Slashdot Mirror
Finale for Final Fantasy Studio
polar_bear` writes: "Looks like the folks who animated 'Final Fantasy' are on their way out of business. Salon has the scoop. Despite being visually stunning and fairly entertaining, it didn't manage to bring in enough bucks to cover production -- even though Aki Ross was hot enough to make Maxim's 'Hot 100' for 2001. Square Co. is looking for a buyer for the Honolulu-based movie production unit. Anybody have several hundred million dollars I could borrow?"
My guess is Pixar and or PDI are going to be looking very closely at acquisition.
damn, I really liked that movie, was kinda slow in the end though.
--- No, english is not my mother tongue.
I liked that movie. It looked fairly good, and the plot wasn't all that bad. It would have been nice if they could have stayed around to make a sequel (not that they would considering they lost money).
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
First let me say that FF has been a great thing. But why did they have the whole org on an island in the Pacific? I know the travel costs must have been stagering not to mention the cost of living that all the people had to adjust for. I understand that you attract good people to good places but this is a bit excessive.
Enough said!
And for the true "collector", this poster is a must have!
ff was good movie.
Wife and I just watched the DVD last night. It was a very well spent 17 pounds. Stunning and at the same time artisticly impressive animation and a very interesting idea in the plotline. Some of it reminded me Akira, but this one (FF) clicks much better with me, it makes more sense.
What can I say, I like it very much. They did a fantastic job and deserve more success for it.
Sigged!
They should have taken lessons from Pixar.
Poorly animated. I don't know how many casual viewers picked it up, but the animation just wasn't working in the movie. It might have been too much reliance on MoCap, but whatever the case, it was really distracting for me.
Quality animation is something you can't buy, even if you can afford the levels of detail that Final Fantasy had.
I think the reason it didn't do well was that the plot was just too "hunh?" for the average person to enjoy. Its sad to see this happen, they were really pushing some limits.
Typical Hollywood job, too much emphasis on wow star power and glitzy animation, not enough on a decent story.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I really like The Spirits Within, it has it's problems but it deserved to make money.
The worst thing is that this will probably put the big studios off making serious feature length CGI films for the time being (and unfortunately the big studios are the only ones in the financial position to make such films, as FF:TSW proves).
Oh well, we are stuck with Toy Story and A Bugs Life for a while.
They overspent on everything...
Studios on Hawaii, the most expensive state for anything in the United States, Sure.. It's a nice perk to offer great surfing 24/7 but over doubling the cost for everything used in your operation for that one perk is plain stupidity. Yes, they did some awesome renderings.. but they could have done them in Iowa or Kentucky, or anywhere else that would have lowered their operating costs significantly would have.
nothing to see here but another example of how not to run a business.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yeah, and i belive they bought 200 copies of Maya Unlimited, which goes for around $16,000 a copy... 200x16000=$3,200,000 - ouch! (unless they got some kind of bulk licsence deal, even then it would still be expensive)
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Solution: They should put it up for sale on eBay! With all the junk I've sold on there in the past few years, they should have no problems unloading a sophisticated production studio!
:)
Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.
They should learn a lesson from the internet and produce porn. I can attest that Aki Ross has helped me thru more than one lonely night. I can guarantee you they would have an excellent market for it in japan and most likey america.
There is also the hollywood system that ensures that even the most wildy successful movies are never documented as having made a profit. Although there are rumors of changes that will improve things. Ofcourse, if you screw up, you merely make sure that someone else gets all the profits after you have done all of the hard work.
The really important question, of course, is why this happen doesn't to Microsoft? bet the company and loose, that is.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
way back when, they said "it's the last movie we'll ever make" because they're so over their budget.
-ac.
(this was from here.)
In animation, the story is more important than everything else put together. If you don't have a compelling story, $150M of computing horsepower can't save you, they just make for a bigger crater at the end.
Look at the astonishing Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius It was made for a tiny fraction of what was spent on Final Fantasy, and it looks terrible in comparison -- but the story is fun and engaging. It's made over $76M so far at the box office. DNA, the company that made Neutron did it all with off-the-shelf commodity hardware and software, so they could do it quickly and inexpensively. Rugrats in Paris and Beavis and Butthead were similarly successful with really pretty awful animation.
I really think that the demise of Square USA's studio should be applauded rather than mourned, because it shows with unmistakable clarity that it doesn't take a hundred million dollars to make a movie; and that spending that kind of money doesn't guarantee success. Corporations can't buy success -- it has to come from individual storytellers. I can't think of a more empowering, encouraging message.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Title pretty much says it all. The rendering looked great I thought, animation wasn't so fluid and quite poor in parts but worst of all the script and storyline were absolutely terrible. The movie deserved what it got, if it wasn't for the small bit of wow factor in watching the well rendered scenes I would of shut it off after 10 minutes.
These kind of characters are really low cost between casts. I think the project tried to do too much at once. Instead the characters should be maintained and developed in a separate company while movie making and and marketing should be business as usual through for instance Pixar and agents. This way the characters could continue to evolve independently of certain movies success or failures. MPEG-4 animations extension will help boost this when (/if) those will be released.
Decisions, decisions...
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
Really, Square Studios made a terrible movie. A terrible, terrible movie. Sure, it had some neat animation, but FX and looks can't carry an entire movie (e.g. Tarsem's The Cell). While audiences are often wowed by tricks and effects, they are truly looking for a good story and interesting characters (even if sometimes it seems like they are not, e.g. The Mummy).
I think it is important, when making a breakthrough film in FX, to couple the oohs and aahs with a damn good story (see Terminator 2, Toy Story, Star Wars, Titanic, etc.). For some reason Square Studios thought they could throw together a script with a boring, nonsensical plot, flat characters, and mediocre dialogue but that it wouldn't matter because the movie looked like one long cut scene from a Final Fantasy game. Well, I think we all knew even before we saw this movie and when we saw the trailer that it would fail in the end. Who would go see it except a few fanboys (and they spent soooo much money on it)?
I think it relates to the game industry as well. There are games out there that have revolutionary graphics, sound, and control but unless they are overall good games with a good story, no one will care in the end. Black and White had revolutionary AI, but I got bored playing fairly quickly. FF8 had revolutionary everything but was just plain not fun to play.
So my whole point is: I'm really glad that Square Studios is no more -- they don't deserve another chance at making a film, as their first indicates a lack of ability. And so they don't make the evolutionary cut and hopefully some new studio (maybe even influenced by Square's awesome animation) will pick up the ball and actually make a good animated movie with human leads. Here's to that.
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
Final Fantasy was a game turned movie. It would have been a big hit had it remained a game. It didn't fail in theaters because it was an art movie trying to get a point across that no one got, it was a block buster that busted. They could have saved some money and just taken tiles from FF1 to tell their story like they do at 8-bit theater.
Seriously they threw millions of dollars into FF:TSW only to learn that movie going audiences don't go for "My name is Daryl, I'm a dancer" dialog and delivery reminicent of a student directed documentary about red blood cells. There were scenes of the movie that looked like a live action sequence, these usually took place inbetween scenes where you could actually see the character or the character was talking. I love seeing James Woods in movies, he has definite style when he delivers lines and when he is intense you can tell he is being intense. There was NONE of that in General Hein. Neil didn't exactly fit in with the image you associate with Steve Buscemi's dialog. More effort was put into realistic hair movement than realistic portayal of emotions. Same for the story which was weak at best. They could have just used the story from FF6 it would have been ten times more involving and probably got them a couple million more dollars. Due to Square fucking the donkey with FF George Lucas is going to have a much tougher time pitching his load about replacing actors with computer models. I think this is a good thing (even if actors aren't pushing technological limits) because I want to see a movie with more substance than freckles and relistic moving hair. When Donny died in The Big Lebowski you feel at least a little remorse at him dying. When Neil dies in FF:TSW you're lucky to notice. That's not going to sell movie audiences.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Wasn't this already covered here?
is square co. in any way affiliated with squaresoft? I'd kill myself if squaresoft ever went out to sea; perhaps the reason to their failure was bc the movie sucked had no plot and would only make sense to those who watched it while on X..They had the FF visuals down perfectly but what it was lacking was the all start traditional Final Fantasy story line...it was practically the antithesis of any FF plot development or course of actions....if they didn't bring in enough bucks it was prolly cause they were trying to please the wrong crowd...
Also, "Final Fantasy" may be in competition for the first-ever Academy Award for a feature-length animated film, to be presented in March. Nominees are to be announced Feb. 12.
First of all, Beauty and the Beast was nominated for best picture in the early 90's, and it was a feature-length animated film. Second, if they are talking about winning best picture, does anyone really think that FF has a chance in hell? It won't even get nominated for anything aside from FX, maybe.
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
The box failue of the movie results this. The movie was well-made, but it didn't catch the heart of all FF-fans because they attempt to mimic the elements that can be done in non-CG movie. We enjoy FF series for its story completely escaping the real world, but this movie more like a CG-version of Alien(s) to me. :/
If I recall, the break-even point for a movie is ticket grosses that are twice the cost of making the film.
That means $300 mil in this case. $290 if you want to be picky.
Big studios can take that kind of chance because they hedge their bets over multiple films. Even then, they don't do it any more often than they have to.
A little one-flick house?
Suicide or glory. Not much in-between.
The lesson here is simple. If you neglect the story, people will notice. When are filmakers going to give the public enough credit to understand that we actually do appreciate a good story? Dress the movie up all you like, but we can smell commercialism a mile away. Never, never, never neglect the story. If it won't make a good book, it'll suck as a movie.
When filmmakers understand that, we'll get better movies and they'll make more money.
Old news - this was reported on Slashdot *before*.
:)) pull off the same graphic beauty - but they've got the key element that Square will never learn...
Anyway, Square again?
Square is good at one thing - flashy fancy graphics. Pixar and the rest? Oh, sure, they can't (Well, they probably can, but they're not interested in going into debt/etc.
Humanity.
Yes, humanity, and yes, even the aliens and monsters and toy cowboys have it.. It's what makes those characters likeable and well-remembered, as opposed to the Square characters.
Square should, honestly, go back to video games (Which seems to be what they're doing), and leave movies to those who know what *they're* doing. Video games are a lot different than movies - you can be free to use the same tired old plot, the same character stereotypes.. Just add some flashy graphics and it'll sell like mad.
Square, Sonic Team, and a host of others have proved this time and again.
instead of a "click to continue" movie
My problem with the movie was that there was the *name* Final Fantasy, but had none of the elements of a typical Final Fantasy game. Where were the swords? Where were the airships, the "Guardian Forces" or "Aeons" (or whatever they are called), where was the magic? The Chocobos?
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Saying that Square Studios failed because of a "lack of ability" is not (IMHO) quite correct. Sure, the script blew more goats than goatse.cx, but the animation and modelling was VERY good. I'm in the 3D multimedia industry, and I have yet to see anything that comes even close to the photorealism introduced by Final Fantasy. The film was a technological tour de force, if perhaps a bit overspent (diving trips in Hawaii to study bubbles? Ever hear of a bathtub?) The facial animation could've been better, but I've never seen textures that realistic in a CG feature film before. Aki Ross has pores, for Pete's sake! That's attention to detail!
/. programmers out there, the animators have to build what they're told to build by the script writers (a.k.a. project managers in dev circles) and they're not responsible if the script sucks. Blame Hollywood for allow such dreck to pollute what looked to be the most visually revolutionary CG or CG-assisted film since Tron.
That being said, I felt very disappointed by the film's script and ultimately think that FF is a poor movie. It still occupies a slot in my DVD changer, but mainly as a reference disc more than a piece of entertainment. Much like many
Square should be held (ahem) squarely responsible for the hideous screenplay, but do not disparage the incredible animators and programmers involved in the project by blaming them for said script. The artists were told to paint a bad picture, and they painted a bad picture in the most beautiful fashion they could. My hat's off to them, and I hope they don't stay in the unemployment lines long.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
I think Final Fantasy fell flat in the method that they used for animating the characters. Traditional 3d animation studios such as Pixar and Dreamworks videotape the actors saying their lines. The actors' key facial poses are then incorporated by the lead animators into the library of expressions. When you watch Scully from Monsters Inc. smile; it looks and acts like John Goodman for a reason. This also helps the character fit the voice. The Final Fantasy team had three actors fill the shoes of one character. The voices were done by the big name actors (ie Steve Buscemi), the body motion was done with motion capture for the most part, and the facial expressions were done by the lead animators looking at themselves in mirrors. The characters fall flat, to me, as a result.
I would really like to see some sci-fi or horror brought to the screen via 3d animation but for now I think we're stuck with whatever fits on a Happy Meal. Our only hope is mid range budget studios similar to those of the 70's that produced great original horror movies such as "Phantasm" and 'Night of the Living Dead". They are the only film makers with enough freedom and money to do what they want, and do it well.
There is no graceful way to eat an egg salad sandwich.
Something weird I noticed about the sort of people who either loved or hated this movie was that the majority of the haters are clearly people of low intelligence and generally the sorts that can't even write down the name of the movie without making more than one spelling error.
The opposite tends (can only express this in generalisiations because there will always be exceptions) to be true of the people who liked it.
I think an IQ test with a "Did you like FF:SW? (yes/no)" would reveal very interesting results.
What utter bullshit. Yes, the studio is bancrupt, but that's not because the movie wasn't succesful. The movie netted a total of 104 million dollars, not counting the DVD sales. That's NOT an unsuccess.
The studio failed as an enterprise, because their costs exceeded their incomes, but their product is succesful nonetheless. I predict DVD sales will keep generating significant money long after the close of the Hawaii studio.
Sigged!
Must have been a different movie than the one I saw.
the movie didn't have anything related to the games whatsoever except for the name SID. How many times have you played FF games and watched the CG sequences and said "man, wouldn't it be cool if they made a movie with animation and action like this?" They shouldn't even have called the movie Final Fantasy since it was tried to be changed to appeal to everyone with those stupid characters, who can't use magic or swords or any cool armor, except use guns? How lame.
The movie fell flat for me for two reasons: 1)The recognizable voice actors... Although James Woods can deliver a good performance, it was dificult for me to associate his voice with the character he played. (It wasn't Richard Briers in Watership Down, folks... Suspension of disbelief didn't work.) Same goes for the rest of the well-known cast (Steve Buscemi, Donald Sutherland, and Peri Gilpin). 2) The animations of facial expressions were unbelievably flat. This is "state of the art" animation? The zombie-like faces were even more of a jarring contrast with the idiosyncratic voice acting.
;-)
Overall, the animation is quite beautiful. The Aki dream sequences are visually stunning; however, they would have done far either hiring unknown voice actors or making an effort to capture the facial expressions of the actors emoting.
Despite its flaws, FF is far from a death-knell for CGI characters. Many of the scenes rendered have a photorealism that's staggering. But more work needed to be done on personalizing the animated characters in FF. Even the ever-loathsome JarJar Binks in The Phantom Menace showed more life and character than any character in FF(and the proof of this is the nigh-universal desire to swat the long-eared, mush-mouthed amphibian like a bug).
Damn if Aki doesn't look hot, tho.
-Ringthane
Friends help you move... Real friends help you move bodies...
I wish the film industry would get through its tiny skulls that spending mad money on effects, locales, and star power do not a good movie make. A good movie is usually at its heart a well-told story. Everything else is just icing on the cake. I don't understand how with all that money flying around they can't see fit to find a decent, coherent script. It can't possibly be that hard. Maybe if they cut back on the coke and whores they could do a better job.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
CG = Computer Graphics
CGI used to mean Common Gateway Interface.
What does CGI mean when related to graphics?
If you watch the documentary they show one of the animators using a video of the actress to animate aki's face. sw0ned!
> even though Aki Ross was hot enough to make
> Maxim's 'Hot 100' for 2001.
Uh, I hate to break it to you y'all, but Dr. Ross is *animated*. She doesn't really exist...
Yes, she's hot (I actually thought the flick was pretty good, too).
If you can build the perfect woman, then I think it would be sort of embarassing if you *didn't* make the Hot List.
I've seen a lot of negative comments in this thread, and it saddens me.
I'll agree FF wasn't that great, in fact the storyline and characters just plained sucked. But saying they deserve to close and they don't deserve the chance to make another movie is going way too far.
In making FF they showed the world it could be done. Yes it sucked and cost too much money, but it looked (very) good doing it. Someone had to do it first, and they did. Granted, some other breakthrough movies managed to actually make money (e.g. the 100M$ Terminator 2), but they didn't. Too bad for them because they'll be gone soon, and too bad for us because someone needs to be pushing the envelope.
I think that FF the movie was more of a Proof of Concept. Being so, most proof of concepts don't make much in teh begeining but only later, so if Square was to only hang on to it and work out a better story for another movie...
Anmd besides i think culture may play a part in what went wrong because in Asia, a cartoon usually means action, like most of all the anime (Godzilla?) but in the west, a cartoon is funny, and even more so since all of what came out of CGI anumation (think Pixar) are funny cartoons. So maybe a near true to life action CGI movie just didn't sink very well on round 1.
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Back in my short-lived anime fan days, I loved watching fan-made parodies of robotech, etc. Fans would splice together different scenes and redub the voices and music- with vastly different results.
This could probably be done with FF. Change the music (techno or Wong Faye from FF8), alter the story to make it less "far fetched" and introduce a few more traditional fantasy elements. Since the whole movie is digital, a whole new movie could be made with a few strategic alterations.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
You're somewhat misinformed then. Some of the first computer generated images were produced in the early 50s on vectorscopes, and were used in the first CAD at that time. By the 60s, CGI was used for movie intros (Vertigo, 1961.) The first computer art competiton was in 1963, as was the first computer generated film. For more info, see the historical timeline of computer graphics and animation.
That poster is ofcourse available all over the net, like here for example.
In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
You start off heading toward the obvious (but very good) point that a good story is necessary for broad-based success no matter what else you do. But then you wander into the tired, predictable slashdot anti-money, anti-corporate, power to the people diatribe that also predictably misses the point: you have to match your product to your market.
You certainly *can* buy success, but you have to know where to shop and how much to spend -- though I'll admit that no success is ever guaranteed. You have to spend your resources appropriately for the market you're targeting. If it's a niche movie, you can focus on the niche and scrimp elsewhere, but then you'll have to keep your expenses low enough to be recovered from the niche. Nobody else will be interested.
If you're targeting a broad audience, niche value -- like a new CG medium -- won't work. A broad, diverse audience demands something of universal interest. Tell them how to get rich, or stay young forever, or lacking that, tell them a good story of universal appeal. If you scrimp on the plot -- don't hire proven screenwriters, or buy the rights to a proven story, or at least thoroughly test the plot you've come up with against a diverse audience -- then you may have a fatally flawed business plan, regardless of what else you do.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
and make porno, real cheap! No more Jenna Jameson!!
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
Personaly, I thought the the movie could have been good, if they had appealed to the Final Fantasy fans and not to every one else. One of the great things about the FF game series, is you can play one of them without ever playing any of the others and it will make sense. Most people couldn't have made heads or tails of this movie without knowing the mentality behind the Final Fantasy series. But even there they failed.
As some one already said, where were the sword fights? The summons and the spells? The dragoons and the armour? All of these elements are inherrent in every FF game (though they have definately changed over the years). These are all elements that we look for in something with the name Final Fantasy. This movie could have been great if they worked with the story development liek they do with their games. Personaly, I thought FF VIII was a great game, and had a very nice story line that would have made a great movie. VII and VI too. Even III had its moments that could have made it a movie.
The thing that makes the FF games great are the long engaging stories, the internal conflicts among the main characters, and the slightly eccentric characters that would seem out of place if it wasn't for the fact that they played into the story so well.
Of course, for the sake of making a movie, I was willing to forgive Square forgoing the elements of their games if they had incredible animation. But even there they failed. Don't get me wrong, some of it was incredible, but alot of it was not. None of the characters could smile, and when they tried to frown, it looked like they were choking. Their movement was stiff and for all the money they spent on the muscle and hair development (look at their hands, you can see the muscles and bones move), they didn't spens enough on the hands and fingers. When ever they grasped something, it didn't look like they were holding it.
Had the animation been flawless or at least smooth, perhaps it would have done better. But the animation was not enough to keep it alive, and the story ws not like the games, so it failed.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
The movie wasn't bad.
I really enojoy the movie but the story line and the acting is childish and silly.
I want to see a CG movie with a story line and acting (talking,...) like Deus Ex, for mature audiences. Thoes movies would be more succesfull.
I'm disapointed to read this news.
What utter bullshit. Yes, the studio is bancrupt, but that's not because the movie wasn't succesful. The movie netted a total of 104 million dollars, not counting the DVD sales. That's NOT an unsuccess.
----
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0173840
Budget: 137M
US Box Office: 32M
Where did you get the 104 million from?
I've just watched film again and found nothing wrong with story line. Obviously it's not F.F. Coppola or Hitchcock but it's not worse than Terminator 1/2 or absolutely idiotic (but very patriotic) StarWars. .02.
Just my
They should package and sell the plug-ins they created because they made a lot of them, to make Final Fantasy possible.
That hair plug-in could be a very hot item.
Although in some ways FF:TSW is not very good (there wasn't enough time to flesh out most of the characters, although the story as a whole was quite imaginative.) as a whole, I thought it was a very good movie. Comparing it to Shrek or Monsters Inc. is not entirely fair. Where those movies were rather light-hearted romps, FF:TSW is a rather dark movie. Just like anime, there isn't really a place for it in the American market. To paraphrase an old comercial.."It's a good movie..BUT IT'S NOT FF"
$72 million overseas. If you would read the story you would have learned this and saved embarrassing yourself in a useless post.
Conflicting news sources.. who would have thought?
There is no graceful way to eat an egg salad sandwich.
We should all pool our money, buy the studio, and then we could make geek movies on geek terms. I call it Distributed FilmMaking(tm).
haggar says The movie netted a total of 104 million dollars,. Well, the movie cost $145M and had a box office of $104M, so it netted -$41M even if every dollar of box office went back to the studio. Probably the studio received on the order of $60M, so the net is even more negative. DVD sales will get them closer to breaking even, but I doubt they'll make up the $85 million deficit accrued so far.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Sometimes I wonder about /. admins... I submitted the same story on Oct 29th 2001!!!! And got rejected!!!!
* 2001-10-29 22:29:25 Square Pictures Shuts Down (articles, movies) (rejected)
Sig
In my opinion, the acting was surprisingly (and unespectedly) good! Much better than what I expected from any animated movie. Childish and silly acting you can find in Akira or any disney movie (where childish fits perfectly).
I could very easily recognize real-life dialogues I had with people, while watching this movie. Expecially Aki, she sometimes reminded me of an ex-girlfriend. Aki sometimes has this warmth in her voice, some kind of friendly intimacy.
well, anyway, you didn't like it, I repsect that. I still think it wasn't an unsuccesful movie overall.
Sigged!
$72 million overseas. If you would read the story you would have learned this and saved embarrassing yourself in a useless post.
---
So a movie that cost $137M to make made (gross not net as the previous poster said) $99M. Meaning it netted -38M. This is not a success.
This has been a fact less than six months after the movies release. The company is only around still because it is finishing a 20 min. prequel to the Matrix. This is OLD OLD news guys. John
I have read many of the replies posted here, and it really makes me cringe.
Final Fantasy was more than just a concept. It was a tremendous leap of faith and artistic conviction.
When you all speak of digital animation, you seem to expect perfection. I am sorry.. unless humans become perfect (which would be a dream, eh) then you are not going to have a perfect film.
I truly do believe that the majority people are being terribly hard and unfair of this film.
This film had a heart and soul. Of course, some things could have been improved upon, but you have to make due with the constraints of a budget and people who have their particular vision.
I think more effort could have been afforded to emotional expression and facial movement for speech.
I also wholly agree with what some are saying about the bankability of such movies. A lot of people are just not ready for totally CG in the face like that of Final Fantasy.
I loved the movie. I got the idea, and I understood the premise of the movie. Although I haven't seen every animated feature out there... I thought the story was beautiful and sensitive to the truths of human nature. The movie was very eco-driven and spiritual.
A lot of people expected the movie to springboard off one of the FF game storylines. I am glad it didn't.
I never played FF until after I saw the movie. I just never felt persuaded by the RPG. After seeing the movie I got a feel for Hironobu. But, then I saw the trailer on the DVD for FFX. My eyes were mesmerized. I cried. It was so stunning.
I got FFX for my birthday. I just can't get enough of it. If there was a version of FFX for the big screen, I'd be there. However, without Final Fantasy Studios.. what is the chance of that happening or any other dream above a dream.
Truth like surgery, may hurt, but it cures. - Han Suyin, Chinese Physician and Writer
Set Adrift on a Memory Bliss
The camera pans the cocktail glass,
behind a blind of plastic plants;
I found the lady with the fat diamond ring.
then you know I can't remember a damn thing.
I think it's one of those de ja vu things,
or a dream that's tryin' to tell me something.
Or will I ever stop thinkin' about it.
I don't know, I doubt it.
Subterranean by design,
I wonder what I would find if I met you,
let my eyes caress you,
until I meet the thought of Missess Princess Who?
Often wonder what makes her work.
I guess I'll leave that question to the experts,
assuming that there are some out there.
they're probably alone, solitaire.
I can remember when I caught up
with a pastime intimate friend.
She said, "Bet you're probably gonna say I look lovely,
but you probably don't think nothin' of me."
She was right, though, I can't lie.
She's just one of those corners in my mind,
and I just put her right back with the rest.
That's the way it goes, I guess.
Baby you send me
Set adrift on memory bliss of you
Careless whisper from a careless man,
a neutron dance for a neutron fan;
marionette strings are dangerous things,
I thought of all the trouble they bring.
An eye for an eye, a spy for a spy,
rubber bands expand in a frustrating sigh.
Tell me that she's not dreaming.
She's got an ace in the hole,
it doesn't have meaning.
Reality used to be a friend of mine,
'cause complete control, I don't take too kind.
Christina Applegate, you gotta put me on.
Guess who's piece of the cake was Jacc Bond
She broke her wishbone and wished for a sign.
I told her whispers in my heart were fine.
what did she think she could do?
I feel for her, I really do.
And I stared at the ring finger on her hand,
I wanted her to be a big PM Dawn fan,
but I had to put her right back with the rest.
That's the way it goes, I guess.
Baby you send me...
Set adrift on memory bliss of you
I appreciate your view point on problems with the animation (which you hit dead on), but I think the real reason the characters fall flat is the script. The characters don't do rational things; there is no well-established motivation for their actions; there's no way to get to know them becase none of them actually have an arc. A great script with less-than-perfect animation would be no problem. Great animation with a less-than-perfect script is what the movie was.
The only certainty is entropy.
Box offices work in mysterious ways!
A very good story in brilliant animation, and it didn't bring in enough money?
It's a sad, sad world we life in.
It was my first contact with Final Fantasy, as I'm no gamer, and I found the world the created very intriging....
Ceramic photography with the stroke of a brush?
Zgallery-art.com