PDA

View Full Version : Monster House Teaser Trailer


My Fault
11-12-2005, 03:56 AM
Really like the character design. Will this rise above all of Polar Expresses issues? I am definitely interested in seeing this one.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/monster_house/

seven6ty
11-12-2005, 04:19 AM
THAT'S MY MOVIE, THAT'S MY MOVIE!!!

Hahahaha, j/k, but yahhh, I'm working on it, whoopie. Just doing animation support though, so don't get to show anything on the big screen this time. :( Booo. But yeah, looks pretty cool. I actually haven't seen the full renders of this until just now, so cool to finally see. But ahhh, geez, kinda does resemble Polar Express to me in some ways, but at least the animators seem to be given a lot more freedom this time around. But yah yah, should be interesting to see how it turns out, but oh man... That house rig is flippin dopppeeeeeeeeeeee though!

Joss
11-12-2005, 04:26 AM
:) I've always been fascinated with spooky stories so we'll see how it goes. Is it just me or is Halloween too short!?

Shaderhacker
11-12-2005, 04:33 AM
I JUST finished watching this trailer and was going to post. Darn, I got beat!! ;)

This looks like a SERIOUS contender next year! Man, it looks great!! And the story is about HUMANS!! Nice! Will be very interesting to see how this does against Cars, and Over the Hedge in the summer..

Kidos Sony!

-M

DaJuice
11-12-2005, 04:37 AM
One thing that for some reason bugged me from start to finish is that there are zero specular highlights on the characters (or much else for that matter?). What gives?

I do like the design of the faces though.

Shaderhacker
11-12-2005, 04:48 AM
One thing that for some reason bugged me from start to finish is that there are zero specular highlights on the characters (or much else for that matter?). What gives?

I do like the design of the faces though.

They don't have plastic shaders. What's wrong with that?

-M

ajsfuxor
11-12-2005, 04:54 AM
They still have a touch of the 'zombies' i think. Looks like fun though.

darktding
11-12-2005, 05:02 AM
i like the looks and the story looks solid too.
i thought bluesky was involved in this project too...

ajsfuxor
11-12-2005, 05:07 AM
I think the main thing is that it looks different than what all the other studios are doing. Could be great!

DaJuice
11-12-2005, 05:07 AM
They don't have plastic shaders. What's wrong with that?

-M


Hehe, last time I checked highlights were not limited to plastic.
Matter of personal preference I guess, it just looks a little "off" to me.

KolbyJukes
11-12-2005, 05:11 AM
I'm in love with the character design....soooo going to see this movie.

sallymander
11-12-2005, 05:42 AM
THAT'S MY MOVIE, THAT'S MY MOVIE!!!

Hahahaha, j/k, but yahhh, I'm working on it, whoopie. Just doing animation support though, so don't get to show anything on the big screen this time. :( Booo. But yeah, looks pretty cool. I actually haven't seen the full renders of this until just now, so cool to finally see. But ahhh, geez, kinda does resemble Polar Express to me in some ways, but at least the animators seem to be given a lot more freedom this time around. But yah yah, should be interesting to see how it turns out, but oh man... That house rig is flippin dopppeeeeeeeeeeee though!

OOOOOh, I was a rigging intern for this movie....don't think I didn't much tho. They moved us to previs after...

Shaderhacker
11-12-2005, 06:00 AM
Hehe, last time I checked highlights were not limited to plastic.
Matter of personal preference I guess, it just looks a little "off" to me.

No they aren't. But true skin doesn't have a wide-radius highlight anyway. Sortof a subtle sheen.

-M

Teyon
11-12-2005, 06:34 AM
I'm all for this movie! Just have to say though, seems like an extended scene out of the book "The Dark Tower II: The Drawing of the Three" where Jake has to escape a house that's trying to devour him. Except this is more kid friendly and looks darn cool! :) I can't wait to see this, there should be more films with human based toon characters and a few less with animals. Not that animals aren't cool, it's just that I'd love to see more done with humans.

JeffPalmer
11-12-2005, 06:38 AM
Hmm, still looks like they are using mocap for most of the animations, i saw barely any eye lidd, head bob, or good eye movments. Ill go see it, but it just looks "off" to me. Its tough on the eyes IMO to see stylized people, that move like real humans.

harlan_hill
11-12-2005, 07:14 AM
Yeah, the characters are way too zombie like. It's unfortunate really as the movie itself looks amazing, but as with Polar Express the zombie-like nature of the characters really detracts from the movie.

What's the obsession with mocap on these things anyway?? It's certainly not for budgetary reasons.

harlan_hill
11-12-2005, 07:20 AM
Sheeeeeesh... I just watched it again, and it kills me to see the return of the zombies. This movie looks so good otherwise.

Someone should've bitch slapped Zemeckis and said NO MOCAP... or at least only a little mocap.

Bentagon
11-12-2005, 08:40 AM
Design looks great, story looks awesome, and the house looks FANTASTIC. But I don't think the mocap works with these kind of designs. They don't clearly communicate as regular animation or regular live-action would. In animation everything is clearly setup, staged and controlled to communicate the best way possible, and in live-action there's soo much more subtlety. The characters here moved around, sure, but in ways that are more confusing.

- Benjamin

Dreckins
11-12-2005, 08:50 AM
I would like to see the animators push the performance in the character's faces more, but to diss their application of mocap entirely from an early trailer is a little harsh. I think it's great that Sony is experimenting with each film in their animated feature lineup.

Anyways, it's awesome to finally see some of the awesome conceptual art I've seen translated into 3D. I love the style they chose. The characters seem to be written real well. See how it plays out in the story. Cheddar's maneurisms remind me of Chunk from Goonies.

Btw, anyone else understand why Monster House would be promoted online with a Quicktime page versus Open Season's U.S. restricted access on Nick.com?

Joe Sandstrom
11-12-2005, 04:00 PM
Very cool. I really like the look of this film and the characters are great, really nice designs and well translated to CG. They border on the realm of realism, yet are caricatured just enough so that they aren't. From what I see so far, these characters are begging to be pushed further with some stylized animation; squash and stretch. So, I'm not sure if I'm sold on the whole "performance capture" thing yet, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the film.

Anyone know who did Character Design on this?

amygdalae
11-12-2005, 07:56 PM
Ah, CG zealotry.

Why do people come in with criticisms like 'i dont see enough spec hits! It's not gonna look real enough!' - 'real human skin has a wide range of specular..' blah blah blah.

It's stylized! Like clay! Show me all the spec hits from corpse bride... It's going for a matte/clay/stop motion style, that's all.

Also, this is the first feature anim to be entirely lit with global illumination lit in Maya using Arnold. It's real GI, not ambocc.

My Fault
11-12-2005, 08:05 PM
Yeah, that is the thing I really like about the teaser, they are going more stylized. Love it. And the house, wow, the house is amazing. How much fun to animate that. I can only imagine how many separate house rig these were to accomodate all the ways it moves.

Shaderhacker
11-12-2005, 08:42 PM
Ah, CG zealotry.

Why do people come in with criticisms like 'i dont see enough spec hits! It's not gonna look real enough!' - 'real human skin has a wide range of specular..' blah blah blah.

I'm not complaining. I absolutely LOVE the trailer and the look of the film!

-M

padib
11-12-2005, 08:49 PM
this looks fun! Horror animation! I agree with with the motion cap crits though. I find it a bit distracting. Im looking forward to this one!

Digit
11-12-2005, 10:16 PM
Sorry, but I really dont like it.

There are thrings I like about it but, personally, I think this whole "performance capture" thing just stinks. I love Back to the Future to the n-th degree but Robert Zemeckis is starting to become the nemesis of cinema in my opinion.

Dont mean to be argumentative but thats my thoughts.

FloydBishop
11-12-2005, 11:00 PM
There are thrings I like about it but, personally, I think this whole "performance capture" thing just stinks. I love Back to the Future to the n-th degree but Robert Zemeckis is starting to become the nemesis of cinema in my opinion.

I agree. The character design looks nice, and the house looked cool, but the performances are creepy. To my eye, the MoCap stands out like a sore thumb and brings the whole thing down.

I'm half expecting the characters to break out into the "Dancing Baby".



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rlussier/Images/Babycha.gif

WillRyan
11-13-2005, 01:25 PM
I don't know how many people read the comic book Scud: the Disposable Assassin back in the 90's, but the script for Monster House was written by the two guys responsible for it. It should be pretty maniacal and funny if that comic is any indication.

I think they're writing the script for Kung-Fu Panda as well!

KOKE
11-13-2005, 06:23 PM
Yep designs are cool, but the motion capture brings it down.......as it has been said before there is something strange about stylized humans moving real.

The film looks interesting though and I will surely give it a try, despite the zombie look.
Anyway I still think it looks way better than polar express.

:D

JK.

Capel
11-14-2005, 12:00 AM
i don't see why they didn't just make this live action.

Shaderhacker
11-14-2005, 12:06 AM
i don't see why they didn't just make this live action.


That's silly. Why don't they make every CG feature live action?

-M

amygdalae
11-14-2005, 08:17 AM
I agree. The character design looks nice, and the house looked cool, but the performances are creepy. To my eye, the MoCap stands out like a sore thumb and brings the whole thing down.

I'm half expecting the characters to break out into the "Dancing Baby".



http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rlussier/Images/Babycha.gif


: /
Your work isnt all that great, hoss. Normally I wouldnt be so harsh, but you're making very specific criticisms about a type of work you yourself do. You're exaggerating in making the 'dancing baby' comment. I cant say that I'm blown away by the mind bending beauty of the movement of any of your characters... Perhaps you can work your way up to dancing baby quality at some point if more time was spent working on your art as opposed to buzzing around the CG forums with criticisms.

Apologies for being an asshole, but I have a hard time with a constant stream of 'too CG looking', 'bad animation' criticism coming out about nearly every major project from someone who's own professional work is none too impressive. Worse than being an armchair critic, you know to some extent the difficulties involved in the work you criticize, but seem to still hold some unattainable ideal of what the perfect animation is. Is it a pixar film? They have their flaws as well, as everything does... Why not just watch movies and attempt to enjoy them for what they are, eh? No one is trying to make perfect movies. Only people in these forums are so critical.

The funny thing is that the majority of the animation that receives criticism in features using mocap is...'nt mocap. You would be amazed how much is key-framed, but for better or worse, mocap features arent supposed to look like pose-to-pose animation. It's impossible for them to. They are supposed to resemble the original performance of the actors as close as possible and the animators are held to that. It's not meant to quickly & cheaply obtain pose-to-pose keyframe disney looking animation. Criticism that it's not posey enough isnt really fair, since it's comparing apples to oranges. The only thing it shares with a fully animated film is that it's CG.

ajsfuxor
11-14-2005, 08:24 AM
I agree to some extent. When i first came into the industry, I was very surprised about how much people CG bash. HOWEVER, you can't deny the characters still have a zombie like quality.

I do however think its important to throw around criticisms with a grain of salt, because everyone works with limitations (time, hardware etc) and so never be too harsh when criticising. Lord knows i've churned out some crap, purely because the turnaround on a job was ridiculous, but u just do the best you can.

Dennik
11-14-2005, 03:13 PM
Amygdalae: If you can't tell the difference between poor animation, and good animation, i don't think you should be so harsh either. If many viewer's minds snap out of the fantasy world of the movie, because there is something wrong with the character's movement, then there is a problem with the characters movement. And there are more than 1 people in this thread stating this.
So why Is it so hard to understand?

kwilli30
11-14-2005, 03:20 PM
That's silly. Why don't they make every CG feature live action?

-M

Because wooly mammoths, robots, monsters, talking bugs etc. are hard to find these days :)

Shaderhacker
11-14-2005, 04:14 PM
: /
Your work isnt all that great, hoss. Normally I wouldnt be so harsh, but you're making very specific criticisms about a type of work you yourself do. You're exaggerating in making the 'dancing baby' comment. I cant say that I'm blown away by the mind bending beauty of the movement of any of your characters... Perhaps you can work your way up to dancing baby quality at some point if more time was spent working on your art as opposed to buzzing around the CG forums with criticisms.

Amygdalae:

Just because he mentions (to his eyes) that the characters' animation looks like zombies (which it does - perhaps because of the non-emotional faces) doesn't mean that he's bashing the work of a particular person's animation. Why would you demean his own personal work just because of an opinion? Mocap *does* look weird on animated characters! Moreover, its a management decision moreso than an artistic work to decide to go mocap anyway..



-M

Cronholio
11-14-2005, 04:32 PM
Amygdalae: If you can't tell the difference between poor animation, and good animation, i don't think you should be so harsh either. If many viewer's minds snap out of the fantasy world of the movie, because there is something wrong with the character's movement, then there is a problem with the characters movement. And there are more than 1 people in this thread stating this.
So why Is it so hard to understand?

I don't think the problem with the animation is the movement so much as the lack of expressiveness of the facial animation. It's not bad.. it's just a bit puppet like. It's mostly in the eyes. The faces are moving correctly and doing all the right things, but they just aren't capable of the subtlety of a real human face. Watch the fat kid in particular, his face, partcularly his eyes, just seems pretty lifeless. I wouldn't call this bad animation, some of it is actually quite good (the older sister, a couple shots with the main boy, the cop in the far camera). It's nice to see some subtle realiatic looking performances rather than all the hyper snappy over emotive work that's been done recently. I think it's more of a technology issue. Maybe relying too much on performance capture or sticking too rigidly to the actors performance rather than allowing animators to fudge things a little bit for what the character actually needs to be believable.

Anyhow, I'm in. Looking foward to seeing this one. I have to admit initially seeing the first few seconds of the trailer at the theater I thought "Why didn't they just make this live action?", but really why not make it animated? It's kind of pushing the animation envelope a little bit. People on here are constantly moaning about all the kiddy grade CG movies and wanting to see something more mature... I'm thinking movies like this one are the types of movies that can clear that path. Anything sans hyper cute, talking animals is welcome.

Capel
11-14-2005, 04:49 PM
Because wooly mammoths, robots, monsters, talking bugs etc. are hard to find these days :)

took the words right out of my mouth. thanks! but hey shaderhacker, if you know of any squirrels or raccoons that take direction well, let me know. :)

WillRyan
11-14-2005, 04:53 PM
I still feel like we're in the early days of cg animation, almost like we're just stepping out of the "rubber-hose" days of traditional animation. We're just learning to take the training wheels off as animators, and we'll continue to see many different tools to help us get better animation done faster.

How much difference is there in current motion-capture techniques versus the technology of "rotoscoping" in the early days? Some people used it for reference, and some people used it as the only tool for animating. It's a developing technology that's maturing at the same time as the first generation of CG animators are maturing: we're bound to see some awkward combinations of philosphy and skill.

I wish we'd be able to get past the surface level argument of whether or not motion-capture or the sign of the devil, and really delve into what can be done to find a way to make mo-cap work better. Imagine the results we'd see if our energies we're focused into something kinda like this example by Ward Jenkins (http://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2004/12/polar-express-virtual-train-wreck_18.html).

Shaderhacker
11-14-2005, 04:57 PM
took the words right out of my mouth. thanks! but hey shaderhacker, if you know of any squirrels or raccoons that take direction well, let me know. :)

My point was - all of these could be live action with a mix of special effects work (like all the other live-action movies). But we choose CG for a reason...it's the kids/young adults market we are after.

-M

Dennik
11-14-2005, 05:38 PM
I don't think the problem with the animation is the movement so much as the lack of expressiveness of the facial animation. It's not bad.. it's just a bit puppet like. It's mostly in the eyes. The faces are moving correctly and doing all the right things, but they just aren't capable of the subtlety of a real human face. Watch the fat kid in particular, his face, partcularly his eyes, just seems pretty lifeless. I wouldn't call this bad animation, some of it is actually quite good (the older sister, a couple shots with the main boy, the cop in the far camera). It's nice to see some subtle realiatic looking performances rather than all the hyper snappy over emotive work that's been done recently.

By movement i meant the face features basically.
What you say about the hyper snappy animation is true. I'm getting bored of that style as well. Its easier to animate, just snap to pose, add a wobble and you're done.
There are more sophisticanted and more inspirational ways of animating (basically more time consuming). But still, snappy animation if done correctly, has more life than moccaped animation.

agreenster
11-14-2005, 06:43 PM
I think it looks pretty good! Nice job you guys and gals!

Sure there are some minor issues, but it WAY beats Polar Express in terms of expressiveness. The thing I like about animation is that you can PUSH the face beyond real, which is what gives it flavor. They did a pretty good job of matching real movements in this trailer, but no pushing, which is unfortunate. Maybe it's a style thing. But that makes me have to agree that this film could have been live action with CG elements, like the house. If they would have went a bit more extreme on the facial animaiton, it would have probably been worth it. Still, it's very pretty and consistent, the other nice thing about animation...

Otherwise, nice story, very polished work, and very original concept. I gotta applaud that with the slew of sequels and look-alike CG movies coming out these days. (hey, Im a slave to the money-making sequel market as well, doesnt mean I have to like it!)

Papa Lazarou
11-14-2005, 07:22 PM
: /
Your work isnt all that great, hoss. Normally I wouldnt be so harsh, but you're making very specific criticisms about a type of work you yourself do. You're exaggerating in making the 'dancing baby' comment. I cant say that I'm blown away by the mind bending beauty of the movement of any of your characters... Perhaps you can work your way up to dancing baby quality at some point if more time was spent working on your art as opposed to buzzing around the CG forums with criticisms.

Apologies for being an asshole, but I have a hard time with a constant stream of 'too CG looking', 'bad animation' criticism coming out about nearly every major project from someone who's own professional work is none too impressive. .

I think you crossed a line there. Floyd is as qualified as anyone to have an opinion on this. And before you launched into an ad hominem attack, why don't you post a link to your own amazing animation, so we can decide whose animation is the best, and therefore has the ultimate opinion.

SheepFactory
11-14-2005, 07:32 PM
Finally a cg movie without animals!

Shaderhacker
11-14-2005, 08:46 PM
I think you crossed a line there. Floyd is as qualified as anyone to have an opinion on this. And before you launched into an ad hominem attack, why don't you post a link to your own amazing animation, so we can decide whose animation is the best, and therefore has the ultimate opinion.

Uhh.. let's not turn this thread into a competition here. Floyd is clearly allowed to state his own opinions on these boards. That is why I questioned amygdaele.

-M

FloydBishop
11-14-2005, 09:05 PM
Wow! I'm almost mentioned more in this thread than the film. I'm flattered. :)

Amy, sorry if you don't like my comments, but I stand by them. The motion capture standsout like a sore thumb to my eyes, and I mentioned it. I'm sure the people on the film are all capable artists. I do think that it could be a better film if it were animated rather than performance captured or whatever it's called now.

If you don't like my work, I can't help that. It's not for everyone. As long as my clients are satisfied and keep sending the checks, that's good enough for me.

seven6ty
11-14-2005, 09:25 PM
...It is animated.

ntmonkey
11-14-2005, 09:38 PM
The way I see it is that if they want to make this a viable form of entertainment, then go ahead and let them waste their precious dollars to try and make it work. Mocap has brought a new facet of animation to the industry and is currently keeping some friends of mine employed, not to mention allowing some pretty sweet effects that couldn't been done otherwise. So there really shouldn't be a fight over it since we're all artists trying to make a buck doing what we love. Hey, we all asked for something different from the norm and we slap it down before it even takes off.

I'm sure keyframe animation wasn't perfected overnight either. I'm already seeing improvements over Polar Express, so that's a good thing. Who knows what we'll get after a few more iterations?

So much anger...anger leads to the dark side....all that jazz....

peace,

Lu

Papa Lazarou
11-14-2005, 10:43 PM
Uhh.. let's not turn this thread into a competition here. -M

I was using irony to make a point. Thought I was being perfectly clear, sorry for the confusion. I feel that if you're going to criticise someone's work to dismiss their opinion, you are getting personal anyway. But if you are going to do it anonymously(as far as I can tell), I dunno. I just find that very wrong.

puch
11-14-2005, 10:51 PM
Really like the character design. Will this rise above all of Polar Expresses issues? I am definitely interested in seeing this one.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/monster_house/

Direct link anybody?

puch
11-15-2005, 06:00 AM
Really like the character design. Will this rise above all of Polar Expresses issues? I am definitely interested in seeing this one.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/monster_house/

I was finally able to see it.

Interesting!...

They definitively steered away from "realistic" humans and went for a more "Incredibles" kind of stile. It definitively seems to work better.

In a way is to bad they dropped the ball... Oh, well, what really matter is the story... cg humans are still too expensive...Imagine how realistic could have been if every character would have look like the baby in "Lemony Snicket".

Final Flight of the Osiris still holds the crown for best acting digital humans to date...



Good job you guys at Sony. This one looks like fun.

Bentagon
11-15-2005, 09:19 AM
How much difference is there in current motion-capture techniques versus the technology of "rotoscoping" in the early days?Exactly. There is almost none. But when is the last time you saw rotoscoped animation that was as good as completely 100% controlled frame by frame animation? Rotoscoped animation doesn't look good. It doesn't communicate to the audience as much as it could. There's a reason why there are such terms as staging, silhouette, exaggeration, etc. in animation. Because they help to communicate with the audience. That's where "performance capturing" lacks. Sure, you've go movement... that looks kinda real... but are you telling what you could be telling? I am 100% positive that both Polar Express and this film could have been/be better if it were keyframe animated (and I don't mean keyframe animated while keeping to the performance capture style).

- Benjamin

sparksfx
11-15-2005, 02:40 PM
The trailer looks sweet. It's worth noting that despite some lukewarm reviews,"The Polar Express: The IMAX 3D Experience" was a massive hit due to word of mouth. I don't think the majority of the movie going public obsesses over "performance capture" versus traditional animation, etc. They just want a good story well told. The look of the film is interesting and different, and that to me is exciting.

krisr
11-15-2005, 05:41 PM
took the words right out of my mouth. thanks! but hey shaderhacker, if you know of any squirrels or raccoons that take direction well, let me know. :)

I totally agree with this as well. Whats the point of doing all that in CG? I think I would be a lot more excited if it was live action with a realistic CG house doing all the cool swallowing action and what not. I dunno, I don't think something should be made CG for the sake of CG. I think this film is just trying to bleed the audience a little more of their interest in CG films.

apoc519
11-15-2005, 05:44 PM
It goes to show that you dont need things like hair, cloth sim and motion blur to make a movie look good. Im not sure why they decided that GI was necessary though

Capel
11-15-2005, 05:53 PM
Final Flight of the Osiris still holds the crown for best acting digital humans to date...


don't want to change the subject, but i STRONGLY disagree with this. they were as dead as FFTSW.

ok, done. :)

harlan_hill
11-15-2005, 06:12 PM
Im not sure why they decided that GI was necessary though


Probably the same logic they used when they decided MoCap was acceptable. After all of the horrible horrible horrible comments & reviews about the "dead" & "zombie-like" characters from MoCap in Polar Express; I'm completely surprised that they'd kick out another film with the same awful looking MoCap.

When they first announced Monster House, I thought, cool they learned from the problems with the MoCap in Polar Express and have made progress with it, because surely they wouldn't do another film as bad as Polar Express in terms of the characters. Boy was I wrong!!! :(

Someone mentioned that they seem to have gone with a stylized character design like "The Incredibles". It's too bad they didn't go with the keyframed animation of "The Incredibles" as well. From what has been discussed regarding the budget of Monster House, it's dramatically more expensive to do the MoCap vs. keyframe animation; so why not just keyframe it and have a completely kick-ass looking movie??

Sure, I'm all for progressing with technology, but do it on some shit films first until you get it all worked out; don't waste the good movies (like Monster House) on these tech. trials. Everyother aspect of Monster House in that trailer looked fantastic, but it's such a let down to see the "zombie" characters - it's actually a disgrace to the guys who did the other elements of the film.

Look at "Open Season" - same basic company, much better product in terms of the characters, and most assuredly cheaper to produce all around.

Oh well... I'm done bitching about this. Nice work guys, I'm really looking forward to watching the house and the BKG elements of this movie. :)

WillRyan
11-15-2005, 06:13 PM
Exactly. There is almost none. But when is the last time you saw rotoscoped animation that was as good as completely 100% controlled frame by frame animation? Rotoscoped animation doesn't look good. It doesn't communicate to the audience as much as it could.
- Benjamin

Completely agree with you Benjamin. My point was that we're still early in the growth of computer animation, and much in the same way Ralph Bakshi and others did, people will always look for cheaper and quicker ways to get animation up on screen. How much rotoscoping occurs today? Very little. How much videotaping of live action happens for use as reference for animators? A TON. It's one of the tools that almost all animators use, especially when trying out different attempts at an acting performance or trying to nail a particularly complex physical motion. That's where I see mo-cap going eventually: just another tool to help develop a performance.

And for getting realistic movement into videogames quickly.

puch
11-15-2005, 06:29 PM
don't want to change the subject, but i STRONGLY disagree with this. they were as dead as FFTSW.

ok, done. :)

Never said they where good or fealt alive...

Let's put it from you point of view. The LESS UGLY, acting, realistic looking cg human remain those from "The Final Flight of the Osiris" :-)

agreenster
11-15-2005, 06:30 PM
Rotoscoping/Mocap has it's place. It's a starting point. Disney did a lot of rotoscoping back in the day on many films, including the most famous, Sleeping Beauty for the dancing sequences. We all know Weta did extensive mocap for Gollum, but it was tweaked and pushed and tweaked and pushed. The secret to mocap is by treating it like a starting point, and allowing the artists to go nuts on it. Pixar could use mocap too if they chose, and would probably see good results because they would have a commitment to pushing it further than realistic motion.

WillRyan
11-15-2005, 06:43 PM
Well said Adam. Better than I could put it actually.

BillB
11-15-2005, 09:41 PM
So what is the budget for this? Can't (easily) find it anywhere.

Jackdeth
11-15-2005, 09:46 PM
Where is the motion blur?

Capel
11-15-2005, 11:32 PM
Let's put it from you point of view. The LESS UGLY, acting, realistic looking cg human remain those from "The Final Flight of the Osiris" :-)

nicely put. :)

Teyon
11-16-2005, 12:21 AM
Just to pop in once again, I'd like to shake a finger at those who say this film should be live action. It's thinking like that that doesn't allow full cg features to grow beyond it's current boundaries. Take a look at any of the Timm/Dini Batman animated shows...they could've easily been done in live action (many were better than the live action films) but when there's a style you want or a look you're trying to achieve, you do what you need too to get it. I don't think the flks behind this film said, "Let's make it CG because everyone else is doing it." I think they wanted to tell a story and chose CG as a medium to do so, just like many choose pen and ink. Sure the film could work as a live action flick but that doesn't mean it MUST be. I long for the day when we can sit down and enjoy an all CG drama done well. :) Until then, let's just try and enjoy the ride.

ivanisavich
11-16-2005, 12:29 AM
Where is the motion blur?


That was my first thought too :P

el scorcho
11-16-2005, 01:14 PM
I cannot load up quicktime 7 on my laptop grr! can anyone post a screenshot of the trailer?

CGTalk Moderation
11-16-2005, 01:14 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.