Tintin revealed!

[Trenchfoot]

From the upcoming Spielberg-Jackson film...

http://www.empireonline.com/images/magazine/cover.jpg

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45762.jpg

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45763.jpg

Looks great to me! :D

[Giant Tope]

oh ugg. i hate the polar express style. might as well have real actors.

[bosbeetle]

Could be good :) captain Haddock looks convincing

[Origami]

Looks great! I am a fan of TinTin. I own all comic books.

Favs are:
-Secret of the Unicorn & Treasure of Red Rackam (is one big story)
-The seven crystal balls & The temple of the sun (also one story)
-Tintin in Tibet

[taumel]

TinTin is great but from the screens the look sadly is awful.

For more tasteful beeings, Arte made a great serie about TinTin (http://www.arte.tv/de/Die-Welt-verstehen/Auf-Reisen-mit-Tim-und-Struppi/3286834.html).

[PainDealer]

Aren't all the (or nearly all) comics made into cartoons already? Sorry but this thing smells like those guys are just trying to cash in with someone else's creation...

[Ribs]

Aren't all the (or nearly all) comics made into cartoons already? Sorry but this thing smells like those guys are just trying to cash in with someone else's creation...

Yup, it's Peter Jackson alright.

[puzzlebox]

I fear the visual style may have slipped into the uncanny valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) for me. :(

I loved the television cartoons though. So much so that I'll probably still go see this.

[PainDealer]

Yup, it's Peter Jackson alright.

LoL I didn't notice I crashed straight into the "No shit Sherlock" section :o

[Secret Fawful]

oh ugg. i hate the polar express style. might as well have real actors.

Actually it's being done with the same motion capture technology used for Avatar, but whatever. The thing is no real actors I can think of could completely capture the characters in Herges world or bring his surreal world to life. The difference between this and Zemeckis' movies is that Zemeckis does this impossible CGI camera work and crap that takes you out of the movie, not to mention nothing he does is tailor made for CGI. Also he never does anything good with it anyway.

Aren't all the (or nearly all) comics made into cartoons already? Sorry but this thing smells like those guys are just trying to cash in with someone else's creation...

Spielberg has been trying to make a live-action Tintin movie since around the time of making the Last Crusade and even got Herge's blessing. Herge even said he considered Spielberg the only man who could do Tintin justice. They never met in person though because Herge died not long before they were scheduled to meet on a film and then it went into production hell. Then Spielberg decided to try again and then asked Jackson and WETA if they would do a CGI Snowy for the live-action film, but Jackson told him live action wouldn't do justice to Herge or the comics, so they got together and decided to do photo-realistic motion-capture. There, now you know how wrong you were.

I fear the visual style may have slipped into the uncanny valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) for me. :(

I loved the television cartoons though. So much so that I'll probably still go see this.
No way to tell about that until we see a trailer BUT this film was shot traditionally as far as the motion capture with traditional camera work, so I honestly doubt you'll be seeing anything remotely close to Zemeckis style directing with this. The picture of Haddock, for instance, looks more and more real each time I look at it.

Also-

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45762.jpg

How can you look at this image while listening to John Williams famous themes and not imagine something beautiful. Yes, John Williams is scoring this movie. So yes, motion capture has had a bad run with Zemeckis but with Spielberg and Jackson and even EDGAR WRIGHT on the team I'm willing to give it a chance.

[tobar]

Awesome! I've been waiting for this for forever!

[Trenchfoot]

How can you look at this image while listening to John Williams famous themes and not imagine something beautiful. Yes, John Williams is scoring this movie. So yes, motion capture has had a bad run with Zemeckis but with Spielberg and Jackson and even EDGAR WRIGHT on the team I'm willing to give it a chance.

I agree. That's a classic Spielberg shot right there. It takes us back to his Jaws-days.

And about the score, I'm excited as hell! According to what I know, the score is completed practically, but they'll do some extra sessions in the future if there any significant cuts to the picture.
Also, Conrad Pope (Williams' orchestrator) has said Tintin's theme is amazing and it's destined to become a classic! :D

[taumel]

I never bought any soundtrack from Williams. Jaws was great and Star Wars, well, it was Star Wars but i think there exists more interesting film music which a.o. is less overburdened and where the composition is more interesting.

Actually this is the best of the three screens, a.o. because it doesn't show the characters from the front. I don't like the style WETA produces, same with DreamWorks. On the other side i like Pixar's work.

[Secret Fawful]

Okay let's examine the uncanny valley effect here and the CGI realism compared to other movies.

Tintin-

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45762.jpg
http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45763.jpg

Very realistic, especially the lighting. The textures are very well done, especially on clothing. No major uncanny valley effect present as the facial expressions and eyes are very real. The only thing keeping characters from looking like real actors is the surreal cartoonish style. The skeletal structure makes sense.

Avatar-
http://www.daveonfilm.com/pics/avatar-still-4.png
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/news/00029999.jpg

Just about the same amount of realism as Tintin. No uncanny valley effect; the characters look like real actors.

Lord of the Rings-

http://alicia-logic.com/capsimages/LOTR_Two153Gollum.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_N28EnuM55gM/SrpRPyZ3HoI/AAAAAAAAAMA/Xj3cr1zMmH8/s400/9-23-09+The+Lord+of+the+Rings+-+The+Two+Towers+GOLLUM.jpg

No uncanny valley effect, the skin is smooth but that makes sense for the character, the hair is realistic and so is the skeletal structure. Slightly less realistic than Tintin.

Pirates at the Caribbean-

http://lancemannion.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/04/pirates_davy_jones.jpg
No uncanny valley effect (betcha didn't know Davy Jones and his crew were motion capture and not actors wearing makeup huh!) Perfect textures and perfect lighting.

A Christmas Carol-
http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/christmas_carol_still1.jpg
The eyes look like plastic, the face looks like plastic, the only realism comes from his wrinkles, he has no pores for being elderly, the hair texture looks fake, the cloth texture looks too smooth, and the facial expression is slightly impossible. Trust me, I tried it myself and it's painful and it makes my nose twitch. Looks NOTHING like Tintin.

The Polar Express-
http://www.grouchoreviews.com/content/films/2080/1.jpg
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:gUA_vZsI-9jfLM:http://www.the-trades.com/hprice/DVD/PolarExpressStill.jpg&t=1

It looks like a Playstation 2 game! No a Playstation game. It looks terrible. Syberia had better CGI.

[Elvenmonk]

C'mon Polar Express is from 2004, no need to be so harsh on it.

[Origami]

^
I think he took the 'has similair style as Polar Express' remark as 'it looks of the same CG level of quality as Polar Express'

[Secret Fawful]

I did. It's not "The Polar Express style". The Polar Express doesn't have a style. It would if it could hold up for more than four years but by then it's CGI was already crappy and outdated if not sooner. Avatar has been out since 2009 and looks great (even though I don't care for the movie much itself), and King Kong has been out since 2005 (only a year before King Kong!)and still looks (mostly) great. The first Pirates movie came out in 2003 and the second came out in 2006 and they both still look great as well. Polar Express couldn't survive even as long as one of them.

http://www.dvdexchange-online.co.uk/DVD_Film_News/2005/King_Kong/KING_KONG.jpg
http://www.grouchoreviews.com/content/films/2080/1.jpg

Wow. That's a big difference for only being a year apart.

[Elvenmonk]

There's also massive differences for a year apart in technology. But, also kids movie with a budget VS a big block buster motion picture? Totally going to look just as good.

[taumel]

The Pirates of the Caribbean screen looks convincing to me.

[Origami]

The Polar Express doesn't have a style.

I disagree. I think Polar Express aimed for a less photo-realistic look opposed to King Kong.
So you can't really compare them.

Just like TinTin does now. It could've looked much more realistic, but no they went for a more comical look which is great imho.

[Secret Fawful]

I disagree. I think Polar Express aimed for a less photo-realistic look opposed to King Kong.
So you can't really compare them.

Well okay you're right. I was wrong it does have a style.

Playstation 2 CGI style.

[Katsuro]

The thing is no real actors I can think of could completely capture the characters in Herges world or bring his surreal world to life.

Aww :(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM3aL5qdHqk
I actually liked those...

[Secret Fawful]

I meant actors nowadays, although my knowledge of non-British foreign actors is low. That film is from 1964, and even though I haven't seen it, it does look well cast! I opened the clip expecting to roll my eyes but I can't.

I have to eat my words. I was so sure no matter what Herge's characters couldn't be brought to live action without losing his style, but that is just. Wow. The comedic timing and cartoon slapstick is even intact!

Man I didn't want to post so much in this topic.

[taumel]

If you've only read the comics and are also interested in the backgrounds then i only can repeat myself and recommend watching the documentary from arte about five of his comics, it's very well done and very interesting. You'll see the comics in a different light afterwards.

[S@bre]

and even EDGAR WRIGHT on the team I'm willing to give it a chance.

Does this make this the third and final part of Pegg and Wright's Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy?

[Secret Fawful]

Nope, Write is the wrighter, er, I mean the wrighter is Write....damn it.

[Avistew]

I hope they'll use the same voices as the cartoon. I just can't imagine Haddock with a different voice.

I'm excited about the movie, because it's a Tintin movie. I don't really care what it looks like, I don't find it repulsive or amazing, I'm more curious about what the story's going to be.

[taumel]

Well, at least the boat scene is from The crab with the golden claws where he also meats Haddock for the first time. I loved Destination Moon. Btw a TinTin adventure, also in the comic look, would have been great.

http://spielwiese.marune.de/_tmp/tus.jpg

[Avistew]

Oh my, you're right, they're making The Crab with Golden Claws :D
Haddock's my favourite, so I'm definitely 100% for it being the story he first appears in.
Of course, they could also be making it an amalgam of several of the stories, which would be fine too.
For some reason I thought the movie was going to be an original story.

[Secret Fawful]

It's going to be an amalgam of The Crab With the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn, and Red Rackham's Treasure.

The official movie title IS The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.

[Giant Tope]

I'm still sticking by my thoughts on how this looks super ugly. I'm not a huge tintin fan, but something this decorated with esteem has to be given proper treatment. Why don't they actually celebrate the fact that it's one of the world's most beloved comics and use a style resembling and celebrating the original material? Something actually charming?

[taumel]

Because people like taking things to the next level and ruining them whilst doing so.

[Trenchfoot]

What happened, board? You used to be cool...

[Giant Tope]

What's the matter?

[taumel]

@Avistew&Secret Fawful
I wasn't aware that you can use the term amalgam beside of dental torture.

[doggans]

My gut reaction is that I think I would have preferred it if they just tried to look like the style of the comics, and not bothered with any realism. But it might grow on me.

I'm just happy we're getting Tintin movies at all.

[taumel]

A few of them are on youtube (french):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrUN4JeBFC0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opFwXDtZNLw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE9rqDxQUCI&feature=related
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIE5lvXA_sk)

[Hero1]

love it!

[Secret Fawful]

I'm still sticking by my thoughts on how this looks super ugly. I'm not a huge tintin fan, but something this decorated with esteem has to be given proper treatment. Why don't they actually celebrate the fact that it's one of the world's most beloved comics and use a style resembling and celebrating the original material? Something actually charming?

Care to provide some reasoning so I can prove how wrong you are? Watch the Animated Series if you don't like it.

[Giant Tope]

Oh thank god I'm not alone. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/first-stills-from-tintin.html#more-30352)

[Secret Fawful]

Oh thank god I'm not alone. (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/first-stills-from-tintin.html#more-30352)

I give up. You're right and they're right. It sucks. I won't watch it. Tintin is ruined for me. I can never watch the animated series or read the books again from how ruined it is. I can't enjoy the movie now. Spielberg is a hack. Jackson is a hack. Herge was a hack. Wright is a hack. WETA is a disappointment. And all that is proven from two stills. Why should I give a damn about Tintin anymore; it's been ruined forever and it can never be repaired. I'll never watch another Spielberg, Jackson, or Wright film because I won't ever support those Tintin-ruining buttheads ever again. Because of those stills. I'm going to go drown my sorrows in a mixture of oxycodone and heavy alcohol.

[DoctorCello]

Ladies and gents, tell me. Which looks more appealing, this:

http://media.curse.com/Curse.Projects.ProjectImages/19462/15349/mario.jpg

or this:

http://hight3ch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/real_mario.jpg

EDIT: Geez, SecretFawful, lighten up.

EDIT2: And while I personally believe the models to look, well... less-than-stellar, I think I'll reserve judgment until I actually see it in motion. A good animator can save a mediocre model, but a good modeler can't save bad animation.

EDIT3: And yes, I know this is motion capture. You still need animators for motion capture, though.

[Rather Dashing]

The comparison makes it obvious how this is a terrible idea. The shadow that THEY provide, along with the original shadow they are mimicking, show how disparate the silhouettes of these characters are. Cartooning requires a strong, recognizable sillouette. To deny that sillouette is to deny the design identity of the character, and in that way they basically lose any advantage an animated film would have.

Doing a film with motion capture CGI is an attempt to capture the benefits of CGI and the benefits of animation, but the problem is that(in practice) it just brings the weaknesses of both to light.

There's a reason this (http://imgur.com/G74aq.jpg) is ridiculous and should not be the basis of a major motion picture.

[Giant Tope]

I give up. You're right and they're right. It sucks. I won't watch it. Tintin is ruined for me. I can never watch the animated series or read the books again from how ruined it is. I can't enjoy the movie now. Spielberg is a hack. Jackson is a hack. Herge was a hack. Wright is a hack. WETA is a disappointment. And all that is proven from two stills. Why should I give a damn about Tintin anymore; it's been ruined forever and it can never be repaired. I'll never watch another Spielberg, Jackson, or Wright film because I won't ever support those Tintin-ruining buttheads ever again. Because of those stills. I'm going to go drown my sorrows in a mixture of oxycodone and heavy alcohol.

oh yup you sure got me.


Look, ugly is ugly and appealing is appealing. I don't give a damn who makes it, as long as it's appealing. Right now they look like lifeless zombies, which is quite frankly insulting to the original source material.

[Secret Fawful]

EDIT: Geez, SecretFawful, light one up.

http://www.testriffic.com/resultfiles/4866483Spongebob_smoking_Weed.jpg

Since you missed the joke, I'll let you know there is one truthful part of my above post It's the part where I gave up. I'll let you figure out which one it is. Needless to say, I'm done with this argument and I just don't care to continue defending two pictures. It's a waste of my time. It's been a waste of my time since I started and it's just destroying the topic.

Needless to say, when Tintin comes out all of the naysayers will eat crow. They'll go cry in a corner and shoot their heads off. And I'll laugh. Laugh in the theater when the names Spielberg and Jackson appear followed by The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn.

Me on December 28 of 2011:
http://www.ibiblio.org/samneill/pictures/imom/464movie4.jpg

[Giant Tope]

what the fuck

[taumel]

Normally Secret Fawful shows taste and style. Whilst i think the boat is looking good, especially the Haddock screen is yelling that it's just awful and wrong. It also might help considering what Hergé's ligne claire stands for.

The way this is screwed up in the stills reminded me of the link once provided on grumpy gamer about the american Akira version.

[jp-30]

Hey look, fanboys moaning on the internet.

Who'd've thought...

[Rather Dashing]

Hey look, a mod totally belittling other community members for actually having opinions.

Who'dve thought...

[jp-30]

Opinions based on 2 pre-release stills and a mocked up cover shot. :rolleyes:

And is stating a fact 'belittling' now? Or is this thread not actually filled with moaning after all?

[Giant Tope]

I think I've read a total of like

2 pages of tintin?

I'm just sayin' it's ugly.

[Rather Dashing]

Opinions based on 2 pre-release stills and a mocked up cover shot. :rolleyes:

And is stating a fact 'belittling' now? Or is this thread not actually filled with moaning after all?
Generally speaking, pre-release stills are supposed to represent the final product. Otherwise, they'd either mention that it was a work-in-progress or, more likely(for a major Hollywood production) not release it. If you're saying that it's likely that the entire look of the feature is going to drastically change between these two images, I think you're hopes are a bit too high. And I doubt the "cover shot" is any more "mocked up" than the rest of the film. If it is, then we're in trouble, because the "mock-up" shouldn't feature all of the weaknesses of mocap and really should have gone for a more similar posture and look compared to the source image. More than that, since people have been perfectly allowed to say how excited they are and how incredible these shots are without any objection whatsoever, I highly doubt your objection comes from forming an opinion without basis. That I think I can fairly safely assume is more of an excuse, formed afterwards, after seeing a viewpoint and attitude that didn't distinctly match your own.

And yes, I would call your post belittling.
Hey look, fanboys moaning on the internet.

Who'd've thought...
If the use of the word "moaning" didn't imply it enough, the use of "fanboys" was meant as derogatory to a set of people with a certain viewpoint. "On the internet" is meant to imply a lack of importance. "Whod've thought" is meant to make you sound like you're inherently right and better than the rest of everybody else somehow.

It's the epitome of the internet dick post. It contributes no content to the conversation, and instead goes for the low blow of "it's on the internet so it doesn't matter"/"it's by 'fanboys' so I can ignore it and not face it directly"/"I'm better than most people on the internet"/"It's moaning because I don't like it"

It is literally one of the worst kinds of posts a forum user can make. If you think that "on the internet" has no value, then don't post here. Some of us do so recreationally, though, and we don't find the idea that it's "on the internet" to be any reason to stop discussing. Some of us have different opinions than other posters. Some people want to be able to say what they think about a thing without that being considered invalid and stupid because other people think something different. And last I checked, we are all fanboys because we are posting on a niche video game company's official forums. A niche company in a niche genre. Seriously, if you want to go with the argument "Haha, it doesn't matter because nerds said it", maybe you should actually look at where you are saying it and why you are actually there.

Essentially, a mod shouldn't make posts like this. You should be a better example than this. And you're not being one.

[apenpaap]

I think it looks pretty good. I hope Professor Calculus is in it too.

[taumel]

@jp-30
Whilst i think that it's completely fine stating your opinion (likes and dislikes), contrary to you some of us actually were stating opinions more based on facts. If you have some understanding of the relevance of Hergé's work then it might be more obvious.

Anyway, i guess we all have our chauvinistic moments, even a niche mod. :O)

[Avistew]

I think it looks pretty good. I hope Professor Calculus is in it too.

If the movie does include Secret of the Unicorn/Rackam's Treasure, it would be hard for it not to have Calculus in it.

Anyway, i guess we all have our chauvinistic moments, even a niche mod. :O)

Define "chauvinistic"? I've heard it as meaning "jingoistic" and I've heard it as meaning "sexist" but you seem to be using it in a third way here?

[JedExodus]

It looks dead-on. I'm yet to see it in motion so i'm not gonna judge yet.

I wonder if it'll retain that "We just didn't know better at the time" brand of racism that sort of comes across as charming.

*waits to be called a bigot*

[taumel]

@Avistew
Chauvinism is also known as the belief in the superiority of the own group.

[Avistew]

@Avistew
Chauvinism is also known as the belief in the superiority of the own group.

That would explain why it could develop such different connotations depending on who's using it.

[doggans]

If the use of the word "moaning" didn't imply it enough, the use of "fanboys" was meant as derogatory to a set of people with a certain viewpoint.

I don't know, I think we're well past the stage where "fanboys" has an inherently negative connotation. I'm not saying there aren't people who still use it as an attack, but more often than not I see it used as a neutral label.

Yes, the post was dismissive, but I'm sure jp didn't mean it nearly as harshly as you took it. After all, if you can't be sarcastic on the internet, where can you be sarcastic? :P

[jp-30]

^
This.

[Fealiks]

I agree with Dashing about the phrase "on the internet". I made a post about it a few years back on another forum. It just makes you seem like a huge snob. I especially don't like it when people use that phrase as a sort of defence while arguing (e.g., "oh no, somebody's calling me wrong on the internet, what will I do :rolleyes:").

That being said, I also agree with doggans; I doubt JP was being aggressive at all.

If the movie does include Secret of the Unicorn/Rackam's Treasure, it would be hard for it not to have Calculus in it.



Define "chauvinistic"? I've heard it as meaning "jingoistic" and I've heard it as meaning "sexist" but you seem to be using it in a third way here?

Chauvinism is sort of like patriotism, but not necessarily to do with your nation. It's just where you believe you're better than others because of a factor which is beyond your control and which doesn't necessarily have any inherent value on its own.

Also, if you're using Google Chrome, I strongly recommend getting the "google dictionary" extension, it brings up a definition of any word when you double click said word. It's great :D

[Giant Tope]

ok i think this is the point. i personally dont give two shits, but im gonna go for it anyways because it was brought up.

I think the main problem is mod status. If it were anyone else, it would have been all "oh it's just some other dude dicking around" but as a mod you're representing the authority of an entire community and that sort of statement is akin to saying "Stop arguing about who's better. It's just a cartoon dog and rabbit." or even "This thread is stupid."

What makes this community better than others is the fact that mods aren't dicks all the time in public. Preferably mods should be genuinely nice and not dicks even while not in public, but that's a bit unreasonable to ask/check for in a semi-anonymous environment. At the very least don't be a dick in public and ill give the benefit of the doubt and think you're nice in person.

Should you enjoy yourself as a commentator? Yeah sure, but there's a point where comments get out of hand, being a mod, and I think this is one of those times. Because even if you were just being sarcastic, it comes off as insulting everyone in the thread and going "DEAL WITH IT".

[jp-30]

I'm sorry if you and others took personal offence to a spur-of-the-moment fairly innocuous blanket generalisation and frustration vent.

It's not something I do on a regular basis (that may be the first time since becoming a mod I've said something so flippant).

I'll be more careful in future, I promise.



Edit: Actually, before someone calls me on it, I have indeed said "this thread is stupid". But, you know, it really was.

[Shen-Zhi]

From the upcoming Spielberg-Jackson film...

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45763.jpg

Looks great to me! :D

back to topic.

yeah i think haddock looks very convincing. but where's the loch lomond bottle in the picture??

oh! right there in the left! must be. it's empty.

[Udvarnoky]

I never understood what made mo-cap hate so hip. As someone who grew up with the book, I thought The Polar Express looked and was excellent, and I think time will treat it way better than forum bellyachers have. "The kids looked creepy!" Yeah, you know what else looked creepy? Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott award-winning illustrations, which the film does a brilliant job of bringing to life. Really don't get the internet version of this movie's public perception, which I find oddly in contrast with its "real life" counterpart in my experience.

I think fans of Tintin would agree that a hand-drawn 2D animated film would have been the ideal approach. I also think that fans of Tintin are a generally intelligent bunch, and wouldn't need much help in recognizing that the prospect is a completely unrealistic one. (See also: the Bone movie.) Is the dogpile on these initial stills just bitterness about that reality, or is it really and truly an objective critique of what Spielberg and Jackson's team have conjured here?

[Rather Dashing]

I think fans of Tintin would agree that a hand-drawn 2D animated film would have been the ideal approach. I also think that fans of Tintin are a generally intelligent bunch, and wouldn't need much help in recognizing that the prospect is a completely unrealistic one. (See also: the Bone movie.) Is the dogpile on these initial stills just bitterness about that reality, or is it really and truly an objective critique of what Spielberg and Jackson's team have conjured here?
It's a critique of this approach in general, that is, it has at most almost no benefits compared to just doing a straight-up live-action film. Generally, doing things that make a live action film look WORSE tend to be done for cost or technology reasons, or incompetence. Considering the names involved, the project should be handled better than this in terms of the broad strokes, and even from these early stills it is obvious that the approach is one that brings nothing of value to the table.

[Elvenmonk]

I never understood what made mo-cap hate so hip.
From what I've gathered most people dislike mocap due to the fact you lose some facial realisim, while gaining full body realism. It was like how Silent Hill 2 the team refused mocap and made some of the most realistic facial expressions for games. While 3 used mocap and had realistic body, but lost the facial.

[jp-30]

Considering the names involved, the project should be handled better than this in terms of the broad strokes, and even from these early stills it is obvious that the approach is one that brings nothing of value to the table.

Given Weta / Jackson / Serkis' work on Lord of the Rings and King Kong, I have the utmost faith in their utilization of motion capture.

I think it's pretty bold to criticise motion-capture so vehemently in a movie where you've seen absolutely no motion as yet.

[Giant Tope]

From what I've gathered most people dislike mocap due to the fact you lose some facial realisim, while gaining full body realism. It was like how Silent Hill 2 the team refused mocap and made some of the most realistic facial expressions for games. While 3 used mocap and had realistic body, but lost the facial.

fun facts, they didn't mocap the faces.

I think it's pretty bold to criticise motion-capture so vehemently in a movie where you've seen absolutely no motion as yet.
If they pull a Gollum where they take the mo cap and further exaggerate it, that would be cool. But that doesn't save the modeling. I have no idea what they were thinking with that.

[Elvenmonk]

fun facts, they didn't mocap the faces.

Then I dunno what was up with 3. I just remember with 2 they refused to mocap. I know this because my fiance loves this fact and wants to try mocap at first but eventually never use mocap again. SH2 is her inspiration.

[Udvarnoky]

It's a critique of this approach in general, that is, it has at most almost no benefits compared to just doing a straight-up live-action film.

I'm sure the pesky "almost" you threw in there has a smidgen to do with the handful of extra coconuts it might have cost to do a live action Tintin film of comparable scope. You know, the kind of marginal discrepancy in budget dollars that makes the difference between a studio greenlighting a project at all or not.

Also, depicting a North Pole bound locomotive barreling across a frozen lake of ice is very definitely something that could have been done with live action and some complementary CGI with the exact same (or better!) effect for the exact same (or less!) cost. I make these assertions based on years of relevant experience and just plain inherent film production enlightenment that I'd prefer not to be questioned about.

[DoctorCello]

I never understood what made mo-cap hate so hip. As someone who grew up with the book, I thought The Polar Express looked and was excellent, and I think time will treat it way better than forum bellyachers have. "The kids looked creepy!" Yeah, you know what else looked creepy? Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott award-winning illustrations, which the film does a brilliant job of bringing to life. Really don't get the internet version of this movie's public perception, which I find oddly in contrast with its "real life" counterpart in my experience.

The reason why mo-cap gets a lot of hate is that some filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis think it's an excellent shortcut to believable animated performances, when, uh, it's really not. Unless the animators are skilled enough to tweak it and exaggerate the poses, it's going to look real stiff. This is WETA, so I imagine the animation will at least be decent, but at the same time... why not just animate it from scratch? It's really not that much harder or easier.

That being said, my issue has nothing to do with motion-capture: it's the way everything's being rendered. Less is more when it comes to texturing - there is no need at all for EVERY SINGLE PORE ON CAPTAIN HADDOCK'S FACE to be visible.

[Udvarnoky]

The reason why mo-cap gets a lot of hate is that some filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis think it's an excellent shortcut to believable animated performances, when, uh, it's really not.

I'd be very interested in seeing that quote. Until I do, I'm forced to stick with my far-fetched assumption that he felt the visual style achieved via motion capture was the best way to realize Van Allsburg's illustrations.

[Giant Tope]

Considering he's making more movies in that way, it shows that it wasn't just for Polar Express.

[DoctorCello]

I'm sure the pesky "almost" you threw in there has a smidgen to do with the handful of extra coconuts it might have cost to do a live action Tintin film of comparable scope. You know, the kind of marginal discrepancy in budget dollars that makes the difference between a studio greenlighting a project at all or not.

Also, depicting a North Pole bound locomotive barreling across a frozen lake of ice is very definitely something that could have been done with live action and some complementary CGI with the exact same (or better!) effect for the exact same (or less!) cost. I make these assertions based on years of relevant experience and just plain inherent film production enlightenment that I'd prefer not to be questioned about.

Motion capture is definitely not cheaper than live-action. You're paying not only for the actor's performance, but for all the animators and technical people too.

I'd be very interested in seeing that quote. Until I do, I'm forced to stick with my far-fetched assumption that he felt the visual style achieved via motion capture was the best way to realize Van Allsburg's illustrations.

Okay, just take a look at this (http://wardomatic.blogspot.com/2004/12/polar-express-virtual-train-wreck_18.html). The problem isn't necessarily motion capture, as you don't need motion capture to animate super realistic models.

EDIT: By the way, how come no one has responded to my Mario comparison? :(

[Elvenmonk]

For mario I prefer the first picture.

[doggans]

Motion capture is definitely not cheaper than live-action. You're paying not only for the actor's performance, but for all the animators and technical people too.

But you're NOT paying to fly the cast and crew to exotic locations, or to build elaborate physical sets. Depending on the settings required in the story (and keep in mind, Tintin stories have some of the most exotic locales in comics), motion capture can be cheaper than live action.

Now, it might be even cheaper still to shoot live actors in front of green screens. But that has its own set of difficulties.

[DoctorCello]

But you're NOT paying to fly the cast and crew to exotic locations, or to build elaborate physical sets. Depending on the settings required in the story (and keep in mind, Tintin stories have some of the most exotic locales in comics), motion capture can be cheaper than live action.

Now, it might be even cheaper still to shoot live actors in front of green screens. But that has its own set of difficulties.

Motion capture has nothing to do with the sets. Nothing. At all. You can have motion capture on real sets, you can have CGI sets with live actors. All motion capture does is, well, capture motion.

And no reaction about the link I posted? I thought it was pretty informative.

[henkebjorklund]

I was a huge fan of Tintin when I was very young and I think this looks promising. Tintin is a perfect comic for a project like this since it has a distinct style while still being fairly realistic looking (in comparison to Simpsons, in respons to "Rather Dashings" link).

[taumel]

Most comics aren't about realism at all, they are about a certain style and appeal, so a realistic look and movements in a comic film also aren't the ideal.

Motion capturing can be used if it's well done and wisely post processed but i simply expect comic like movements in a comic like world and therefore The Incredibles easily beats The Polar Express in every aspect.

Not that i want to tell these guys what to do but Jackson never did something really tasteful and Spielberg, who doesn't seem to be involved a lot, should better make good movies again instead of giving weird performances on game conferences, if he's still doing that.

[jp-30]

Heavenly Creatures was tasteful. Mostly.

[doggans]

Motion capture has nothing to do with the sets. Nothing. At all.

I wasn't referring to the motion capture process itself, I was referring to "motion capture movies" as a whole--IE, a CGI movie that captures performance with motion capture. Sorry, I should have been clearer.

What I was trying to indicate is that CGI can be cheaper than live action, and using a motion capture base can be cheaper than animating from scratch. Now, to look really good it still requires animators to enhance the performance, but that can be a lot easier than starting from scratch.

you can have CGI sets with live actors.

Yes, I addressed that. You CAN shoot the entire movie with actors on greenscreens, and that might be even cheaper (depending on how much you pay your compositors). But some directors don't like the way human actors look against fake sets. To them, a motion-captured mannequin at least looks like it belongs with its background. It may not look good, but at least it looks consistent. :P

[henkebjorklund]

Most comics aren't about realism at all, they are about a certain style and appeal, so a realistic look and movements in a comic film also aren't the ideal.

Motion capturing can be used if it's well done and wisely post processed but i simply expect comic like movements in a comic like world and therefore The Incredibles easily beats The Polar Express in every aspect.

Not that i want to tell these guys what to do but Jackson never did something really tasteful and Spielberg, who doesn't seem to be involved a lot, should better make good movies again instead of giving weird performances on game conferences, if he's still doing that.

Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.

Jackson is my idol, I love every movie he has ever made from Bad Taste to The Lovely Bones. Spielbergs work varies IMO, everything from extremely good to totally uninteresting. I'm excited to see what they will do with Hergés characters.

[Laserschwert]

What I was trying to indicate is that CGI can be cheaper than live action, and using a motion capture base can be cheaper than animating from scratch. Now, to look really good it still requires animators to enhance the performance, but that can be a lot easier than starting from scratch.
Don't forget though that it's a LOT easier (thus cheaper) to shoot real locations, than to create real looking locations digitally... not to mention natural effects like water (if we take that screenshot as an example) which "creates itself" when shooting it for real, while digital water still requires a lot of work. I think that pretty much evens out the costs between an animated-movie (even when mocapped) and a live action film.

[Rather Dashing]

Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.
http://imgur.com/q3qS6.jpg

http://imgur.com/SEE6u.jpg

[doggans]

Don't forget though that it's a LOT easier (thus cheaper) to shoot real locations, than to create real looking locations digitally...

Yes, if you have access to said locations. I still say if you're using the variety of exotic locales usually seen in a Tintin story, cast and crew transportation can be pricey, and physical set building is still more expensive than digital set building.

But, you're right, the overall budget is probably about even either way.

[Avistew]

Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.

Really? Seriously? If we're talking about style, Tintin seems to me much less realistic than, say, Thorgal (to take another Belgian comic example) or for the US, most Superhero comics.

[henkebjorklund]

Really? Seriously? If we're talking about style, Tintin seems to me much less realistic than, say, Thorgal (to take another Belgian comic example) or for the US, most Superhero comics.

That's my point, it's stylistic enough to motivate the point in making an animated movie instead of a live action one (a comic like Thorgal is more suited for the later) but it still resembles the real world close enough to strive for photo realism (something that for example The Simpsons do not).

[Giant Tope]

...How could you come to the conclusion of photo realism from this?

http://imgur.com/q3qS6.jpg

[Avistew]

I see, you mean it's enough in the middle to have a "in the middle treatment".

Well after reading the reasoning behind the way it's done, I have to say I dislike it. I'm sure I'll enjoy the movie either way, but they're basically not getting either the advantage of it being completely animated (keeping what's exaggerated and impossible in real life, posture-wise mostly) or of live action (not looking weird and kind of creepy) and on top of that, looks like it's also costing them more to paste CGI over real people (okay, that's not how it works, but sounds like a good enough way to phrase it to me), when I don't see what it ads and I can see what it takes away.

[henkebjorklund]

...How could you come to the conclusion of photo realism from this?

http://imgur.com/q3qS6.jpg

I can't say I follow your reasoning here. After all Hergé more or less created the style ligne claire (clear line) which among other things is a mix between realistic and exaggerated features.

[Origami]

I think if the CGI went for photo-realism it would've lost it's magic. Just like doing a live-action. If they went for photo-realism, you know how lame TinTin's hair would look like.
Not at all characteristic as in the comic books.

[taumel]

Some comics look more realistic than others. I would definitely place Tintin in the first category.

Jackson is my idol, I love every movie he has ever made from Bad Taste to The Lovely Bones. Spielbergs work varies IMO, everything from extremely good to totally uninteresting. I'm excited to see what they will do with Hergés characters.
I have many comics which look a lot more realistic than Tintin. What Tintin a.o. stands for are the clear lines, no hatching, decent cautious choosen colours, a certain style, simplicity and abstraction. Contrary to the simple drawn characters, the backgrounds often get a lot more detail but still following the rules mentioned before. I don't see this style, he is also famous for inventing, beeing preserved in the stills in some way. Instead i see a rather ugly new look.

The realistic movie they did many years ago looked more convincing. It kind of reminds me of when kids are enjoying music without knowing the original version(s) anymore which often sounds even better or without knowing the background to the music.

As for Jackson, in my opinion there are tons of other directors who made way much better films than him. Without the TLOTR trilogy, which also wasn't top notch, nobody would know him and there is a good reason for that. As for Spielberg i agree he made the whole range from great to boring movies.

[Secret Fawful]

As for Jackson, in my opinion there are tons of other directors who made way much better films than him. Without the TLOTR trilogy, which also wasn't top notch, nobody would know him and there is a good reason for that. As for Spielberg i agree he made the whole range from great to boring movies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htHZ8BuTr4U&feature=related

A. Everyone knows Braindead. If they don't they're Braindead.
B. King Kong was a great remake. Oh sure you could pick on that opinion by saying "oh all he has besides Braindead and LOTR is a remake wooo" Well then you would be an idiot who would be saying as much as "oh all Christopher Nolan has is the Batman films and Inception and outside of that he'd be a nobody." When does picking apart the list of movies someone directed make them sound like a bad director? Look at Spielberg. The man has over 40 movies under his belt. So I'd like to see you sit here and pick apart his list. You could, but you would be wasting your time because all you would be proving is that you don't like his movies.
C. You're picking on a director who doesn't have a lot of movie titles by using a common tactic of picking out his most famous movies and saying "so without these well durr he's a hack durrp". I'm sorry but what point does that make? In an alternate reality where these movies weren't made Jackson sucks? He still has one of the greatest horror movies of all time. Or were you trying to say LOTR made Jackson? Yes, I agree it made him, but it wouldn't have if they were bad movies or badly made. I would like to hear your reasoning about why they aren't top notch though. I really would. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8pWjiFxXkg&feature=related)
D. I left this topic because I didn't want to fill it with argumentative discussion but I changed my mind when I saw this post. The next person who complains about my lack of taste and style gets a picture of a hairy ass sent to them in a PM. I'm not here to be genteel I'm here to discuss what I want to discuss how I want to discuss it.

[taumel]

As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.

As for Spielberg well he made good and bad ones. As you don't want a list i luckily can spare myself the time... :O)

In my opinion the work of some directors is generally adoreable whilst others disarm you with one film already. There exist many examples but for instance Werner Herzog's films are mostly interesting to me (Aguirre, Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man, Rescue Dawn, ...), then Mike Nichols blew me away only with The Graduate. Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.

I also prefer if people speak up what they're thinking if it comes from the heart and has something to do with the topic. I also don't mind if insults are flying around then as well. That's normal and is part of healthy heated discussion. I welcome this ten times more than the pseudo police consisting of some half grown ups playing better people in the virutal reality.

So go ahead! :O)

[Epic Kiwi]

Wow, those characters look hideous. I think I'd rather just rewatch the cartoons.

[Rather Dashing]

As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.
I felt more or less the same. I walked out of the theater thinking "Huh. That was cute." It wasn't exactly intellectually INSULTING, but it wasn't really stimulating either. It was okay. Less a sci-fi film and more a heist film with a sci-fi twist, though.

Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.
So you've not seen any of his pre-Lord of the Rings stuff?

[taumel]

I've seen Braindead and i didn't like it and i'm sure most people don't know the movie as well. If you want to decrease the percentage even further, ask femals.

[Secret Fawful]

As for Nolan, i liked Insomnia, Memento and The Dark Knight. Inception, whilst beeing based on a nice idea - i won't count the number of sf-books and short stories dealing with similar ideas aready -, sadly wasn't very well done.

As for Spielberg well he made good and bad ones. As you don't want a list i luckily can spare myself the time... :O)

In my opinion the work of some directors is generally adoreable whilst others disarm you with one film already. There exist many examples but for instance Werner Herzog's films are mostly interesting to me (Aguirre, Nosferatu, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzly Man, Rescue Dawn, ...), then Mike Nichols blew me away only with The Graduate. Then there are others who are making films which are simple annoying/boring/tasteless/... Peter Jackson's work has this relevance to me. I don't like his films, i don't like the style or the CGIs in his films. Maybe a Fincher Tintin would have been great but not Jackson, and looking at the screens history will repeat itself.

I also prefer if people speak up what they're thinking if it comes from the heart and has something to do with the topic. I also don't mind if insults are flying around then as well. That's normal and is part of healthy heated discussion. I welcome this ten times more than the pseudo police consisting of some half grown ups playing better people in the virutal reality.

So go ahead! :O)

Well...damn. I'm all ready to tear your reply apart and you go and throw a ringer like that at me.

Secret Fawful disappointed.

[taumel]

Hey come on, i hope we're still friends, you like it, i don't, that's okay for me. :O)

[Secret Fawful]

Hey come on, i hope we're still friends, you like it, i don't, that's okay for me. :O)

No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch. :p Nah just kidding we're cool. I've never come out of an argument hating anyone, except Comrade Pants who is a filthy bastard who makes me rue the day he was born, and I don't REALLY question someones intelligence as much as I question what they're saying, except for Comrade Pants who frequently spouts gibberish in another language. "Bourgeois", what kind of gibbering is that?

Oh, to keep this post on topic, I think this topic should be renamed to 'Kuifje revealed'.

[Avistew]

I thought Tintin was originally in French, and that the Flemish version was a translation. Was I wrong?

[Secret Fawful]

Yeah I think so but I just like the name Kuifje because it refers to his hair.

[Comrade Pants]

No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch. :p Nah just kidding we're cool. I've never come out of an argument hating anyone, except Comrade Pants who is a filthy bastard who makes me rue the day he was born, and I don't REALLY question someones intelligence as much as I question what they're saying, except for Comrade Pants who frequently spouts gibberish in another language. "Bourgeois", what kind of gibbering is that?

You know, if you had just said my name once I could have been summoned to the material realm! Oh well, you *did* summon me to this thread at least.

[Secret Fawful]

You know, if you had just said my name once I could have been summoned to the material realm! Oh well, you *did* summon me to this thread at least.

http://i54.tinypic.com/suydmu.png

Politician! Bashi-bazouk! Pockmark! Carpet-seller! Vegetarian! Buccaneer! Blackamoor! Harlequin! Hydrocarbon! Aborigine! Polynesian! Gyroscope! Anthracite! Coconut! Fuzzy-wuzzy! Cannibal! Anthropithecus! Blackbird! Kidnapper! Marauder! Bandit! Brute! Billygoat! Anacoluthon! Invertebrate! Liquourice! Vampire! Swine! Gangster! Toffee nose! Jellyfish! Savage! Aztec! Inca! Toad! Iconoclast! Vigilante! Sorcerer!

[apenpaap]

I wonder who will do captain Haddock's voice. I think Roger Jackson could be a great Haddock, but I doubt they got him.

[Comrade Pants]

http://i54.tinypic.com/suydmu.png

I love how I'm so hated that I get comics.

[Secret Fawful]

I love how I'm so hated that I get comics.

Not to mention my favorite day of the year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Day)

[JedExodus]

Not to mention my favorite day of the year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Day)

Oh god, look (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Pantsless_paul_martin2.jpg) at these 'wacky' individuals who celebrate the Comrades day.

And by 'wacky' I mean 'tossers'

[corruptbiggins]

I wonder who will do captain Haddock's voice. I think Roger Jackson could be a great Haddock, but I doubt they got him.

It's Andy Serkis if I remember rightly.

[Secret Fawful]

Oh god, look (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Pantsless_paul_martin2.jpg) at these 'wacky' individuals who celebrate the Comrades day.

And by 'wacky' I mean 'tossers'

Yeah I don't know why (http://nymag.com/images/2/daily/intel/08/01/14_nopants_lg.jpg) anyone would see anything in Comrades Day at all.

[Avistew]

Not to mention my favorite day of the year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Pants_Day)

I like how, according to the article, it was first celebrated years before Pants was even born.

[Secret Fawful]

Some more scans from the magazine-

Badass-

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8694/numrisation00035.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/6499/numrisation0012.jpg

[Royalist_Scum]

I am a huge Tintin fan.

Telltale has done such a great job of creating episodic downloadable graphic adventure games and has access to some of the greatest IP ever (Sam & Max, BTTF, Jurassic Park, Wallace and Grommit).

I think Telltale should start work on a Tintin computer game series. It could be so fantastic!!

[taumel]

No, I hate you, you filthy son of a bitch. :p
Ahh, i'm glad you feel this way. ;O)

[taumel]

Regarding the desert screen. I love it when they primary care about the sun. Everytime i was in a sand desert my main issue was the wind and the sand in my hair, my eyes, my mouth, my ears my under... you get the idea. Still i love the desert!

[Secret Fawful]

Thompson and Thomson and higher res screens of the first two-

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1777/numrisation0010d.jpg

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/4316/51419312.jpg

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/6885/76353208.jpg

[Trenchfoot]

Amazing! Thomson and Thompson look perfect! :D

[jp-30]

I prefer the Tom Bailey / Allanah Currie version.

[Avistew]

The Thom(p)sons look much better than Haddock!

[taumel]

I guess it's mainly due to the filter, btw we know them as Schulze und Schultze.

[apenpaap]

We know them as Jansen and Janssen.

[taumel]

Tim und Struppi, Kapitän Haddock, Professor Bienlein, Schulze und Schultze; das war Deutsch.

Now that was a great comic and a comic movie. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoMzzXMUof8&feature=related)

[Avistew]

Tintin, Milou, Capitaine Haddock, Professeur Tournesol, Dupond et Dupont.

[GinnyN]

Tintín, Milú, Capitán Haddock, Profesor Tornasol, Hernandez y Fernandez.

[apenpaap]

Kuifje, Bobbie, Kapitein Haddock, Professor Zonnebloem, Jansen en Janssen.

[VeronicanPlay]

Tintin, Terry, Kaptajn Haddock, Professor Tournesol, Dupond og Dupont. (Danish)

[Comrade Pants]

Guys, when do you think this will get made?

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/322/d/c/tintin_at_the_mountains_by_muzski-d334iko.jpg

I hope it's soon. I want to read this so badly, even though it's just a fan image. IMAGINE THE POSSIBILITIES.

[Secret Fawful]

Guys, when do you think this will get made?

Just as soon as I finish writing and drawing it. j/k Actually, since I have a copy of Guillermo del Toro's At the Mountains of Madness script, I could rip his film off before he even has a CHANCE TO MAKE IT.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CkAPO7NocJk/SjmOR9eRNZI/AAAAAAAAA90/FFlOAmgtWUs/s320/haddock.jpg

[Comrade Pants]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_CkAPO7NocJk/SjmOR9eRNZI/AAAAAAAAA90/FFlOAmgtWUs/s320/haddock.jpg

It's like a Belgian trollface...

[Secret Fawful]

There is a graphic novel adaption of At the Mountains of Madness (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eye-Classics-Mountains-Madness-Selfmadehero/dp/1906838127/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275557964&sr=8-4) that has been compared to Tintin a lot, mostly in the art department. Just to throw that out there for ya.

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMOM_p12.jpg

http://www.selfmadehero.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-15-at-12.44.44.png

http://www.selfmadehero.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Screen-shot-2010-11-15-at-12.44.28.png

[taumel]

Beside of the sky and the logo the cover looks nice.

Btw when thinking of the old real Tim&Struppi movies, two things were quite annoying, the always yelling voice of Haddock and the high frequency of the music, almost like in the Fantomas films.

[Secret Fawful]

http://i.imgur.com/umOyr.jpg

Eat me, Tintin skeptics and haters. EAT ME. Exclusive look at the trailer debuting on Empire Online tomorrow.

[Johro]

I loved the cartoon, I'll see them for sure and yes, the trailer was just reviewed for rating. Can't wait. Oh who am I kidding. I'm going to go see it even if it looks awful.

[DAISHI]

That character looks ghoulish. I'll need to see a little more I think before I know whether I want to see it.

[apenpaap]

That poster looks awesome!
V That one too!

[Secret Fawful]

Second poster.

http://i.imgur.com/Y4R3C.jpg

[Johro]

...so they scrapped the subtitle it seems. The first one is just going to be called "The adventures of Tintin" and the others will have subtitles? A little odd... haven't seen movies do that really(not when others are already planned).....unless they're waiting to see if it will flop.

[Trenchfoot]

Epic.

[Martin McFly]

I'm a big fan of the cartoon so obviously I'm over the moon about the release; the poster is just revving me up even more.

[Friar]

I've never actually seen/read tintin before. (of course, I knew of him, but never actually viewed the media before.). I'm quite interested in this though, so I shall have to see if I can convince my friends to see it. I doubt they will though, after I convinced them to see alice in wonderland because it was a tim burton film, and they all hated it. ¬_¬

[Johro]

okay here's the synopsis or every show/book:

Tintin goes searching for something because of the professor
He sees something suspicious and snoops around
He runs into the Thom(p)sons who are bumbling on the case
Haddock swears and drinks
Tintin gets caught and knocked out
Snowy(the dog) bites someone and tintin escapes
He punches and shoots at people and saves the day

[Jake]

The list of screenwriters makes me happy. I'm also a sucker for blue moonlight nighttime shots of sweet pirate ships so hey.

[puzzlebox]

Rrraawwwggh... Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Stephen Spielberg AND Peter Jackson? Oh goodness I need to see a trailer. I can't imagine even those men living up to my love for the cartoons though.

[Alcoremortis]

Wait. Steven Moffat's still listed as a writer? Didn't he leave Tintin to go do Doctor Who?

[Ribs]

Wait. Steven Moffat's still listed as a writer? Didn't he leave Tintin to go do Doctor Who?

He still wrote it!

[Alcoremortis]

He still wrote it!

Ah. I wasn't aware of how much he actually did before deciding that Time Lords were cooler.

[Secret Fawful]

He left after writing it? So the man can make bad decisions.

[Ribs]

He left after writing it? So the man can make bad decisions.

He made a hilarious statement way back in 08 about leaving to take a position he first sent an application in for when he was seven.

[Darth Marsden]

Moffat had a choice between Tintin and Doctor Who. He chose Doctor Who, and as a result also got the chance to make Sherlock.

I think he made the right choice!

[Secret Fawful]

Teaser trailer. (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/theadventuresoftintin/)

[Tjibbbe]

Nice. Still a bit weird to see Tintin (he'll always be 'Kuifje' for me) looking so...real, but I trust the team behind this completely. Such a giant part of my childhood (together with Asterix), so I'll see this a thousand times, regardless of the actual quality of the film.

Nice gag with the Thompsons and the newspaper (pause the trailer at that bit and look at the ads beneath their eyes).

[Pinchpenny]

Rrraawwwggh... Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright, Stephen Spielberg AND Peter Jackson? Oh goodness I need to see a trailer. I can't imagine even those men living up to my love for the cartoons though.

And Joe Cornish (director of Attack the Block).

STEPHEN!

[Rather Dashing]

http://i.imgur.com/f6G6y.png

This frame epitomizes the trailer for me. So afraid to show faces, especially faces that are moving, that they hide them at every possible turn. Essentially the opposite of the Mars Needs Moms trailer, if you want to go back and see that as a basis of comparison.

[Trenchfoot]

Love it!

[Alcoremortis]

This frame epitomizes the trailer for me. So afraid to show faces, especially faces that are moving, that they hide them at every possible turn. Essentially the opposite of the Mars Needs Moms trailer, if you want to go back and see that as a basis of comparison.

Thanks a lot. Now when I watched that trailer all I could think about was where all the faces were.

[Secret Fawful]

http://i.imgur.com/f6G6y.png

This frame epitomizes the trailer for me. So afraid to show faces, especially faces that are moving, that they hide them at every possible turn. Essentially the opposite of the Mars Needs Moms trailer, if you want to go back and see that as a basis of comparison.

Uh, no they don't...er wait..let me say it the way the majority of Telltale wish they could speak to you. YOU WERE WRONG, PAL! HA! HA! They showed faces quite a bit in the time frame, with the only two faces really obscured being Tintin and Haddock. Keep in mind this is a TEASER, and Tintin's face was shown at the end. Even when faces are obscured in shadow their features are clear, at least to me.

Oh look. Faces:

http://i.imgur.com/Bv62I.jpg

[Tjibbbe]

http://i.imgur.com/f6G6y.png

This frame epitomizes the trailer for me. So afraid to show faces, especially faces that are moving, that they hide them at every possible turn. Essentially the opposite of the Mars Needs Moms trailer, if you want to go back and see that as a basis of comparison.

That was the frame I was talking about! Love the gag with the Thompson nose/moustache. Very Herge.

About your comment: I don't agree. It's how Spielberg always makes his trailers (at least for his blockbusters) - don't show the good stuff until the movie (see Jurassic Park (you don't get to see the dinosaurs), ET (no alien), Jaws (no shark). Don't underestimate how big this franchise is in Europe. It's a huge part of European culture. It doesn't even really matter how the movie does in the US, this movie will make history in Europe (I think it's saying a lot that this is a Spielberg/Peter Jackson-movie and it's releasing two months earlier in the EU than in the US. That doesn't really happen, ever). Seeing these characters in 'real-life' for the first time is one of the biggest reasons people want to see this movie, same as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and the shark in Jaws. Every little tidbit of news about this movie has made headlines in the mainstream media over here. I'm not defending the movie's use of motion capture or CGI or whatever (I'm not the biggest fan of it myself), but I don't think they're 'scared' to show these characters to the world. Hell, one of the first pictures released was an extreme close-up of Haddock. Not to mention that the big 'reveal' at the end of the trailer is a close up of Tintin's face. All marketing shots so far have had Tintin's face strategically covered in shadows.

They're not scared to show anything, it's just the same marketing-trick to generate hype Spielberg has been using for ages. And, judging by the reactions here in Europe so far, it's been working.

Don't forget that this is just a teaser trailer. More will come.

[Got Haggis?]

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost as Thompson and Thompson is the greatest casting ever.

Anyway, I think it would be pretty awesome if Telltale made episodic Tintin adventures...that would be amazing. I grew up reading these comics, couldn't think of a better developer to make a Tintin game.

[Rather Dashing]

Uh, no they don't...er wait..let me say it the way the majority of Telltale wish they could speak to you. YOU WERE WRONG, PAL! HA! HA! They showed faces quite a bit in the time frame, with the only two faces really obscured being Tintin and Haddock. Keep in mind this is a TEASER, and Tintin's face was shown at the end. Even when faces are obscured in shadow their features are clear, at least to me.

Oh look. Faces:


Hell, one of the first pictures released was an extreme close-up of Haddock. Not to mention that the big 'reveal' at the end of the trailer is a close up of Tintin's face. All marketing shots so far have had Tintin's face strategically covered in shadows.

They're not scared to show anything, it's just the same marketing-trick to generate hype Spielberg has been using for ages. And, judging by the reactions here in Europe so far, it's been working.

Don't forget that this is just a teaser trailer. More will come.
The issue with some of this sentiment, I think, is that I was entirely unclear when it came to what I meant, because I felt it was particularly obvious. I don't feel the facial models themselves are worth hiding, but rather the dead look that this studio invariably gives off when the characters speak. Notice that the faces aren't talking, or looking at the camera, or otherwise the main focus of any frame within the trailer. Though faces EXIST, they are mostly obscured, move by quickly, and aren't particularly "animated".

As far as any currently-released press that prominently displays any major faces, was that from before Mars Needs Moms (http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/box_office_mars_needs_moms_megaton_rXfg1tZS83Hojg0 gEzTRfK) was an industry-changing bomb? I'm actually curious, and I haven't gone through this film's press material, but I wouldn't be surprised if the presence and prominence of character faces made a massive drop after mid-march due to the popular analysis being that consumer backlash against Zemmeckis motion capture was the main reason behind the massive failure of Mars Needs Moms.

About your comment: I don't agree. It's how Spielberg always makes his trailers (at least for his blockbusters) - don't show the good stuff until the movie (see Jurassic Park (you don't get to see the dinosaurs), ET (no alien), Jaws (no shark). Don't underestimate how big this franchise is in Europe. It's a huge part of European culture. It doesn't even really matter how the movie does in the US, this movie will make history in Europe (I think it's saying a lot that this is a Spielberg/Peter Jackson-movie and it's releasing two months earlier in the EU than in the US. That doesn't really happen, ever). Seeing these characters in 'real-life' for the first time is one of the biggest reasons people want to see this movie, same as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and the shark in Jaws. Every little tidbit of news about this movie has made headlines in the mainstream media over here. I'm not defending the movie's use of motion capture or CGI or whatever (I'm not the biggest fan of it myself), but I don't think they're 'scared' to show these characters to the world.
One thing I don't get about this post is that the faces are a major surprise AND Haddock's face is a major advertising image? It comes off as a very conflicting message, doesn't it?

I don't see how a character's face is a major surprise, especially one as simple in design and well-known as Tintin's. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and the alien in E.T. were unknown designs and their effects work was the main selling point, the shark in Jaws was actually barely even in the movie at all and the trailers reflected this. It seems to me like they used every obscured facial shot they could in order to focus on the landscapes and locales, everything that does not actually utilize the now-despised(by network executives afraid of Mars Needs Moms failure) Zemeckis motion capture.

[Secret Fawful]

It is a major surprise because no one quite knows how the faces, as you said, will look under motion capture. As a promotional image, it was important that faces be shown, but still images are nothing compared to the actual animation, and that's still something that a teaser just isn't made to show off entirely. Plus the fact that everything may not be fully finished yet. It's common for teasers to show off unfinished digital effects. Everything you wanted to see is exactly what is meant to be saved for a main trailer.

[sh3ldor]

WTH? I havn't heard about it until now and it just ruined my whole day.
This is the first time in years I'm getting freaking excited about a hollywood film announcement. Hero of my childhood!
The trailer is looking great. I want a series :O

[Trenchfoot]

New trailer! And I love it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEj3UsAl0K8&feature=player_embedded

[Jon NA]

Thanks for sharing!

[Tjibbbe]

Looks bloody amazing. I still can't believe this movie exists. This is my damn childhood right here. Haddock is totally going to steal the show in this one (just like he did in the comics). Glad to see they haven't toned down the guns/fists/drunken shenanigans. I hope they kept that scene where Haddock starts hallucinating and thinks that Tintin is a bottle of whiskey.

I suppose people are finally going to stop comparing this movie to uninspired crap like Polar Express and Mars needs Moms. Looks way better than anything I could have hoped for.

[FitzoliverJ]

The trailer actually looks pretty good. I'm still not sold on the style of animation, but nevertheless it works a lot better in this trailer than in, say, that Tom Hanks film with the train to the North Pole because the figures are trying to look like cartoon characters rther than real people.

It's got a good cast. It's got good writers. It's based on good stories. Spielburg I'm not a great fan of (you just know that he;s going to bring in a pair of kids and... no wait,they did that already in "Lake of Sharks"), and Peter Jackson's stuff I can't stand for five minutes, let alone five hours, so... could go either way.

[FitzoliverJ]

(Oh, and somebody tell Andy Serkis that Haddock is an *Englishman*. That's the exact and specific reason that Herge called him Haddock in the first place!)

[Ribs]

It still refuses to show us the faces.

[Laserschwert]

It still refuses to show us the faces.

http://forum.cinefacts.de/images/smilies/gruebel.gif

Are you sure you've watched the trailer?

[Ribs]

http://forum.cinefacts.de/images/smilies/gruebel.gif

Are you sure you've watched the trailer?

Yeah, and something like six seconds worth of faces were shown.

[Tjibbbe]

Yeah, and something like six seconds worth of faces were shown.

What are you talking about? What should they do to satisfy you, have a full close-up for a full 10 seconds or something? It's a trailer, and you get to see quite a lot of faces, both near and far. Lot's of close-ups, and great shots during that Thompsons-scene, the market scene and that motorcycle-scene. Are you sure you watched the new trailer and not the old one?

[Ribs]

What are you talking about? What should they do to satisfy you, have a full close-up for a full 10 seconds or something? It's a trailer, and you get to see quite a lot of faces, both near and far. Lot's of close-ups, and great shots during that Thompsons-scene, the market scene and that motorcycle-scene. Are you sure you watched the new trailer and not the old one?

Yes. For a Motion Capture movie, I'll decide whether to see it or not as to whether or not the faces look good, as it's what I'll be staring at for 150 minutes.

[Secret Fawful]

Yes. For a Motion Capture movie, I'll decide whether to see it or not as to whether or not the faces look good, as it's what I'll be staring at for 150 minutes.

Man, you're off your rocker. The faces look fantastic and nowhere near Zemeckis shit. They showed plenty of faces for a trailer and they showed them clearly.

[Secret Fawful]

Double post!

http://i.imgur.com/KThgs.png
http://i.imgur.com/Xpbor.png
http://i.imgur.com/gNgUt.png
http://i.imgur.com/VLM8K.png
http://i.imgur.com/CWfkd.png
http://i.imgur.com/Gqt3f.png
http://i.imgur.com/UZAhP.png
http://i.imgur.com/3sHjW.png
http://i.imgur.com/1fCC9.png
http://i.imgur.com/2MfOl.png
http://i.imgur.com/5PVpO.png
http://i.imgur.com/sXsBr.png
http://i.imgur.com/2W7p5.png
http://i.imgur.com/0qX63.png
http://i.imgur.com/78dIa.png
http://i.imgur.com/G6ekn.png

Some shots from the trailer, and that's not even all of them. Satisfied? Personally, I think it looks great.

[Ribs]

You're judging it off that? It's nice to see 20 or so frames of each face shot, but it's still blatantly avoiding them and that makes me not want to see the film. Can we not have a solid 3-7 second someone (or people) talking without one of them standing in front of a pole and the other wearing a paper bag over their head?

[Secret Fawful]

Can we not have a solid 3-7 second someone (or people) talking without one of them standing in front of a pole and the other wearing a paper bag over their head?

Um, there was. Several times.

[DAISHI]

And the Uncanny Valley gets hit hard.

[Secret Fawful]

I don't get any Uncanny Valley from the animation at all.

[apenpaap]

It looks great, except Haddock's nose. I know it's like that in the comics, but it just annoys me here. Other than that, everything looks good.

[VeronicanPlay]

Looks amazing, I am defiantly going to see this!

[Falanca]

I'm really hyped about that movie. I think it'll rock.

And I love Haddock's nose =<

[Rather Dashing]

I don't get any Uncanny Valley from the animation at all.
What animation? I didn't see any animation.

[Secret Fawful]

What animation? I didn't see any animation.

Touche, Josh. Touche.

[Trenchfoot]

What animation? I didn't see any animation.

One word: Snowy.

[Comrade Pants]

One word: Snowy.

*whoosh*

[tredlow]

I don't get any Uncanny Valley from the "animation" at all.

fix'd.

But, I agree. I did not see anything that belongs in the Uncanny Valley, or at least, anything that bothers me much. Of course, normal CGI would be better, but I don't think the mo-cap would ruin the film that bad. Also, it kinda looks fun.

[Trenchfoot]

*whoosh*

*splash*

[Tjibbbe]

Saw this yesterday. Absolutely amazing. Best Spielberg movie in years. The amount of love and respect they show towards the original comics is amazing. Really, this is my movie of the year. We were talking to other audience members after the movie, and everyone was just incredibly enthusiastic about this movie.

Of course, my opinion is partly formed by years of growing up with this series. Everyone in my country knows the characters and most of the adventures, so it's really hard for me to imagine what people who never heard of Tintin (Americans, I guess) will make of it. The joy of finally seeing Haddock portrayed so perfectly, watching the Thompsons doing their thing... Man, I think I'm going to watch it again tonight. And I never watch a movie multiple times in the theatre anymore.

About the CGI: I guess people are going to complain about this, but I thought it looked amazing (maybe Tintin's face looks a bit weird in a couple of close ups, but that's it). There's no way this could have been live action, and old 2D-animation (like the old cartoon adaptions) wouldn't have been nearly as effective. I always thought the old cartoons, as fun as they were (the Dutch voices for that show were amazing), weren't nearly as dynamic as the panels in the comics. The action in this movie is simply breathtaking.

Seriously, if you've ever liked/loved Tintin during any part of your life, watch this movie. It honestly puts all those Asterix-movies to shame.

[Darth Marsden]

...I'm going to argue the Asterix comment, because the live-action ones are actually great fun, and 'Asterix Conquers America' is one of my top 5 animated films. I didn't think Lister would be a good pick, but he does a surprisingly entertaining Asterix.

Asterix at the Olympic Games isn't that great, I'll concede, but it's still fun. They're just fun in a different way.

[Tjibbbe]

...I'm going to argue the Asterix comment, because the live-action ones are actually great fun, and 'Asterix Conquers America' is one of my top 5 animated films. I didn't think Lister would be a good pick, but he does a surprisingly entertaining Asterix.

Asterix at the Olympic Games isn't that great, I'll concede, but it's still fun. They're just fun in a different way.

I think Mission Cléopatre is the only live-action film that comes close to the fun of the Asterix books. Both Asterix at the Olympic Games and Contre Caesar (don't know the English title, but the first one) are pretty awful. If you look at the cartoons I'd say that Asterix & Cleopatre, Asterix in Brittain and especially Twelve Tasks of Asterix are great (that last one is a classic), the rest never felt like the comics to me. But I was actually talking about the live action movies in my comparison (maybe not entirely fair, because Tintin isn't live action, obviously). I was always more of a fan of Asterix than of Tintin, and apart from the exceptions I mentioned, I've always been disappointed with most Asterix-movies.

But yeah, before I get carried away (and before I start a war with Asterix-fans: I'm one of you!), I agree that there are some good Asterix-movies. But a lot of bad ones too. I honestly believe that the new Tintin movie is better than the best Asterix movie though. They've got the feel of reading those comics as a 9-year old exactly right. In the live-action Asterix-movies it always felt like the franchise was too much to handle for the directors.

[henkebjorklund]

Absolutely amazing. Best Spielberg movie in years. The amount of love and respect they show towards the original comics is amazing. Really, this is my movie of the year.

I agree. :)

[Joop]

Here's my (spoilerfree) review from IMDB.com:

Visually stunning, story wise boring.

When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.

From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.

Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.

As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.

Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.

Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.

In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.

The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****

[bobber56]

/Users/deely-smith-id/Desktop/45762.jpg

I want to see a shark jump up and bite them in the ass.

[bobber56]

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/45762.jpg


Let's see a shark jump up and bite them on the ass! Spielberg has done it before!

[Secret Fawful]

Here's my (spoilerfree) review from IMDB.com:

Visually stunning, story wise boring.

When going to film school, there was one mistake that I saw a lot of the beginning directors, cameramen, editors and the like make. They were all so focused on the technique behind the film, that they forgot to focus on story and the characters. Watching Tintin and the Secret of the Unicorn made me feel like I was in film school again.

From the first shot on, walking into the world of Tintin feels amazing, you see that everything was treated with the greatest care and eye for detail, and even though they still can't quite seem to get eyes right, the whole movie looks absolutely amazing. Strangely enough, you don't get the time to enjoy the beauty of it all, because right after the initial scene you're taken into a roller-coaster ride. It's there where this movie is starting to show it's flaws. There's very little breathing time left for the movie, and because of this, you never really get to feel or care for the characters. They never become lovable, they don't get their moment to shine and they're never genuinely funny.

Watching the whole spectacle, one begins to wonder if Spielberg purposely chose to abandon all basic storytelling rules and just go with it, or if he was distracted the whole technique of motion capture while making it. At least, to me, it feels that way.

As a result of this, the movie falls a bit flat. You have a great introduction sequence, but after this you're sucked into one two hour action sequence which is barely followable because of all the different layers of action going on on screen. Steady camera shots have been replaced by a constantly moving roller-coaster cam, which gives beautiful lenghty shots, but gives so much information that it's barely followable en sometimes even stomach turning.

Another part where the technique doesn't compliment in the storytelling is with the sometimes slapstick humor. Because the characters look so real, except for some facial features, as a viewer, you can't really accept some of the things that happen to them. If a piano falls on a cartoon character, you think it's funny because you accept that he'll just come out of it unharmed except for the fact that the piano keys are (completely playable) sticking out of his mouth. If that same thing happens to a human, we know that he would have broken every bone in his body and, if still alive, would have to be driven to the intensive care immediately. These kind of things feel illogical in the movie and take the viewer away from the viewing experience.

Storywise they took the easy way out. The situations feel forced and uneasy, like they wanted to put as many locations in the film as they could, and the plot, told by action instead of dialogue, is rather laughable. I don't like to compare the source material to the movie in a review, but the way they translated and hollywoodised the story feels out of place and never genuine. This feeling even goes as far as the soundtrack, because even the music by the brilliant John Williams seems flat, uninspired and never truly memorable. We never hear any of the compositions that Williams excels at, the recognizable orchestrated themes introducing plot elements or characters, telling a story of their own. But to be honest, these elements never really get enough screen time to have their own theme.

In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.

The Adventures of Tintin; Secret of the Unicorn
** out of *****

Troglodyte! Fresh-water sham! Imposter! Bashi-bazouk! I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.

I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 blistering barnacles out of 11 overall.

[DAISHI]

I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.

I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 out of 11 overall.

Or the third most logical option. He watched it and didn't like it.

Kind of like this critique:
"While the big set pieces are often exuberantly handled, the human details are sorely wanting. How curious that Hergé achieved more expression with his use of ink-spot eyes and humble line drawings than a bank of computers and an army of animators were able to achieve."

[Secret Fawful]

Or the third most logical option. He watched it and didn't like it.

No, he's just wrong. In nearly every point. I'll get to explaining it...in the movies topic.

[Alcoremortis]

Well, I'm about to start my...fourteenth, I think, Tintin book. I think that after reading all of these, I should have some idea of what's going on when I finally get to see this thing.

Haddock's definitely my favorite character. Though Tintin himself is a very close second.

[corruptbiggins]

Haddock's definitely my favorite character. Though Tintin himself is a very close second.

A good choice but I have to say I like Thomson & Thompson best (I couldn't just pick one, they come as a pair). Mind, it's been too long since I've read any of the Tintin books. I'm gonna have to do something about that. I also need to go and see the damn film as it's one of the few I actually want to go to the cinema and watch though my brother has been going on about watching it in an IMAX theatre.

[Secret Fawful]

Haddock's my favorite. Especially in the movie, which is almost entirely about him.

[Alcoremortis]

I'm really getting excited for this movie. Now I just have to convince my brother that he really wants to go see it with me.

[Secret Fawful]

I'm just waiting for Dashing to come back from the movie going "That was the most awful piece of shit I've ever seen in my entire life". You know it'll happen.

[Alcoremortis]

And then we will have an epic forum war, just like the good old days. Only this time, I'll have to see it as soon as possible so I don't show up at the end of the fight when all the threads are being locked like I normally do.

[DoctorDodge]

Right, that's it, I need to see it tonight. Not that I'm a massive fan of the comics like Secret Fawful appears to be, or even interested in the fact that Jackson and Spielberg are involved. I'm interested purely for the fact that the script is written by both the man who helped make a modern day version of both Jekyll and Hyde and Sherlock Holmes awesome, Steven Moffat, and one of my favourite directors of the past ten years, Edgar Wright. Really should've seen this sooner.

[henkebjorklund]

In a nutshell, it feels like the movie was focused on technique, and while it looks truly beautiful, it lacks in all the other departments. And in a world in which computer graphics get prettier every day, this movie, in a couple of years, will be forgotten with the rest of the for-their-time beautiful, but lacking story wise, computer animated films.

You are free to have a personal opinion of the movie but what you call an extremely uninspiring story has survived for over 70 years so thinking it will be forgotten all of a sudden is as wrong as it gets. :)

[Joop]

Troglodyte! Fresh-water sham! Imposter! Bashi-bazouk! I just wanted to comment and say that this review is pure bullshit. Or Joop didn't watch the movie at all. Something like that.

I'll write a review eventually but I disagree on most of these points and I give the movie a 9 blistering barnacles out of 11 overall.

Please try to motivate your reasons instead of just calling my review bullshit. I've watched the movie very carefully and stated my opinion very critically.

You are free to have a personal opinion of the movie but what you call an extremely uninspiring story has survived for over 70 years so thinking it will be forgotten all of a sudden is as wrong as it gets. :)

Wait a minute. I did not think the ORIGINAL story was extremely uninspiring. I love the original comic. I just think that the new twist given to it by the scriptwriters completely flattens it out. It just becomes a cliché blockbuster hollywood story, because of the things they've added. (I'm not going to touch upon those things, because that would obviously spoil the movie.)
The things they did keep from the original story('s), were mostly action scenes. The movie just didn't take it's time to let the viewer and the characters breathe.
I'm not saying the story will be forgotten, but the movie itself will be.

On another note, I watched the Flemish version in Belgium last weekend. In Holland we grew up with a Flemish Tintin (Kuifje) and it actually made me like the movie better. Of course, this won't work for most people on this forum. But for me, it made the movie feel closer to the source material than the English version. My opinion about the story and characters remains the same though.

[Alcoremortis]

Please try to motivate your reasons instead of just calling my review bullshit. I've watched the movie very carefully and stated my opinion very critically.

Ahem. (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=557696&postcount=714) He did.

[Secret Fawful]

Please try to motivate your reasons instead of just calling my review bullshit. I've watched the movie very carefully and stated my opinion very critically.

I admit I probably was too harsh, but I probably wouldn't have said anything had you not said what you said about John William's work. Because my goodness...I disagree so strongly on the quality of his music in this that every time I read what you said I have to resist the urge to set something on fire.

[Joop]

I admit I probably was too harsh, but I probably wouldn't have said anything had you not said what you said about John William's work. Because my goodness...I disagree so strongly on the quality of his music in this that every time I read what you said I have to resist the urge to set something on fire.

John Williams is one of my favorite movie composers. But everytime I watch one of the movies he's scored, I leave the theater whistling one of the tunes that's so obviously linked to a character, macguffin or location. The music in this movie worked, but it didn't stand out. Maybe I expect too much of John Williams, but this score just didn't cut it for me.
But then again, as I mentioned in the review, I think it's probably because of the pacing of the movie, as John Williams didn't really get the time to work out a character or plot point specific theme.

[Secret Fawful]

Yeah I disagree so hard my face is melting off.

[Vainamoinen]

Yeah I disagree so hard my face is melting off.

Pics or it didn't happen.

I probably won't go see Tintin for a while (over here it's "Tim und Struppi"!). But I will check out the soundtrack.

[Trenchfoot]

No memorable theme?! What the hell are you talking about??

The Adventure Continues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyOHDzyJZ0)

Haddock's Theme is brilliant too.

[Joop]

I'm sorry. It's good music ofcourse. But it just doesn't do it for me compared to John Williams other works. It's a nice listen, but when it's done I don't feel the urge to listen to it again and within the minute I will have forgotten it.
It's a nice soundtrack. It's just not up to par with most of the classic Williams scores.

[Secret Fawful]

No memorable theme?! What the hell are you talking about??

The Adventure Continues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyOHDzyJZ0)

Haddock's Theme is brilliant too.
This. I loved Haddock's theme.

I'm sorry. It's good music ofcourse. But it just doesn't do it for me compared to John Williams other works. It's a nice listen, but when it's done I don't feel the urge to listen to it again and within the minute I will have forgotten it.
It's a nice soundtrack. It's just not up to par with most of the classic Williams scores.

For you. Not for me. I've hummed it every day since I've heard it.

[Alcoremortis]

I gotta agree with Fawful on this one. I'm listening to some of the pieces on youtube right now, and "Sir Francis and the Unicorn" has more or less convinced me to go buy the soundtrack. AND I HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE YET.

[Joop]

I guess we agree to disagree then. :)

I'm glad you think it's a good score, and I hope you'll enjoy listening to it even more.

[tredlow]

I liked it. I thought it was cool. And, so what if it's mo-cap? Sure, non-mo-cap would be great, but there was nothing about the visuals that I didn't like. Heck, I actually like how the characters look. So, there.

[FitzoliverJ]

I thought it looked good, but as an adaptation of the books it was pretty poor. I mean, they removed the "galliard" joke and put in some burping... :(

[Joop]

I thought it looked good, but as an adaptation of the books it was pretty poor. I mean, they removed the "galliard" joke and put in some burping... :(

If you take the books out of account, what did you think of it as a movie?
That's what I tried to do when I wrote my review. :)

[bloodkiller630]

right after tinton, steven speilbergh and other directors, there are several directors working on this right after tinton, jurassic park 4, and cant wait, offically being into construction right now, but more into it right after tinton, official release is in 2013 or 2014

[FitzoliverJ]

If you take the books out of account, what did you think of it as a movie?

It was great till they got in the aeroplane. Then it kinda crashed. And so did the aeroplane.