Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trailer of Pixar Movie 'Finding Nemo'

Posted by michael on from the mindless-entertainment dept.

tjansen writes "The trailer of the next Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, is out. Only Quicktime, as usual, so you need CrossOver on Linux machines." Actually's Disney's site has Real and Windows Media formats, so you can pick your poison.

34 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. ..As opposed to..? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The trailer that's /been out/ for a month? There's no reason to mention the release of a new movie trailer. I mean, a star wars or matrix trailer is one thing, but a movie about talking fish just because it's animated using a computer, much like many movies today are? Hey, there's a trailer out for "3, 2, 1 Penguins!" too.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:..As opposed to..? by tjansen · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the first trailer on Apple's site (and the Pixar.com as well). There was a teaser on the Monsters Inc DVD though...

    2. Re:..As opposed to..? by CatWrangler · · Score: 3, Funny
      Hey, there's a trailer out for "3, 2, 1 Penguins!"

      Is that some strange Linux indoctrination film?

      --

      ---
      When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--

    3. Re:..As opposed to..? by tolldog · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Having worked on it, here is some more information:

      3-2-1 Penguins!

      Same company as " Jonah a Veggietales movie", which is still in the theaters.

      I don't know how Penguins is currenly being produced but the first three episodes were created on SGI Octanes and rendered on Linux boxes. Jonah was created on both Linux and SGI systems as well as being rendered on Linux boxes (500+ dual proc systems).

      Not as big or as fancy as finding Nemo, but it also cost 1/10th to produce as Monsters Inc. $12MM vs $150MM. Although not number 1 in the box office, it has been in the top ten every week but one since released.

      -Tim

      --
      -I just work here... how am I supposed to know?
  2. Uhh... by jaaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look, I love PIXAR movies. The CG is always awesome and I usually make it a point to see pretty much any computer animated film . . .

    But what's with the 'Slashvertisements' lately. I mean, it'd be one thing if we had some article here that talked about the tech that went into it or something like that, but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...

    --
    Who said Freedom was Fair?
  3. Re:Crossover? by carl67lp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you know of other products, rather than chastising the initial post, why not be more informative and actually list them?

  4. Environment. by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 5, Interesting



    Anyone know how much this advances computer animation?

    The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

    Have these been done before, or has Pixar invented lots of new stuff again?

    1. Re:Environment. by robson · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

      This is what continually perplexes me about Pixar. Technically, they seem very geared around the infinitely explanding path toward photorealism. And that's cool.

      Yet, one could easily argue, given the evidence (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, and now Finding Nemo) that Pixar has a clear and deliberately unrealistic style. So you have this bizarre juxtaposition of the big-eyed, cartoony character in Monsters Inc who sported a state-of-the-art hyper-realistic hair (or fur) simulation.

      What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?

      It's almost as if there's a schizophrenia within Pixar.

    2. Re:Environment. by ghutchis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hello? So far the feature-length films they've done have been *for* Disney!

      I'd guess that the intent is exactly that--they're currently making movies for kids, particularly Disney movies for kids, so they aim for a particular look.

      I would expect that when their contract with Disney is up, they may move towards other areas.

      -Geoff

    3. Re:Environment. by malducin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they are making animated movies. They are necessarily stylized. By that logic, why wasn't Ice Age made like Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts? They make stylized films. Some Japanese animated films dtrive for a lot of realism, why not make them live action instead? Animated films are an art to themselves. Yes of course Pixar, PDI, Blue Sky and many other deliberately goo for a stylized look.

      You also have to remember Pixar's story. Ed Catmull was always interested in making animated films even before founding the Lucasfilm Graphics Group. One reason Pixar was spun-off was because Catmull wanted to make the animated films, while Lucas was interested in using computers to help the live action filming process, mainly for doing Visual Effects (though there were other efforts like the EditDroid and SoundDroid).

      I don't see what the problem is ;-)

    4. Re:Environment. by hobbes17r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the topic you're really getting at here makes actually perfect sense. As we hear so often, Story is always the number one emphasis of Pixar - and they have developed an amazing sense for pushing the tech behind their movies selectively, in a way that technological shortcomings never distract or detract in any way from the story.

      Note how Toy Story timed in nicely with the arrival of solid Phong shading techniques in the CG world - plastic toys. This is a trend in Pixar movies, straight through Sulley's fur in Monsters Inc, hair and fur having become a significant area of advancement in the industry over the past few years.

      In an obvious contrast, Square's Final Fantasy, pushed photorealism on every front at once, and the result was characters that were technologially impressive but awkward to watch as actors - distracting to what little story laid underneath as there was obviously something wrong, constantly stealing the viewer's attention... You don't see Pixar making realistic humans, because they understand that sense of interference.

      As much as shaders and other CG fronts have advanced in recent years, all we have now is a steadily growing library of realistic effects, which, when used selectively, can greatly assist in conveying emotion, story and character. Pixar has made very good stylistic decisions on pushing visuals in the right places at the right times.

      Would realistic fish be fun to watch anyway? Actually, will fish be fun to watch for an hour and a half? A sense of weight is usually key to sucessful acting, so this is in fact a very ambitious movie in terms of animation, to compliment the rendering advancements...

    5. Re:Environment. by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my opinion Pixar is taking the best route, generating breathtaking imagery without straining to reach for the holy grail of photorealism.

      With their stylized characters, they don't have to strive to meet the impossibly high standards created by our exposure to reality every day. When you look at Final Fantasy, it's gorgeous, but the flaws are even more evident because you look at human faces every day.

      When you're looking at what appears to be a living, breathing cartoon the suspension of disbelief lasts just that much longer because there's nothing to compare it to in the scope of your mind's eye.

      It's like a paraphrased quote from a recent cinefx magazine... if you want to make a CG film with characters that all look and act perfectly human, just hire real people.

    6. Re:Environment. by Pseudonym · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but what is photorealism? What does a non-stylised talking ant look like anyway?

      Photorealism is the ability to make it look exactly what you want it to look like, no more, no less.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    7. Re:Environment. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's also another explanation.

      In the real world it's expensive to do fantastic things and easy to do mundane things.

      In the CG world, it's incredibly expensive to do mundane things, and only slightly less expensive to do fantastic things; because it will cost as much to stage a battle in space as it will in water as in plasma, because the render time is dictated by scene complexity and not by any hard limits of physics, like survivability.

      So all of these advances in *mundane* things like light, shadow, hair, and water, make the fantastic things even more fantastic, like the monsters or the ships or the fish or the whatever.

      If you want photorealistic realism, you may as well use real people doing real things with real objects, like other films.

      If you want photorealistic unrealism, then that's where CG has an advantage over conventional film, so there's no reason not to go full tilt with the unrealism, sorta like Anime does, or sorta like stop motion film.

      --

      GPL Deconstructed
  5. Re:Crossover? by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Projects marked "Stage 1 -- Planning" don't count.

  6. too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    found him.

  7. Streaming media... by Mitreya · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Which does bring up a question - why is there no mpg file available for download as a rule?

    The order of preference seems to be as follows:

    1. Real player format that can not be downloaded at all

    2. Quicktime file which you can usually download (but I don't like the client :)...)

    3. Some other weird streaming format (windows media? can it be downloaded)

    4. Nice mpg file that I can actually take to my desktop -- even with my Cable connection, my processor just does not handle video streaming very well.


    Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

    1. Re:Streaming media... by DLWormwood · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

      It's all about content control. They don't want people out on the 'Net to easily redistribute the trailer via unapproved sites or to edit/modify them into derivative works.

      Despite the paranoia of the ex-Napster crowd, this isn't about curtailing free use rights per se. Many corporations view unauthorized distribution as compromising of the PR campaigns they run and worry about "Guilt By Association" if a third party gets publicly identified with the distribution of their work.

      --
      Those who complain about affect & effect on /. should be disemvoweled
  8. Some one please help me understand... by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am very confused. I thought that /. disliked MPAA/DISNEY/REAL NETWORKS/WMA (you know companies that support laws like the DMCA)???

    If what they are trying to do is so evil, why does /. run stories about their newest products?

    MPAA BAD!
    MPAA BAD!!
    MPAA BAD!!!
    OH something shinny!!!

    1. Re:Some one please help me understand... by belbo · · Score: 4, Informative
      RTFFAQ

      b.

      --

      --
      "Just believe everything I tell you, and it will all be very, very simple."

  9. Re:Fishy by mad_cow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't see much of a deviation here. For a kid, the ocean's a pretty cool setting... lots of mysterious creatures and such floating about.


    Don't be fooled, either, Pixar always manages to make their movies interesting to both children and adults. It may look like something that only a 5 year old can enjoy, but I'd be very surprised if that were truly the case.

  10. Re:Pixar and plug-ins... by Charcharodon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It sort of the other way around. Somebody comes up with a movie script (sometimes even a plot too) Then they ask hey can we do this?? The CG/SFX guys go "idonno, let me get back to you." Eventually they figure it out, and low and behold we have something new. The Abyss, the Matrix, most of the Pixar movies, and nearly all the Star Wars movies are good expamples of this. Eventually they what they invent becomes standard tools for the industry

  11. Alternate title for the movie by seldolivaw · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Pixar makes an underwater filter!"

    (and flogs it to death)

  12. Upcoming Pixar Movies. by FrankieBoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    From what I hear the next movie in the hopper is "The Incredibles" which is a story about a super-hero family. Then it's "Ray Gunn" a futuristic film-noir in the vein of "BladeRunner". After that it's "Toy Story 3", yep they're back. Hanks and Allen have already agreed to do the sequel.

    1. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by Schnapple · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Where and when did you hear this? A short while back I read on AICN that the next film was The Incredibles (like you said) but that the film after that was tentatively called Cars and would mark the return of John Lasseter (sp?) to the director's "chair".

      The reason there's not a Toy Story 3 yet is because Pixar is contractually obligated to deliver three films to Disney by 2005 and sequels don't count towards that number. Steve Jobs pleaded with Disney to make a Toy Story exception but they wouldn't have it. If TS3 is indeed already in planning stages then either they have great confidence their new Disney deal will allow for it, or they're sure whomever they deal with next will.

      The part that worries me is that rumor has it Pixar thinks Finding Nemo will be their weakest film and if there's fallout from that they may not be in the bargaining position they would be in right now if it doesn't do so well.

      --

      Schnapple

    2. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by malducin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually it's Disney who wants a TS3. They can argue that it's not art of the deal and sort of get an "extra" Pixar film besides the others they have to do. Yes Jobs wanted the exception, and if TS3 went ahead Jobs would again plead that TS3 count towards their commitment.

      The interesting part will be future negotiations because it has come to a point where it's debatable who need whom more. Pixar needs a studio for distribution, but I don't think finding a new one would be a problem (though going at it alone would be much more difficult). On the other hands Disney's traditionally animated films are kinda underperformers. Pixar is coming to a point of being on a better bargaining position.

      By the way The Incredibles is directed by Brad Bird, who made the very underrated The Iron Giant. Some of those rumors say that about Nemo, becuse rumors have it that everyone wanted to be involved with Incredibles.

      Also interestingly enough, Dreamworks is working on their own underwater movie, called Sharkslayer, which is kinda of a mafia like film.

    3. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by epukinsk · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Upcomingmovies.com has some good info on Pixar's upcoming films:

      2003: Finding Nemo
      2004: The Incredibles
      2005: Cars

      Apparently Ray Gunn and The Incredibles were an either/or proposition, and it looks like it's going ot be The Incredibles.

      Here's a good overview of Pixars plans.

    4. Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. by dr00g911 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Pixar needs a studio for distribution

      Do you *really* think so?

      Pixar has pumped out the only worthwhile stories/characters/animated films to come out of Disney since Mulan -- and I even give Mulan the benefit of the doubt for the awesome title sequence, the Eddie Murphy casting and the non-Disney ending.

      Between Pixar's clout and their warchest, I'm hoping they go out on their own.

      Honestly, I'm surprised that they've gotten away with as much as they have so far that's completely averse to the Mouse's canon (the ending to Monsters, Inc. is a BIG one -- doing Seven Samurai as 'A Bug's Life?' -- brilliant!).

      To hell with photorealism. We've seen how far we can go that direction. Pixar, their animators and directors seem to have new -- at the very least -- touching and compelling stories to tell. Which barely any in the market can say now.

      Shrek? How the hell can you go wrong with Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy? You can't? It didn't matter that the film was ugly. It didn't matter that there was a cliché story. It didn't matter if they were pandering more to the adults in the crowd than the kids (which Antz did -- and it was God Awful as a result).

      I couldn't care less if Pixar's films were a flipbook, as long as they're told with style, wit and heart. Oh, AND they manage to be the prettiest thing on the block when they're released even with their aversion to photorealism.

      Y'know what? They care about the STORY -- although I'm a bit nervous about the three new films in three years thing. That's one hell of a lot of manpower.

      Bottom line: Pixar has class, regardless of how you feel about Jobs and Disney. Getting out from under the Mouse's thumb can *only* be good for them. The Mouse is about cash, first, thank-you-very-much. Then critical acclaim/adoring fans.

      I'm still at the point that I've been amazed by Pixar enough to believe the opposite of them. That's (to me) Jobs saying 'I've got money, and the most awesome storytellers there are to buy. So what are you waiting for... tell your fucking stories!'

      --dr00gy
  13. Exact match of target audience by jukal · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finding Nemo, focus on 6-12 year old kids, slashdot... focus on 6-66 year old geeks.

  14. Re:Crossover? by taviso · · Score: 5, Informative

    $ mencoder -o nero.avi -oac copy -ovc copy mms://wmd31sea.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/find ing_nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_750.wmv

    $ mplayer nero.avi

    tada, no crossover required. also no lag, no skipping. what more could you want ? :)

    mplayer homepage.

    --
    ex$$
  15. Five, six, or seven? by yerricde · · Score: 3, Interesting

    there will be 6 produced under the [Disney/Pixar] deal (Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story II, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars)

    What about Monsters, Inc.? Does that make seven, or is Cars now an independent film?

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  16. Upcoming Pixar Movies, from the source by alispguru · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't know where you heard that stuff, but a Pixar press release says the next three films are:

    Finding Nemo

    The Incredibles

    Cars

    Nothing about "Ray Gunn", nothing about "Toy Story 3". What's your source?

    --

    To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
  17. Direct Movie Link by sexecutioner · · Score: 4, Informative

    In case anyone wants the file directly the direct URL is:

    http://acw.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/findin g_ nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_1500.mov

    Else you can pull these from the HTML source on Disney's page, not hard to do.

  18. Re:Ummm w/ Toy Story 2, it makes 7 films, not 6 by 90XDoubleSide · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Pixar orignally had a 3 picture deal with Disney, and Toy Story was released under that contract (notice that Toy Story isn't even branded as Pixar at all, and the Pixar Luxo logo trailer doesn't even show until after the credits.) That contract was replaced by a new 5 picture contract, so the 5 films are Bugs, MI, Nemo, Incredibles, and Cars (TS2 doesn't count, and Disney declined to allow Pixar to create a TS3 that would count as one of the films). In their last earnings teleconference, Pixar said that they are already in early pre-production on the film after Cars, which they are financing entirely themselves and which they will own all the rights to, although of course they could choose to get a new contract with Disney, they would just get to keep a much, much bigger piece of the profits (they currently get 50% minus all distribution fees)

    --
    "Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith