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?"
Perhaps it was just me, but animation-wise I found this movie much more impressive than Shrek or Monsters Inc.
If by impressive you mean impressive technically, then yes Final Fantasy is light years ahead of Shrek and Monsters Inc.
Unfortunately, technical production is only one minor aspect of a movie. Plot and story comes first. Aki Ross is a lovely lady but her idea of Gaia and those ghosts simply sound too New Age to me. I didn't like it at all.
Shrek is a fun movie with good music, a compelling plot and a cast characters that are very memorable. I heard that Dreamworks's technology is capable of matching the textures of Final Fantasy but backed off from applying it because they want the movie to have the character of a traditional animation. They focused on the story rather than the technology.
I too was impressed by the CGI of Final Fantasy, it was breathtaking, and I firmly believe that this is where animation and movie making will go. But I also found out I enjoyed Final Fantasy more if I shut the audio off and concentrated only in watching Aki Ross's beautiful face and fluid movements.
"But why did they have the whole org on an island in the Pacific?"
Because it's cheaper to fly to Hawaii from either side of the Pacific than to cross it. Travel time from the contiguous US and from Japan is about the same.
> 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.
Yes, I believe that is known as the "South Park effect". So, to be more interesting, the Final Fantasy movie either needed a better plot or a lot more foul language.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
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!"
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.
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.
It's not so much that Square isn't good with making characters seem human, it seems to me more like they aren't really good with the relatively short film format. Square is used to a somewhat interactive approach to plot/character development, with several hours of room to develop a world and exercise certain plot elements and devices that a movie cannot have (Though I would argue that FFX especially is almost as linear as a movie, a shame really...). Some elements of Final Fantasy games include a relatively rich world history to learn, elements of mystery that are hinted at repeatedly but take hours to fully reveal themselves, and, in general, a relatively complex plot to explore over the course of days, rather than hours as is the case of a movie. Of course, the FF movie was FF mostly in name only (no magic, no FF archetypes except Sid (chocobos, 'weapons', etc...), well, except for the graphics quality and the FF7 like view of the planet as living... Square can build beautiful worlds with great detail that can be explored in depth along with a complex plot when they have an audience willing to play for about 40 hours for a game. They are not so good at presenting a canned package that delivers everything in 90 minutes...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.