, they'll start picking out some of the flaws in their movements, facial expressions and so on.

PhilOsirus
09-17-2005, 12:15 AM
Will some of you stop talking like this movie owes you something? Let these people work on the film without passing useless crits that will never be taken into consideration anyway. A good production team does not diverge of its course halfway through, so just wait till it is released before critisizing.

siquier
09-17-2005, 01:08 AM
Don´t worry about the critics, we appreciate your oppinion. :thumbsup:
I continue reading this thread with interest.

lightblitter22
09-17-2005, 01:20 AM
To be honest, 1 hour and 30 minutes is waaay too long for this project. The audience will have too much time to analize all of the characters and naturally, they'll start picking out some of the flaws in their movements, facial expressions and so on.

The audience knows they are watching animation. I don't think anyone is going to walk into this movie and go "wait a minute... these aren't real actors" or whatever. Given the fact that the surroundings are also CG, it shouldn't be such a big issue. As long as the story and storytelling are engaging, I don't think anyone will care.

coboman
09-17-2005, 06:25 PM
To really be able to say helpful critics, it would be INCREDIBLY USEFUL to read the script. Publishing the script I think is also a great marketing tool (specially if the script is good).
It worked wonders for the orginal Star Wars movie.

Maybe you can release it via the Internet Movie Script Database (http://www.imsdb.com), or Drew´s Scriptorama, or just as a direct link.

It would be most interesting.

Nemoid
09-17-2005, 07:22 PM
that would be really interesting.
However what i want to say is that i wish all the artists involved in the movie an "In bocca al lupo" (italians know the meaning of these words)

It's an huge project and an hard attempt to do something really difficult with a small team even if composed by great professionals.
Compare it with teams involved for Hollywood movies and you can see the difference. :)

if this movie comes out good, it also will demonstrate that an excellent CG movie can be made with less money for sure.
And Italian productions will rise. :buttrock:

digital verve
09-17-2005, 07:56 PM
Interesting comments on this thread.

Tron (the FF and Polar Express of its time) was regarded as a failure and many in Hollywood were doubting the use of CGI in films because it was not a success. It took brave film makers such as James Cameron (Abyss, Terminator 2) and Stephen Spielburg (Jurassic Park) to push the technology/talent and prove the vaild usefulness of CGI in movies.

A time will come when a film will wow people with photoreal style performing actors. It does open up creative possibilties that are difficult to do with live actor shoots. Those working on this film have already outlined some. I don't know if this film will deliver the great performances, as we will have to wait until it is finished and released. At least it is a true life story of much emotion that they are trying to tell. A good start in my opinion. The lighting and environments look great.

aaron111
09-17-2005, 08:14 PM
I think it is a worthy attempt. It will be difficult to get past the Final Fantasy/Polar Express feeling of marionettes staring off into space, but eventually someone has go to crack that barrier. I hope that someday animation will begin to be seen more like moving painting, and will therefore be able to take on any type of story or style - including realism. And perhaps the ART of 3D animation will grow to the point that animators will be able to create realistic characters and stories that can also be infused with hints of the otherworldly/fantastic/surreal in ways that live action simply can't be. To me, the only 3d character so far to have truly convincing emotions was Gollum, and he was pretty far off from looking like a "realistic human" with his huge eyes and such - which probably helped him to be more effective.

Good luck to all involved in this project!

JosephGoss
09-17-2005, 09:32 PM
In fact, cartoony characters evoke a much more emotional response than realistic ones. This is a fact.

People empathize more with the "cute" characteristics of a cartoon, because it has the characteristics of a baby animal. The round face, big eyes, desproportionally big head trigger in us an instinct to protect and respect that creature.



This is an evolution trick that allowed the cubs of different species to be respected by other species, so that they could become adults, and then fight as equals.



Disney knew this. That is why some of the most emotionally scarring films of all time is Bambi. That is why people laugh more, and cry more at cartoony characters. Much more than with humans or human-like renderings.



I am very opposite to this; I connect more with real actors in movies



real actors evoke more of a emotional response then cartoony characters





the CG in the film (Anne frank trailer) looks awesome, but I think that’s it’s too early to have CG human actors play complex emotional roles in films, the motion and expressions were not “real”

Nemoid
09-18-2005, 12:34 PM
Actually IMO, cartoon characters beauty and power doesn't reside exactly in emotions but in their expressivity. in the sense that, if well made they can act differently, movements can be exagerated, poses too, and they can be stylized to reflect their personality into a clear, streamlined way.
They are also simple, in general, and the image we have in our minds of our look and of our personality is that simple and streamlined. a simple character can also reflect through its look many individuals rather than one real person.

for example: Peanuts. they were defined, but every boy and girl could reflect in their look.
they actually areonly a representation of little boys and girls. And quite the same happens in MAUS and other comics

However given the tone of this movie i think photoreal could work as well. it will also be an huge research work on photoreal characters acting and a good production attempt to make a big movie all in CG.
This is cool! :)

evan
09-18-2005, 11:11 PM
Well, I think the teaser/trailer looks fantastic! I agree, the character does look a little "lifeless". Is it posible it is more of a texture/shader problem than the actual emotions of the character? And the room is rather dark also. But all in all I'm really looking forward to seeing this. Can't wait to see some of those "exterior" shots Carles mentioned. Maybe in the next trailer eh?

Evan

jeremybirn
09-18-2005, 11:19 PM
Interesting comments on this thread.

Tron (the FF and Polar Express of its time) was regarded as a failure and many in Hollywood were doubting the use of CGI in films because it was not a success. It took brave film makers such as James Cameron (Abyss, Terminator 2) and Stephen Spielburg (Jurassic Park) to push the technology/talent and prove the vaild usefulness of CGI in movies.

A time will come when a film will wow people with photoreal style performing actors. It does open up creative possibilties that are difficult to do with live actor shoots. Those working on this film have already outlined some. I don't know if this film will deliver the great performances, as we will have to wait until it is finished and released. At least it is a true life story of much emotion that they are trying to tell.

Quoted for agreement. Advancing what we can do in this medium is always a worthwhile struggle.

However, I also agree with people who say they should do a short first, as other companies have done, if they want to develop and demonstrate techniques that haven't existed before in CG animation.

If they plowed into an emotionally demanding story with stiff, inexpressive CG models, or on the other extreme realistically styled models that morphed around in a rubbery, unrealistic way, that failure would not be progress.

-jeremy

Ninjamonk
09-18-2005, 11:26 PM
this looks really good. I am not sure I would watch the final product because I know the story.


I think people have given it a rough ride so far, I watched the hi Res version and it looked really nice.

Humans are hard to get right because its the one thing we all see everyday. However if they animate it with care it should be great. One thing I have noticed with CG humans is animators never seem to catch humans are distracted easy and will look off all over the place during a conversation or just sitting.

Good luck with it.
how much is the budget?

NanoGator
09-19-2005, 12:23 AM
Anybody see the .. oh I want to say History Channel recreation of the events surrounding Hitler's assassination attempt?

ambient-whisper
09-19-2005, 03:00 AM
Good luck with it.
how much is the budget?

roughly 8-10 million when the project started. not sure how much its grown( if it has ) since.

coboman
09-19-2005, 04:00 PM
In an earlier post I suggested releasing the script. Guess what... "Corpse Bride" script was just released!
Reading scripts is the best way to judge story for story and not for all the bells and whistles.
You can buy it at (I don't get comission) http://www.scriptfly.com/. (http://www.scriptfly.com/)

I make my recomendation again: RELEASE THE SCRIPT!

ODoul
02-15-2006, 11:55 PM
I am not going to read thru all of these posts but I hope that this will play in the US. I've always been a HUGE fan of your work Carles and Juan, I hope that I will get a chance to see this.

MrPositive
02-16-2006, 04:10 AM
Why not just a hyper-realistic Anne Frank movie....why photoreal when it's just not there yet. I thought the polar express kids were going to pull a Land of the Dead act and start eating the elves they were so frightening. Don't get me wrong, I love love love human 3D sculpturing and rendering, but it's a process and the animation and textures/shaders are just not there yet. I do hope this is a winner for the industry but I'm afraid that it will do more harm than good if the characters look creepy. This is not to say that I don't appreciate the effort because somebody needs to do non-cartoon cg films, but take it slow and stay hyper-realistic until the time is right.

People are getting mad about critiquing the approach but this is bogus because we all care about the industry. We just don't want a third strike on cg photorealism in film is all....
Strike One - Final Fantasy
Strike Two - Polar Express
Strike Three - ?
Again, I hope it wins an oscar, seriously I do.

mustique
02-16-2006, 08:14 AM
I support the idea of a photorealistic 3D movie for that kind of a story.
First as mentioned, because it's the only genre in which the holocaust has not been
covered yet. It might sound weird, but I think the problem with lifeless characters might actually work in favor for a holocaust story too.

Also, somebody has to make photorealistic 3D movies. 3D animators should get the opportunity to make movies their own way. And there has to be somebody who finances it. Final Fantasy, Polar Express... As bad as the results are, I believe someday we'll look back and thank those people for paving the way.

I wish the creatros of this film the best of luck.

urgaffel
02-16-2006, 10:20 AM
...but i think the character of anne frank is suffering from what, if i might quote the making of the incredibles, is "the closer you get to real humans the harder it is to fake because, we see real humans every day"

Aka known as "The Uncanny Valley", read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

Wizdoc
02-16-2006, 10:50 AM
Zombie movie or not, Polar Express was actually a hit. It made its money back during its theatrical run and a hefty bundle on top of that on DVD. So, even if this Anne Frank film will be driven out of the theaters with torches and pitchforks, I doubt it'll condemn the animated film industry.

Trial and error is part of treading new ground, and I'm glad someone is putting an effort to produce a CG film that's not aimed towards kids with McDonald's tie-ins in mind.

Of course, it all comes down to acting, the script and the director's talent to tell an engrossing story. The make or break factors that have nothing to do with the film being done in 3D.

Tom Wood
02-16-2006, 05:13 PM
I think one of the most successful uses of CGI is in the movie SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0346156/) which used mostly CG backgrounds combined with real humans. This combination gets all the advantages of CGI as well as real actors, while avoiding the uncanny valley problem.

TW

gunslingerblack
02-17-2006, 06:37 AM
i dont think it counts when the characters in the film are not cg....

the uncanny valley occurs when cg characters are brought too close to reality without care,

although i guess if you count bad acting then maybe you might have a correlation....

didn't you work on that film?

KRZ9000
02-17-2006, 07:20 AM
sorry but skycaptain was an awfull movie...the actors really coudnt deal with the cg....their bad acting (and im sure its because of the environment) killed the movie. this cg+real blend has still serious problems...

Tom Wood
02-17-2006, 08:43 AM
No, I didn't work on it.

Sky Captain suffered most because the story wasn't any good, but what's new there? It was an odd mix of film noir and action-adventure. Noir works best with the slow reveal, action-adventure works best with the quest set up early and explicitly. Plus, by the time we get to the end and find out what the 'big problem' is, it's just 'Huh?'. But I still think the technique has a lot of merit.

TW

maX_Andrews
02-17-2006, 10:12 AM
This film will make millons upon millions because it's about Anne frank, so everyone will see it, no matter if it's animated. It actually makes it more intriguing. I mean, which would you rather see; another film about Anne Frank, or a CG film about Anne Frank? That's just...unique. It will be shown in universities and discussed at length the nature of the medium of CG, and I'll probably have to write a paper on it so I'm bookmarking this thread until then :)

I think the CG is a blessing for a few reasons. The first is that because the actors are not real and don't exist anywhere in real life, you are free from the stimga of dulling down the power of the film with a recognizable actor or actress. Here she is Anne Frank "in the flesh," so to speak, not "that girl who was in that movie with Owen Wilson." People will think about the story, about the times, about the mind of Anne Frank, not when her interview on Leno will be. The same goes for sets. When you see a CG film, two things come to mind: the richness of the story and the detail of the environments. When you see a detailed film set with lots of effects, what comes to mind is tons of people painting little miniature towns, and guys compositing with green screens, and hundreds of worker ants buzzing around a huge production studio. You just don;t think about that with CG. I never imagine the animator manipulating nulls, I never see the texturer blending images together. All I see is the story. This does hoever come at the cost of some gravity. It does not HAVE to come at a cost, but because it can;t be perfect the lack of reality will mess a bit with the percieved truth of the film. Can we trust it? How do we react? And there really is no way to tell until it's seen from beginning to end. It's all still up in the air for this one, but I have hope yet...

maX_Andrews
02-17-2006, 10:13 AM
"How wonderful it is, that no one need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world."

-Anne Frank

You guys should definitely end or begin with that quote. I'd say begin.

Als
02-17-2006, 10:36 AM
Pixar made great movies because:
1. They were concentrated on STORY. Storytelling was most important thing. Everything was built around it, and story was determining the tools.
2. They were modest. They didn't go, yeah we can do whatever right now, but they were "slowly" building their tools and made more and more technicaly challenged movies gradually.
This is what very few people do, and it's one of the reasons why they can't reach Pixar.
3. They had good management, people who were creative people themselves.
4. They made short movies first to test the technologies.
5. They have amazing talent.

Judging by the trailer it's clear that you have amazing talent, but not sure about the rest.
Main problem being Story. Story should show the way of how to tell it.
I've seen amazing stills all around of CG people, but haven't seen the one which has all the range of emotions to the smallest detail. There is a reason why we like watching movies with people. There is chemistry which goes across the silver screen, from real actors. This is why we can feel excited about what they are going through. Even if you can, what's the point? Real actors are there to communicate with each other, and react to each other. They give input, and very often they bring their own feeling of the character and know more about it then director. Acting is very important factor for movie to be great.
If you worked with real actors you would understand how much they can give to the performance (in all animated movies how much they give - only with their voices).
It makes sense making goblins, dinosaurus, gorillas, etc. since you can't cast them for the shoot.
Making 3D people to be stars is only better because you can sell their figures in McDonnalds, or Burger King. They want lock inside their trailers, and they wont ask for raise, or $20 million per movie... So I can see why producers like the idea...

When we watch cartoons, we now they are not real people, and we don't expect them to be. They should and are more then life, and their actions and emotions are exeggerated in order to get emotion from us.
Jurrassic park says it's wrong doing it just because we can! :rolleyes:
Why make CG movie about the storie which is only about people, when you could just shoot it? If they say because of the look, ok, so why not just get a good cinematographer and a great scene designer? Best VFX houses still try to shoot everything real, because nothing looks more real then the real thing!
I really hope for the sake of all the great talent that you make it, but I think it's just wrong doing this story with 3D. I will be real glad to be proven wrong.


Als
(I'm wearing fire prof vest)

ThomasMahler
02-17-2006, 11:20 AM
Actually, what I'd love to see is people like Chris Landreth producing Feature Films, using CGI as medium - We aren't quite there yet, technology-wise, but the time will come when independend studios can produce feature films without needing a budget of 50 million dollars or more.

I think something like "Ryan" could be great for a feature production - it'd be something totally different than the fluffy bunny stuff we're so used to right now and I think it'd drive producers to actually put more money into productions like that.

After all, the way Pixar is going right now is nice and good, but sooner or later the Lasseter formula won't work out anymore, people will get bored of it - so we should really appreciate productions like this one, cause they're simply expanding the medium. It may not suit everybodies taste, it may not be successful, but it'll be another step forward.

Teyon
02-18-2006, 07:52 AM
Well, I wish them luck with it. I for one don't care why 3D was chosen as a medium for this, I think 3D needs more mature content if it's to develop beyond the animal buddy flicks currently engulfing it. However, I don't think attempting realism with the art was the wisest choice, as it is very hard to pull off correctly and oh so easy to screw up. It only takes one scene or one close up to jar us and draw attention to the fact that what we're looking at falls short of reality. Better I think, to have done a mature story with a more stylized approach until we as artists can convey more of the subtle nature of humanity to bring out a better performance that would be required for realism in CG. Just because something is drawn in a non-realistic way does not mean it can't be taken seriously (MAUS, if I had to pick along similar themed content).

I mean, we all saw what a success Gollum was as a CG character, however, I think that was due more to a combination of a living actor as a guide alongside the animators and models themselves that made it work. Unless a similar technique was used for every character in the film, I find it difficult to think that any team of animators would be able to catch as much emotion and "presence" as a living breathing person has and carry it over to every character we come in contact with in the story in order to maintain our absoprtion in the film.

Still, it will be interesting to see how the film is recieved by the masses and I for one hope it's recieved well. If for no other reason than that it will prove to the industry that there's a market for mature story in CG only films.

saftan
02-18-2006, 11:39 AM
Since CG became an established form of storytelling, basicly the only thing involved in greater production has been associated with space, fantasy, the future or small cute stories in the Disney-manner. This is basically the reason to why this business is having difficulties to grow and attract others than just our selfs, the cg-folks. Weather this movie makes the top 10 is not really the issue, as I see it. The import thing is that we keep trying to brake new grounds and that we avoid to think in commercial terms all the time! To establish cg as an "accepted" form of storytelling it's important we avoid to grade productions by "coolness" or "profitable" terms.
The japanese folks has known this for decades, manga/anime is a perfect example of this.

With this in mind, I'm proud to say that I'm absolutely going to see this movie!
Wether it turns out to be a cg-masterpiece or just an "interesting idea"!
And you should too!

/Staffan Ragnö

Als
02-19-2006, 02:44 AM
The maturity of the CG films will eventually come.
I too see future of CG movies in people producing their own full lenght feature movies.
But like film itself, CG films need to go through experimentation time.
The reason for them being at the cartoon level right now is simple. The technology is not there yet, to make full photo real people. Stills yes, certain movement etc. - Yes.
Great stunt people too. But all the subtle little nuances of the face, look etc. - NO.
Special problem is eyes. Most of the time they look empty or crossed, soulless.

And as film itself CG it's looked down upon, as a circus attraction, and as only entertainment value, not as an art form. People who work in CG industry are artists, and the CG as an art form is limitless. At the moment there are still few minor glitches on things which are hard to do, but 100% photo real human is not yet achived goal of many.
On the other hand, thinking about that is also scary, how this could be abused.
That's why is important to think WHY we do something, it's not enough doing it, just because we can.

Trailer is truly beatifull, I hope they will put more work on her, less on great light, and stuff around them (which they clearly do amazing).
Good luck to them.
I just think this is wrong project for CG.
I don't think that serious subjects shouldn't be done with CG. Nor that cartoon characters can't tell serious subjects either. Just think of Simpsons or South park, or Family guy, etc.
CG like actors, music, scene design, light etc. should be servent of the story, not the other way around.
I really don't see how they can improve story by telling it with CG. I hope they can.


Als

crick2x9
02-19-2006, 05:27 AM
I don't know about you people but, have you been at the movie theatre lately? There is an obscene amount of CG movies coming out this year alone, and most of them have the usual talking animals. The only one that comes out of the same cliche is monster house (apparently directed by Spielberg :thumbsup: ).

CG needs to grow even more and I believe this movie will be grace for the world of CG.

The movie I was going to watch didn't start untill 10:30 pm and I got there like around 9:00 so I got to see all of the previews of the CG movies and with all honesty this thought kept going through my mind: "not another talking animal movie".

I don't care if bruce willis' voice is in one of those characters (over the hedge) as a matter of fact it is ridiculous that too much of the budget goes for these over payed actors voice.

I understand CG artists have bills to pay and they do a good job and that good movies have been made but enough is enough, and I guess every CG artist would like to do something different, and the public in general would like to see something different.

Thank you for this movie, thank you for giving CG the chance of getting out of the cartoon cliche.

I think Polar express and final fantasy deserve a pat on the back too.

Someone needs to take risks every once in a while.

Als
02-20-2006, 02:10 PM
Hollywood always had periods of dominating "genre", like western, war movies, love stories, etc.
I guess CG movies can't avoid this, being simple rule that why change something which works. So producers feel quite savy to invest in such a films.
If something else would be catastrophy in the box office, I don't think that this would help cause too much.
I think that this movie will be seen and it will make a good box office, because what I have seen in the trailer is truly wonderfull CG work, which will certainly be enough to hold audience in their seats. But I think that even the story is important to be told and it's very gripping, I'm worried if the characters will be good enough not to take attention away with it's technical imperfections.

But I'd like to see other stories which could not be told before, or at least not with such a strenght, like Jurrasic Park, LOR, Matrix or Forest Gump for example.

I think that movie world needs a movie to will show all the power of CG imagination and talent, but first of all it needs really good script and great director with experience in making feature movies, or at least some really talented new comer.
Even the best theater play, would make a small movie if it wouldn't use all the possabilities of the media, film language. It would not give great cinematic experience.

CG is still searching its own language as were any new art form before. There are still very few movies who use CG as a tool to tell the storie, many of them just flashy pointless over the top special effects flicks with bad scripts, no stories and no point whatsover, and audience is getting tired of those (not as much as I hoped).
Also the bar is raised higher and higher as it was with original SFX in the movies, so there is less and less you can get away with, since audience is starting to notice bad effects and unconvincing tricks.
We need good CG film(s) with story which could not be told any other way then with CG, and which would use ALL the POWER of CG, and give talented artist who mostly work on VFX a way to express themselves a bit more.
I think Final fantasy was great movie, but few of it's techical imperfections took away too much of the experience.


Als

CGTalk Moderation
02-20-2006, 02:10 PM
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.