CHUD NUMBERS: Box Office Discussion Thread - Page 205

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

But if they'd made Tintin with conventional animation or non-mocapped CGI, with stylized characters that didn't half-pretend to be "real" and thereby fall straight into the uncanny valley, would that have hurt the film? I find it hard to believe it would. I'm sure Tintin is good, but I don't think the mo-cap/"realistic CGI characters" aspect adds anything, and it's an ugly and graceless style of animation that I want to see buried. Audiences generally seem to agree with me, too.

Tintin isn't playing soft in the States because of how it was executed technically. It's because 90% of Americans don't know who Tintin is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

But if they'd made Tintin with conventional animation or non-mocapped CGI, with stylized characters that didn't half-pretend to be "real" and thereby fall straight into the uncanny valley, would that have hurt the film? I find it hard to believe it would. I'm sure Tintin is good, but I don't think the mo-cap/"realistic CGI characters" aspect adds anything, and it's an ugly and graceless style of animation that I want to see buried. Audiences generally seem to agree with me, too.

I wasn't referring to Tintin specifically (though I do think the mo-cap is a factor--I mean, it's an accessible adventure movie otherwise, right? It's just that foreign audiences can get past it because they're excited to see a Tintin movie.) I was referring more to mo-cap's overall track record at the box office, with Mars Needs Moms and whatnot. I believe The Christmas Express did OK by pandering to undiscriminating kids, but otherwise, it's not a technique that makes people want to see movies. It's fine when combined with human characters, a la Avatar, but fully-mocapped movies seem to put people off, with good reason. 

Beyond the fact that I'll bet Tin Tin was basically key-frame animated in the end, what the mo-cap aspect of the film seemed to do was finally bring Spielberg into animation.  So there's that.

And I think Prankster was just saying that people generally seemed put off by mo-cap films as opposed to blaming it for Tin Tin's soft performance domestically.

EDIT:  Dammit, too late!

Though I do think Tin Tin really felt good to watch.  The mo-cap stuff rarely detracted.

What I meant to say was, Go see Tintin, Prankster. It's fun.

MI:4 looks like it'll end up there among Cruise's bigger hits - who would've thought? Does that mean he's officially 'back' now, or has he just postponed the inevitable?

I don't really buy the idea that Tintin is underperforming because Americans 'don't know who Tintin' is, otherwise no movie that isn't based on an existing property would ever be a success. That's what marketing is for. But there must be something about Tintin in general that stops it from working in the states. Just too fundamentally european or international or something? Worth noting that the movie itself hasn't been a megahit overseas either. It's done okay but hardly a sensation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

But if they'd made Tintin with conventional animation or non-mocapped CGI, with stylized characters that didn't half-pretend to be "real" and thereby fall straight into the uncanny valley, would that have hurt the film? I find it hard to believe it would. I'm sure Tintin is good, but I don't think the mo-cap/"realistic CGI characters" aspect adds anything, and it's an ugly and graceless style of animation that I want to see buried. Audiences generally seem to agree with me, too.

You're making some pretty specific and bile-filled attacks considering you don't appear to have seen the movie!

Paramount needs to greenlight M:I-5 immediately.  Ghost Protocol basically just gave the franchise a Fast Five.  The sequel will open really well.

MI4 has already done more business than MI3, so by that logic, there will be a MI5.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

MI:4 looks like it'll end up there among Cruise's bigger hits - who would've thought? Does that mean he's officially 'back' now, or has he just postponed the inevitable?

 

I don't really buy the idea that Tintin is underperforming because Americans 'don't know who Tintin' is, otherwise no movie that isn't based on an existing property would ever be a success. That's what marketing is for. But there must be something about Tintin in general that stops it from working in the states. Just too fundamentally european or international or something? Worth noting that the movie itself hasn't been a megahit overseas either. It's done okay but hardly a sensation.

 

You're making some pretty specific and bile-filled attacks considering you don't appear to have seen the movie!

Speaking as someone who is very turned off by this Tin Tin movie but has no problem with Europe, I loath the design of the mocap characters, and the word "unicorn" in the title

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

MI4 has already done more business than MI3, so by that logic, there will be a MI5.

Yes, but they can't wait five years to get it out as is the norm for this franchise.  Ghost Protocol's receiving phenomenal word-of-mouth.  They need to capitalize quickly.

Unicorn, Kate.  Unicorn.  Let the word swirl around in your head.  In your dreams!

I've always been aware of the fact that MI3 was an underperformer, but I always forget just HOW underperforming it was.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Unicorn, Kate.  Unicorn.  Let the word swirl around in your head.  In your dreams!

 

I've always been aware of the fact that MI3 was an underperformer, but I always forget just HOW underperforming it was.  

I guess it's just that I know many of the tintin books are grounded, and have interesting/cool titles. Instead they went with one that implies it takes place in a fantasy universe where unicorns exist (no clue if that is true, just saying the title gives me that impression). Most importantly though is the look of TINTIN himself. I look at the mocapped character, and think to myself that the last thing I'd want to do would be to see a movie about *that* guy. He just looks annoying. I have no inherent problem with mocap either. I think Beowulf from BEOWULF (2007) is a marvelous creation, and I love that movie. Beowulf's face and body tell me to expect adventure and excitement. Tin Tin's unsettlingly cartoonish/"real" features tell me to expect nightmares 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

MI:4 looks like it'll end up there among Cruise's bigger hits - who would've thought? Does that mean he's officially 'back' now, or has he just postponed the inevitable?

 

I don't really buy the idea that Tintin is underperforming because Americans 'don't know who Tintin' is, otherwise no movie that isn't based on an existing property would ever be a success. That's what marketing is for. But there must be something about Tintin in general that stops it from working in the states. Just too fundamentally european or international or something? Worth noting that the movie itself hasn't been a megahit overseas either. It's done okay but hardly a sensation.

 

You're making some pretty specific and bile-filled attacks considering you don't appear to have seen the movie!

I haven't, though I'm a Tintin fan since childhood and I believe the people who are claiming that this movie is a fun, well-made adventure. I'm specifically critiquing the technique of "realistic" mo-cap, which I've seen elsewhere and in the Tintin trailers (and I don't think it's unreasonable to criticize the look of a movie based on the trailers?) I used to be a computer animator, so I'm somewhat knowledgeable about the technology and have seen enough to know that I have some serious criticisms with it. I just don't see the point of designing clearly animated characters that are nonetheless too "realistic" to have the full range of cartoon expressiveness and charm, and then "animating" them by strapping actors into elaborate computerized suits instead of just hiring animators to do their jobs. It's a sore point with me. It kind of feels like Zemeckis and Spielberg and their ilk are trying to replace human animators with computers so that they can retain total control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Yes, but they can't wait five years to get it out as is the norm for this franchise.  Ghost Protocol's receiving phenomenal word-of-mouth.  They need to capitalize quickly.

 

Especially when you factor in Cruise is getting older (As great as he came off in M:I 4) and Paramount just doesn't have as many franchises to rely on anymore.

There are no actual unicorns in Tin Tin.  It's just the name of a pirate ship.

And Prankster, I've been harping on this topic on other threads, but what we're seeing in all of these mo-cap films are mostly animators slaving away without recognition!

As the resident Cruise 'hater' in this thread I chalk up the success of MI4 to a variety of factors, none of which being Cruise himself. Basically there was no competition. People wanted to take the family to the movies over the vacation and they were left with nothing compelling. A sequel to movie that was universally met with a 'meh' reaction the first time out (Holmes), some ugly cartoon called tin tin that claimed to be like Indiana Jones (too bad the last Indy movie was horrible), a serial killer flick (at Christmas time?), and war horse?? Really?? People who want to see a feel good movie about a horse at Christmas, dont want war mixed with it. People who want to see a good war movie dont want a PG movie about a horse.

By all reports and word of mouth, MI4 is a good movie. I would expect a Brad Bird directed action movie to be a fun ride. But this does not mean Cruise is back on top. Make another Knight and Day and watch what happens....

I just had 10 days off with the kids, we did not go to the movies one time. This holiday season was a perfect capper on the crap fest that has been 2011 at the movies. Lets all hope for a much better 2012.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

I haven't, though I'm a Tintin fan since childhood and I believe the people who are claiming that this movie is a fun, well-made adventure. I'm specifically critiquing the technique of "realistic" mo-cap, which I've seen elsewhere and in the Tintin trailers (and I don't think it's unreasonable to criticize the look of a movie based on the trailers?) I used to be a computer animator, so I'm somewhat knowledgeable about the technology and have seen enough to know that I have some serious criticisms with it. I just don't see the point of designing clearly animated characters that are nonetheless too "realistic" to have the full range of cartoon expressiveness and charm, and then "animating" them by strapping actors into elaborate computerized suits instead of just hiring animators to do their jobs. It's a sore point with me. It kind of feels like Zemeckis and Spielberg and their ilk are trying to replace human animators with computers so that they can retain total control.

Except your entire argument fails at a very base level: the designs of the characters are in no way, shape, or form, trying to be"realistic." The whole thing is heightened and cartoony. Maybe if you climbed off your harumphing horse and gave the film a shot you're realize that.

Mo-cap isn't the enemy. The way mo-cap is utilized can be, and in films like the Zemeckis movies where the end goal seems to be to recreate an actor you could have just filmed live, I get the grousing. But something like TinTin is way, way, WAY closer to something like Monster House or Rango, where essentially the actors are getting straight up rotoscoped. And that's nothing new; that goes all the way back to Disney's Peter Pan.

The designs are too realistic to be cartoony and too cartoony to be realistic. It's classic Uncanny Valley stuff. The comic had a very distinct visual style--why not try to capture that? Why try to make the characters just realistic enough to look awkward? It's not like "round-headed kid with a cowlick" is some Gollum or Davy Jones-style creature that could only ever be brought to life via the magic of mocap. Use a simple cartoon character or film a real actor, don't give me this mutant monstrosity (and I'm sorry, the character design on this film is butt-ugly--it reminds me of the early days of CGI and stuff like Shrek, where everyone came out looking like a mannekin).

As for the mocapping, I've yet to see an argument for why it was used for this film, as opposed to plain old animation. As Nooj said, there's a disturbing undercurrent in the adoption of mocap that seems to be about removing the human touch from the equation. Rotoscoping isn't remotely the same thing; it involves artistic interpretation. Well, according to Nooj, mocapping involves artistic interpretation, too, except the results are stiffer and the computer gets all the credit. It strikes me as a medium that's at cross-purposes with itself.

Getting away from the whole issue of how much of a mo-capped performance is the actor or the team of animators...

I'm going on record as saying that I ended up finding the characters in Tin Tin to be a pretty huge step up in terms of finally coming across appealing.  But then, I thought there were some good moments in Beowulf involving Brendan Gleeson's character. 

I do admit that I would've preferred that Tin Tin have gone with an approach more similar to Monster House though.  I actually thought that worked and it seemed perfect for Tin Tin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

The designs are too realistic to be cartoony and too cartoony to be realistic. It's classic Uncanny Valley stuff. The comic had a very distinct visual style--why not try to capture that? Why try to make the characters just realistic enough to look awkward? It's not like "round-headed kid with a cowlick" is some Gollum or Davy Jones-style creature that could only ever be brought to life via the magic of mocap. Use a simple cartoon character or film a real actor, don't give me this mutant monstrosity (and I'm sorry, the character design on this film is butt-ugly--it reminds me of the early days of CGI and stuff like Shrek, where everyone came out looking like a mannekin).

 

As for the mocapping, I've yet to see an argument for why it was used for this film, as opposed to plain old animation. As Nooj said, there's a disturbing undercurrent in the adoption of mocap that seems to be about removing the human touch from the equation. Rotoscoping isn't remotely the same thing; it involves artistic interpretation. Well, according to Nooj, mocapping involves artistic interpretation, too, except the results are stiffer and the computer gets all the credit. It strikes me as a medium that's at cross-purposes with itself.

The French made some live action TinTin movies back in the 60s or 70s. Yeah, it looks goofy as hell. 

You're obviously on way too much of a bent to see that the characters aren't meant to be realistic. Textured, yes. But look at Haddock, look at Thompson and Thompson, look at Snowy--realistic ain't the word you're looking for. But then, you'd have to swallow this whateveritis and go see the movie yourself. I honestly don't see this as Uncanny Valley stuff, since their intent isn't to recreate a human being with the computer--they're not trying to fool you. You're uncomfortable with it because you know the process, you don't like it and you're firing on that bias.

From what I can tell, the mo-cap approach was so Spielberg could shoot the angles and blocking he wanted with actors, and have that be the base template for the film. And he really did choose his shots that way--this wasn't Zemeckis just gathering the data and picking his shots later during animation. That's why I likened it to Rango--they really did go through with a camera and set up the shots and angles with real actors on a minimalist stage. The only difference was that Rango didn't have the actors in mo-cap suits. Spielberg wanted that data, I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

Except your entire argument fails at a very base level: the designs of the characters are in no way, shape, or form, trying to be"realistic." The whole thing is heightened and cartoony. Maybe if you climbed off your harumphing horse and gave the film a shot you're realize that.

 

Mo-cap isn't the enemy. The way mo-cap is utilized can be, and in films like the Zemeckis movies where the end goal seems to be to recreate an actor you could have just filmed live, I get the grousing. But something like TinTin is way, way, WAY closer to something like Monster House

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

The French made some live action TinTin movies back in the 60s or 70s. Yeah, it looks goofy as hell. 

 

You're obviously on way too much of a bent to see that the characters aren't meant to be realistic. Textured, yes. But look at Haddock, look at Thompson and Thompson, look at Snowy--realistic ain't the word you're looking for. But then, you'd have to swallow this whateveritis and go see the movie yourself. I honestly don't see this as Uncanny Valley stuff, since their intent isn't to recreate a human being with the computer--they're not trying to fool you. You're uncomfortable with it because you know the process, you don't like it and you're firing on that bias.

 

From what I can tell, the mo-cap approach was so Spielberg could shoot the angles and blocking he wanted with actors, and have that be the base template for the film. And he really did choose his shots that way--this wasn't Zemeckis just gathering the data and picking his shots later during animation. That's why I likened it to Rango--they really did go through with a camera and set up the shots and angles with real actors on a minimalist stage. The only difference was that Rango didn't have the actors in mo-cap suits. Spielberg wanted that data, I guess.

Greg, Tin Tin has pores. He looks like he has real flesh, and yet his features and proportions are cartoony. It's very unsettling, like that "REAL HOMER SIMPSON" or "REAL MARIO" photo that floated around the web for a while

For the first 20-30 minutes of the film I was really impressed by the Mo-Cap in Tintin. Spielberg had the characters look away from the camera, and moving their eyes and changing their facial expressions, which minimized the Uncanny Valley effect. But then the characters started looking direct (or nearly) into the camera with immobile expressions, and the Valley was back in full force.

As to why MoCap, I think it's because 2D animation isn't novel enough to draw the Blockbuster audience that Spielberg expects/demands. And this world and these characters would look goofy as hell if shot in live action. See Popeye.

I don't think you're hearing me. I'm not complaining that they tried for realistic characters and failed. I'm saying they applied a patina of "realism"--pores, wrinkles, "realistic" eyes--over character designs that were meant to be simple and stylized, and the result is, to me, ugly and off-putting. But yeah, haven't seen the movie, so let's drop it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

And this world and these characters would look goofy as hell if shot in live action. See Popeye.

Not only goofy but even creepier. 

My gosh, it's almost like the characters were designed to be cartoons or something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

 

Not only goofy but even creepier. 

 

Who knew there was an Ed Grimly movie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

For the first 20-30 minutes of the film I was really impressed by the Mo-Cap in Tintin. Spielberg had the characters look away from the camera, and moving their eyes and changing their facial expressions, which minimized the Uncanny Valley effect. But then the characters started looking direct (or nearly) into the camera with immobile expressions, and the Valley was back in full force.

 

As to why MoCap, I think it's because 2D animation isn't novel enough to draw the Blockbuster audience that Spielberg expects/demands. And this world and these characters would look goofy as hell if shot in live action. See Popeye.

Funnily enough, Spielberg initially came to a crossroads on which route to take the film:  Live Action or Mo-Cap.  He had PJ do two tests to see which turned out better.  The first was a live action Tintin (played by Jackson!) and a CGI Snowy...................and the second was all mo-cap.  Standard animation was never in the cards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

Paramount needs to greenlight M:I-5 immediately.  Ghost Protocol basically just gave the franchise a Fast Five.  The sequel will open really well.

Do you think this is something they could do back to back, with a 5 and 6 being made at the same time? That could be a good way to save money on production costs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Talk about jumping the gun on poor War Horse. Not only did it rise the most in the top 10 this weekend but its per screen average was second only to Mission Impossible. Looks like it's showing some legs. If it gets some big Oscar noms, it might have a chance at 100M.

It reminds me of the year Schindler's List and Jurassic Park came out. Both were successful financially but one really made a lot of money while the other was more often thought of in winning a lot of awards and possibly even more critical acclaim (though people also forget/don't realise that the bigger financial success also won a lot of awards).

Too early to tell on War Horse yet.   I think opening it on Christmas Day was a bad idea as I think a lot of folks didn't want to see an animal in "distress" during the holidays.  I'll bet that once word gets out that [spoiler, i guess] the horse doesn't die [/spoiler], then maybe the grosses will pick up.    

I think it was the Sunday opening more than it being Christmas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Funnily enough, Spielberg initially came to a crossroads on which route to take the film:  Live Action or Mo-Cap.  He had PJ do two tests to see which turned out better.  The first was a live action Tintin (played by Jackson!) and a CGI Snowy...................and the second was all mo-cap.  Standard animation was never in the cards.

If they had Tin Tin played by Jackson in the live action test, it seems Ike it was being set up to fail

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan 

Do you think this is something they could do back to back, with a 5 and 6 being made at the same time? That could be a good way to save money on production costs.

Could they? Yes.  Would I want them to?  No.  They have a good thing going with the whole "new director, new take" angle and it'd be a shame to see it stop now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Kate 

 

If they had Tin Tin played by Jackson in the live action test, it seems Ike it was being set up to fail

Not really.  Steven's main concern was the dog.  I guess he figured there was absolutely NO WAY he could get a real dog to do what he needed, so he wanted to know what would look better.................an as-real-as-possible CGI dog or to just full-on mo-cap the whole movie.

I hope that test pops on up the home video release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

 

Not only goofy but even creepier. 

 

Fuck a duck, it's the secret lovechild of Johnny Rotten and Marc Almond.

The Devil Inside is only the sixth film to manage an 'F' CinemaScore grade.

Guess it doesn't really matter anyway. On a budget of 1 M it made 16.8 M on Friday. It could drop 100% today and still be deemed profitable. With all the great films out this Christmas that are in serious need of a box office boost, this is the film that breaks out on its opening weekend. So sad. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

The Devil Inside is only the sixth film to manage an 'F' CinemaScore grade.

I heard that there really isn't an ending and stops with a link to a website to learn more.

Well, if you think about it, that probably makes it a pretty accurate found footage movie.

Lionsgate buying Summit for $700 Million

Apparently Summit might stop making movies if this deal goes through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

The Devil Inside is only the sixth film to manage an 'F' CinemaScore grade.

Soderbergh's “Solaris” remake (2002), “Darkness” (2002), “Wolf Creek” (2005), Friedkin's “Bug” (2006), and “The Box” (2009) are the other films. Not that I give a shit about The Devil Inside, but I suspect that the people CinemaScore surveys all have pronounced supraorbital ridges.

Solaris got an "F"?! I need to go on a hunting spree.

Be sure to also take out the dolts that gave Bug an F.

If they actually did Cinemascore checks at indie and arthouse theaters, there would probably be more than six "F"'s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

Soderbergh's “Solaris” remake (2002), “Darkness” (2002), “Wolf Creek” (2005), Friedkin's “Bug” (2006), and “The Box” (2009) are the other films. 

The Devil Inside is already the highest grossing 'F' of all time! They should use that in their next TV Spot. 

I enjoyed Solaris

I liked both Solaris and Wolf Creek.

In other news, Star Wars: Episode I 3D is tracking at $25 million+ opening weekend.  Cue the internet exploding in (repeat) rage in 5... 4...

HWOOOOOAAAAARGH!!!!

...  that's all it will amount to.  Heheheh

It has a real chance to pass $500 million, too.