Teaser Trailer for 'Cars'; Info on 'Polar Express'

kid by Is0m0rph · 2004-11-05 05:07 · Score: 0

My kid will love it that's for sure... I'll see it about 500 times when it's out of DVD.

please don't ruin the story with fancy effects... by garcia · 2004-11-05 05:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

Adapted from Chris Van Allsburg's slim but richly illustrated children's book of the same name, The Polar Express was made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world. The technique has been used in some video games and, to a limited extent, in earlier movies. Warner Bros. says The Polar Express is the first feature made solely with the process.

I am appalled at how this article trivializes the wonder that the original book The Polar Express creates. I just want to say that calling the book "slim" might be true of the physical thickness of the book but the story and pictures contained within are fantastic. As a child I was riveted by this story and at one time seriously believed that this magic train could whisk me away to see the inner workings of all the Christmas fairytales you hear as a child.

My mother has passed the tradition of reading this book down to my youngest cousin (1st grader) and they are planning on taking my cousin to see this movie soon after it comes out.

I am really looking forward to seeing the movie myself and seeing how closely Zemeckis mimics my own mind's interpretation and expansion of the story and pictures. It *is* possible to recreate a story on the big screen from a novel and have it hold the same feeling that it did in print. I am crossing my fingers that the special effects and large budget don't take away from the real story that sits behind all the new-aged fanciness.

I really hope it doesn't ruin a great story.

Re:huh? by Meostro · 2004-11-05 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative

Right date, wrong year... Opening November 4th, 2005.

Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:11 · Score: 0, Funny

You sir, have a point!

Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:14 · Score: 0

See that thing right after the date? It's called a *year*.

"Performance Capture" not ready yet by sdo1 · 2004-11-05 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the trailers are any indication, then this "performance capture" technology has a long way to go. The background animation is fantastic, but the characters look wooden, stiff, and completely lacking emotion. I find the animation style they've created to be very uninvolving and distracting (if those two things can coexist).

Great idea. Lousy execution.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Meostro · 2004-11-05 05:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is a phenomenon known as the uncanny valley, and there's a good discussion about it here. It's the same thing as Finaly Fantasy: Spirits Within, where the backgrounds were fantastic, the people were "best.... humans.... ever!" and they still looked weird.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Lumpy · 2004-11-05 05:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Which blows my mind as to WHY they chose to do it thisway.

they could have completely created the places and situations in the book fathifully by simply doing the same tricksused in the harry potter films.

why it was 100% animated escapes me. IT would have been better and certianly more entertaining if it was live actors with CG.

and yes, it certianly could have been done. I saw the film last weekend, we had a special release here in the writer's home town.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2004-11-05 05:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

"performance capture" is just a euphemism for "motion capture" which has gotten a pretty bad rap among animators. Of course the animation style is wooden and lacking emotion! An animators job is to not just duplicate a motion, but capture the essence of that motion and then make it appealing. An animator, unlike an actor in a body suit, is in control and aware of every single part of the body in motion, and animation needs that control and focus in order to succeed in creating a living character in a computer or on paper.

The studios would love to make you believe that motion capture is removing an unnecessary in-between from creating the character in the computer to making him live by capturing an exact motion, but I feel that motion capture is just a cheap imitation of animation.

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Morgahastu · 2004-11-05 05:45 · Score: 1

Yes, it looks very off. Whenever I watch a clip of it I am distracted by the animation style. The lip synch seems off although I am sure it's right. It's just like watching a movie at 30fps and thinking it looks worst then 24.5fps of traditional film because that's what we're used to.

I had the same feeling watching trailers for Sky Captain, I was always distracted by the look of the film.

It worked for gollum because it was a realistic character in a real environment. Dancing characters in a disney'ish movie created with motion capture looks really odd.

I think the lip synch looks wrong because they recorded the audio seperately and then dubbed it over the performances and it looks odd. That or the motion capture for lips was done seperately and then pasted over the performance.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Xibby · 2004-11-05 05:47 · Score: 1

I think the problem with the movie is that the characters look too real. When I see the trailer, I see zombies that haven't become ugly yet...not children. Final Fantasy had this aspect as well, but I it seems that it has been exaggerated significantly by making it an animation for kids (by "tooning" up the characters.)

--
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by CarnivoreMan · 2004-11-05 05:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why do they call it "Performance Capture" when "Motion Capture" is the industry accepted term? Unless this is a new variation that I'm not aware of. Regardless, while motion capture can do a wonderful job recreating the realistic movements of a body, it doesnt capture many subtle things. The primary thing in mind being facial expressions. There are methods for this, but does anybody know if they used them in development of this flick? Motion Capture is great, and I dont believe is a bad excuse for good animators, but it cant be used by itself. You need the talents of skilled animators to refine the animations, add the subtle things that motion capture doesnt capture, and obviously animate things that werent motion captured.. like environments and whatnot. Summary: Motion capture cant do it by itself. It needs the animators to fill in the many gaps it leaves. /ramble off
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by lothar97 · 2004-11-05 06:12 · Score: 1

I had the same feeling watching trailers for Sky Captain, I was always distracted by the look of the film.
I too was bothered a bit how Sky Captain looked in the trailers, but I can assure you that the full screen movie version looked amazing- like nothing I had ever seen before (in a good way). I totally enjoyed the look/feel of Sky Captain.
It'll be interesting to see if this translates to DVD/video well.

--
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by UWC · 2004-11-05 06:14 · Score: 1

They're calling it "performance capture" for exactly one of the reasons (among others, I suppose, too) you say that simple motion capture is insufficient. In this movie, they actually are capturing facial expresions and such. I heard a feature about it on NPR last night. Tom Hanks (who apparently did the "performance" for both the conductor and the child protagonist) was talking about the suit and process he went through, including the 4 minutes spent each day having ihs face painted and prepared for the capture. They perform in a small area with wire mesh objects to represent the items with which their CG counterparts will be interacting. It does sound to some degree more complex than most previous capture endeavors, but also gives the sense that they did not put much priority into tweaking the performance after the recording.

I think a very large part of what made Gollum so successful is that they didn't accept the motion capture as the be-all end-all of the performance. It looks like the animators were most likely able to augment and change the character to achieve something that manages to bridge that uncanny valley. Though I guess his not-quite-human appearance softens the oddness, too.

Here's a link to a page with a link to the audio feature I talked about (the "Listen" button above the picture).

--
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by melekzek · 2004-11-05 06:46 · Score: 1

They make big news stories about how they used the latest technology and how it is going to revolutionarize the animation blabla. The bottom line is the results are ugly. The simple reason of using motion capture is because motion capture technician is cheaper than a good animator. And they can make large amounts of animation, fast, and did i mentioned cheap. Yes, they used similar techniques in Gollum, but a group of animators edited the motion capture results and added fine scale animation which motion capture cannot capture yet.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by NanoGator · 2004-11-05 07:09 · Score: 1

"Why do they call it "Performance Capture" when "Motion Capture" is the industry accepted term?"

A.) Motion Capture doesn't traditionally capture facil movement. Performance capture does.

B.) Because of point A, hiring somebody like Tom Hanks is a huge win. It wouldn't be so exciting for motion capture.

" The primary thing in mind being facial expressions. There are methods for this, but does anybody know if they used them in development of this flick?"

Yes. Sadly I don't know a lot about it, but I did catch a blurb on some entertainment show where they had Tom Hanks with markers all over his face.
"Summary: Motion capture cant do it by itself. It needs the animators to fill in the many gaps it leaves. /ramble off"

More or less true, however do not discount Tom Hanks's role in the performance here.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by aedan · 2004-11-05 07:22 · Score: 1

>> I find the animation style they've created to be very uninvolving and distracting (if those two things can coexist).

Sure can, just think Christmas tinsel. Almost time for the Festivus pole.

aedan
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by tgibbs · 2004-11-05 08:02 · Score: 1

This is a phenomenon known as the uncanny valley, [arclight.net] and there's a good discussion about it here [slashdot.org]. It's the same thing as Finaly Fantasy: Spirits Within, where the backgrounds were fantastic, the people were "best.... humans.... ever!" and they still looked weird.

Thanks for the reference. This describes exactly my reaction to "Spirits Within." I found the realistic human characters distracting in a way that the somewhat caricatured characters of, say, "Shrek" are not, because my brain initially bought the illusion, and then spent the rest of the film trying to figure out what was wrong with them. We are very acute in observing our fellow human beings, and any tiny deviation from perfection tends to come across as sinister or pathological.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by slagdogg · 2004-11-05 08:42 · Score: 1

I read on article on this a couple weeks ago. Apparently they captured Hanks' facial expressions along with the more basic movements (by placing the sensors all over his face). The problem, however, is that they cannot capture the eyes, which are the most important aspect of making a human representation seem human.

With the Incredibles, Pixar chose to make their characters less "realistic" than they were capable of. The goal of this was to enhance their sense of humanity, interestingly enough. We humans are a complicated beast, we are.

--
(Score:-1, Wrong)
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Sporkinum · 2004-11-05 09:12 · Score: 1

When I see the trailer, I see zombies that haven't become ugly yet..

Excellent analogy! They are creepy looking, especially the Tom Hanks character, but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by shurikt · 2004-11-05 10:44 · Score: 1

... but the characters look wooden, stiff, and completely lacking emotion.
...umm, I think that's just Tom Hanks' acting style.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by register_ax · 2004-11-05 11:23 · Score: 1

Which blows my mind as to WHY they chose to do it thisway.
Well, considering Tom Hanks plays five characters in the movie Polar Express, I'm guessing shot in the bone and flesh would have been a bit more daunting. Tom Hanks is brilliant, Zemeckis has said that to find a little boy with Hanks' skills and to keep the kid from growing during those two years of shooting would be difficult.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by El+Destructo · 2004-11-05 12:06 · Score: 1

An animator, unlike an actor in a body suit, is in control and aware of every single part of the body in motion
But good actors do exactly that. Your obliviousness to the skill, and the control and practice required to achieve it, only proves that they've done their job.
I'd say instead that an exaggerated, processed reality demands the exaggerated, processed movement that only animation can provide.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2004-11-05 13:01 · Score: 1

as a human being, I can tell you that it's pretty much impossible to be in control of every part of your body at any given moment as much as an animator is with his puppet. An animator spends a long time going frame by frame and seeing which frames work and which frames don't. An actor, no matter how trained, would never be able to get that kind of control. An actor can not see how he is moving from the cameras perspective while he is acting... it's a couple of takes, then move on. That's why it takes a significantly less amount of time to put something on film than it does to animate it in a computer.

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-05 15:28 · Score: 1

When I saw the preview for Polar Express, the uncanny valley was the first thing that came to my mind too. For some reason I found it even more disturbing than the Final Fantasy animation. No way I could watch 90 minutes of this without clawing my eyes out.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-05 15:32 · Score: 1

Not true. At SIGGRAPH last year I watched several real-time motion capture systems at work. You can see a 3D rendered, realtime animation of a model using the motion captured data as it is created. So an actor doesn't have to work completely blind, they can actually see how their movements look in the capture data and adjust accordingly.

Obviously you don't get the same polycount and render detail in a realtime animation as you do in rendered film footage, but that's pretty much irrelevant to getting the motion capture down properly.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-05 15:40 · Score: 1

The problem is not motion capture technology in general. Motion capture, done properly (with real-time feedback for actors, and some tweaking by animators) can look very good for gross body movement. At least 90% of the problem here is as others have pointed out the uncanny valley effect in the facial animations. I'm not sure if they actually tried to do motion capture of some sort on facial movements, but the technology just isn't fine grained enough for that yet. Facial animations need to be done manually still to get a pleasing effect.

The body animations in Polar Express may not be fantastic, but this didn't stick out like a sore thumb in the trailer. I'm not sure if it was the rendering, movement or combination of both on the faces, but boy, this is a textbook example of how terribly distracting the uncanny valley can be - you just spend the whole time staring at the faces trying to figure out why they creep you out so much.
Re:"Performance Capture" not ready yet by nEoN+nOoDlE · 2004-11-06 09:54 · Score: 1

It's still a moot point. While the results can be seen pretty quickly, the actor still does not have the capability of controlling his body as much as an animator has his puppet. He could keep doing take after take, but the final result will never be as refined as when an animator spends hours pouring over every frame of an animation.

And even with good realtime feedback, motion capture still needs to be cleaned up a LOT by animators.

--
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.

Re:bah it's quicktime by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:15 · Score: 0

No. Sorry.

The real question though is... by tehanu · 2004-11-05 05:15 · Score: 2, Funny

"The movie Polar Express will open Wednesday and could create a film genre somewhere between animation and live action. Made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world. The technique has been used in some video games and, to a limited extent, in earlier movies. Warner Bros. says The Polar Express is the first feature made solely with the process."

...is it a good movie?

Re:The real question though is... by BoredStiff · 2004-11-05 05:24 · Score: 0

...is it a good movie?

I guess that all depends at how good you are at predicting the future considering the film doesn't open until November 10, 2004.
Re:The real question though is... by razmaspaz · 2004-11-05 05:47 · Score: 1

I don't know, but it was a great book, and it is a great director!

--
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Re:The real question though is... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:49 · Score: 0

It is possibly the dumbest movie in the world. The trailer made it look idiotic, it takes a myth (christmas) and adds another made-up layer to it to decieve and confuse children further. Anyone who sees it with a child will have to explain why they never shared this story with the child before or expose the Santa Myth by telling them 'this story's made up, but Santa is real'. Thanks a lot. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, it stars a Baldwin brother.

In the True Multi-National Spirit by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:16 · Score: 1, Funny

The Fiat Cinquecento is waving the checkered flag. That by itself rocks!

Re:In the True Multi-National Spirit by legrimpeur · 2004-11-05 05:38 · Score: 1

... perhaps the most powerful car has ever seen light, designed in the technologically most advanced country of the world!!! ;-)
I guess a North American would istantaneously die of claustrophobia upon entering in it
Re:In the True Multi-National Spirit by lrucker · 2004-11-05 06:48 · Score: 1

powerful...I guess a North American would istantaneously die of claustrophobia upon entering in it
Are we talking the same Cinquecento here? One of my most lasting memories of my trip to England 9 years ago was two weeks of driving with my arms at full extension and my legs squished up, with the wheel well extending into the foot space so far my foot had to be at an odd angle to reach the gas.
My car's a Miata, so I'm no stranger to small, but that was ridiculous.
(Or were you going for a Funny mod? Can't imagine too many Americans even know what those are)
Re:In the True Multi-National Spirit by dirkdidit · 2004-11-05 12:19 · Score: 1

Wow, I'm so glad I wasn't the only one who got excited over that. I yelled "w00t" when I saw that little car waving the flag, forgetting for a second that I am indeed at work. I'm being laughed at once again for both liking Fiats and owning one(124 Spider Convertible). I'm going back to my corner now.
Re:In the True Multi-National Spirit by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 20:22 · Score: 0

I guess he is. Italians make many stylish and powerful cars, but the Cinqucento isn't one of them. My coworker's one caught fire in the car park, all by itself!

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Esteanil · 2004-11-05 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yet it wasn't just such cinematic sleights that initially drew Zemeckis into the unproven world of performance capture. Instead, it was a search for verisimilitude.
...
Had he made the movie in live action, Zemeckis says, he would have had to "throw out all the glorious paintings." Close readers of the book may recognize that each and every book illustration is represented in the film.

Looks like he's using special effects for all the right reasons, at least. We'll just have to wait and see how the movie turns out :-)

(And for the vocabularily challenged: verisimilitude.
1. The quality of appearing to be true or real. See Synonyms at truth.
2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real.)

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.

Creepy by Seanasy · 2004-11-05 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I've seen the Polar Express trailer in theaters a couple times, now. Every time I see it I think one thing: Uncanny Valley.

Re:Creepy by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · 2004-11-05 05:33 · Score: 1

Excellent point! They look way too real yet not nearly real enough...
Re:Creepy by Rorschach1 · 2004-11-05 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ditto. I read the Slashdot articles on the subject a while back, and it's the first thing that popped into my head when I saw the trailer. I think the movie's going to have trouble because it's just so slightly OFF. The old guy on the train telling the kid to 'believe'? It just comes out creepy.

It may not seem like a big deal, but I think it's really going to interfere with the audience forming any kind of emotional bond with the characters.

I can't remember the last time I was so put off by a movie trailer. I don't plan to go see it. I think they really need to stick to cartoonish characters and ogres and such until the realism in facial expressions and body language catch up with the pretty graphics.
Re:Creepy by Nodar · 2004-11-05 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't remember the last time I was so put off by a movie trailer.
Hulk.

--
Don't Blame me if I seem bitter, I'm at work, and the TV only plays soap operas.
Re:Creepy by Xibby · 2004-11-05 05:56 · Score: 4, Funny

That stupid hopping lamp gets more of an emotional response than the Polar Express characters. The Polar Express could derail, plummet off a cliff, burst into flames, and kill everyone aboard and the only thought in your mind would be "damn that looked cool!"

--
I'm going to go back in my box and will think within the limits of my box: MS Sucks Linux Good I read too much Slashdot.
Re:Creepy by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:57 · Score: 0

Awww. You ruined the surprise ending.
Re:Creepy by cparisi · 2004-11-05 07:07 · Score: 1

I agree. The animation of the facial expressions make the "actors" seem like plastic replicas of people or something. I get totally creeped out. I think they would have been much better off using real actors in a digital environment.

I saw a preview, and they RUINED Polar Express by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:18 · Score: 4, Funny

In the book, Santa shoots first. Revisionist bastards!

Re:I saw a preview, and they RUINED Polar Express by _Bucktooth_ · 2004-11-05 08:14 · Score: 1

"Your mistletoe is no match for my tow missle!"

Re:bah it's quicktime by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:18 · Score: 0

Anybody got a torrent?

Opens in theaters November 4th, 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:19 · Score: 5, Funny

And on bittorrent November 5th.

Re:Opens in theaters November 4th, 2005 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:00 · Score: 0

Wouldn't that be the 3rd?

I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Phoenixhunter · 2004-11-05 05:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

I was under the impression that Pixar had fulfilled their contract for a set number of movies with Disney with the completion of "The Incredibles" could someone clarify?

Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by tabacco · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 5, Informative

Sure. The original Toy Story was under a different deal. Then came Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, and now The Incredibles and Cars to finish off a 5-picture deal signed after Toy Story. Through some contractual madness, Disney discovered that they didn't have to count Toy Story 2 towards the count, since apparently some clause said that in effect sequels don't count.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by PedanticSpellingTrol · 2004-11-05 05:28 · Score: 1

No, Disney's powers of evil-but-easily-overlooked contract clauses were so great that Toy Story 2 didn't count because it was a sequel.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:33 · Score: 0

They are. Pixar is just finishing their contract agreements.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Tlosk · 2004-11-05 05:42 · Score: 1

Heh, well that would explain the trailer. Just push the last one out and finish the contract. Cars looks like total crap, I mean you can play video games that look 10x better now than what was in the trailer, and if a rusted truck saying "dag gum" over and over is what passes for humor, I think I will pass.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by tabacco · 2004-11-05 05:56 · Score: 1

Well, bear in mind that Pixar frequently uses footage in teaser trailers that's not in the actual movie. For example, the original Monsters, Inc. teaser was created entirely for the teaser. I sort of suspect that the original teaser for The Incredibles is the same, although I'm not seeing the film until tonight.

Cars is being directed by John Lasseter, who I have a lot of faith in. He was the director on both Toy Stories and on Bug's Life, so he definitely knows what he's doing.

And as for "dad gum," that's pretty much Larry the Cable Guy's dialog in everything :)
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by cvd6262 · 2004-11-05 06:06 · Score: 1

Actually this story seems to disprove that urban legend.

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,9847,00.ht ml

It seems that Pixar resigned a contract after Monster's Inc, for 3 more pictures.

More articles explain that talks broke down in January becuase Pixar wanted the new contract to cover the Incredibles and Cars, effectively altering the contract Pixar signed in 2001.

I'd happily get refuted though.

--

I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by NaugaHunter · 2004-11-05 06:29 · Score: 1

I think part of the occurrence with TS2 was that Disney views animation sequels as direct-to-video cash cows. Unlike other animation sequels Pixar went all out on it and convinced Disney to move it to theatres, but it was still not counted as a 'feature' but as a 'sequel' for contractual purposes.

This article confirms that it originally was a direct-to-video project, as does this one. I thought Pixar had to fight harder, but I may have just read a biased story at the time. There was a story during the contract 'negotiations' that Disney would develop Toy Story 3 on it's own, but I don't know if that's still true. Probably, though; they own all the characters from the original contracts and aren't ones to not milk something to death.

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by aedan · 2004-11-05 07:26 · Score: 1

Disney claimed that Toy Story and Toy Story 2 counted as one movie.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Thud457 · 2004-11-05 07:43 · Score: 1

I want to see Pixar do "Pixar's Contractual Obligation movie"!
Pixar does Disney better than Disney does now. I suspect that since idiot asshole (Michael Eisner, we're talking Disney in this case) will be gone by the time Pixar fulfills the current contract that they might re-sign with Disney for distribution, hopefully under a less rapacious agreement.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by WuphonsReach · 2004-11-05 08:48 · Score: 1

This article confirms that it originally was a direct-to-video project, as does this one.

Also covered in the Toy Story Box Set of DVDs, where they specifically talk about how TS2 was originally planned as a direct-to-consumer project. I don't remember where along the way it got changed to a theatrical release, but the gist of it was that they realized that they had a very good storyline going and made the switch.

--
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by RedWizzard · 2004-11-05 08:54 · Score: 1

If you click on the link labelled "original contract" in that story it takes you to this article from 1997, which says the original deal signed in 1991 was for three films: Toy Story and two more. In 1997 a second deal was signed for 5 films, the first two of which where the last two from the first deal (so A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, and Cars). This second deal is the one everyone talks about, and it is this deal that Disney pulled the "sequels don't count" move on. So no urban legend, although most people do assume that Toy Story was part of the five Pixar/Disney films.
That article you cited is misleading in that it says "Disney and Pixar have sealed a deal" which implies a new contract, but it actually talking about the last three movies of the 5 picture deal signed in 1997.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Mattcelt · 2004-11-05 21:43 · Score: 1

I saw 'the incredibles' tonight and loved it. It was mostly up to Pixar's standards, though the storyline was a bit weaker (albeit more complex) than the previous movies. The humor was definitely there - the whole theatre laughed, and there wasn't a single kid in the audience.

The technical effects were even more amazing, IMHO, than the differences between Toy Story and Toy Story 2. Long hair, long wet hair, it was amazing. The best parts were when I caught myself saying, "hey! that didn't look real!"

But you are right, there are some things in the trailer that didn't make it into the movie itself. But I don't think the movie suffers too much from it.
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by Mattcelt · 2004-11-05 21:47 · Score: 1

IIRC, Eisner (who I think is as close as this generation has seen to the antichrist, excepting perhaps Jack Valenti) is already gone. Wasn't he ousted or something last year? I thought Disney had a replacement for him already?

Or maybe it's just 5:00am and I'm hallucinating from lack of sleep. Could be just wishful thinking on my part... :-)
Re:I thought Pixar was done with Disney? by tabacco · 2004-11-06 06:16 · Score: 1

No, what I meant was that they created a scene specifically for the trailer that was never meant for the film. In the teaer, Mr. Incredible is trying to squeeze into his new red suit, when in the film that suit wasn't made for him until he'd already lost the weight.

On Monsters Inc. they created the whole Upper Magnolia/Outer Mongolia argument scene for the teaser. Not to mention the Harry Potter charades thing. It's a neat trick. I really hate when the trailer shows half the good moments from the film.

Hmpf. by tambo · 2004-11-05 05:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

Huh? Cars? That's really the next Pixar film?

First, I can't think of a more mundane and generic title. Continung this trend, the next Pixar film should be called Shoes - or maybe Toothbrushes. It's a moving story about a friendship between a floss dispenser and a tube of whitening toothpaste, and it also promotes dental hygiene!

Second - this is going to be hard - I love Pixar, and find their films to be great entertainment. But their schtick is starting to wear a little thin. We've done bugs, toys, monsters, and fish, and they've talked about doing robots. Now we're moving into consumer products. I'm curious how much longer this trend can continue, and whether or not they'll start slipping into that most humdrum of habits - the serial. Is it time for Toy Story 3 yet?

Pixar is brimming with incredible talent. That's why it will be such a shame if the public tires of seeing it applied to rather cliche genres. This is fantasy - we need new fantasy environments. Really alternate-reality stuff that veers between comic and wondrous. In the end, that's the highest calling of uber-powerful CGI art: to allow us to envision a previously unimaginable world. I think Pixar is, oddly enough, missing the boat in that regard.

- David Stein

--
Computer over. Virus = very yes.

Re:Hmpf. by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Damn. I just posted, and then read your post. I would have modded you up.

Bang. Nail. On the head. Right there ladies and gentlemen. Wake up Pixar! This is what you need to be making! Not dumass movies about a hick car (I mean, come on, how cliched can you get) and his suave buddy the sports car.

I want to see HHGTG but in technicolour! I want to see the alternate dimensions of string theory space! I want to see a five headed alien father who loses his wife in a horrible accident leaving him to look after his lame son, all by himself, but then the son wanders off and is kidnapped by 9th dimensional beings and the father travels across the UNIVERSE looking for his son and finds him in a fish bowl in a Sydney ... oh hang on, sounds familiar ...

uh ...

NEW STUFF PLEASE. :)
Re:Hmpf. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Whatever - "Cars" is definitely not a neutral title. Americans, at least, have incredibly strong emotional connection to their (and others') autos; everyone from Isaac Asimov to Stephen King has capitalized on this to write some good fiction. One of the creepiest stories I ever read in my youth was a S. King short story simply titled "Trucks". I think that the concept was turned into a movie called "Maximum Overdrive".

I have absolutely zero knowledge about this Pixar production, but a title like "Cars", perhaps partly from the precedent set by "Kids" and "Toys", makes me expect something subtly but powerfully disturbing. I'm actually more concerned that Pixar will drop the ball and not live up to the title.
Re:Hmpf. by FortissimoWily · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 1

Well, to be fair to Pixar, I'm pretty sure that Disney had a little bit of say with regard to the direction/target audiences of the movies covered under that five-picture deal (I can't say for sure, of course, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me)... I'm sure Pixar will "wake up" as soon as Cars is out, and the Disney contract is in effect, over. ;P
Re:Hmpf. by Morgahastu · 2004-11-05 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a teaser for a movie coming out a year from now. If you had seen a teaser for Toy Story with just a bunch of clips of toys you would of had the same rant. And again with a bug's life, finding nemo, and monster's inc.

Pixar surprises everyone time and time again with amazingly polished and deep movies. Have they given you a reason to doubt them before? No.

The racing part appears to have nothing to do with the movie, the only real hint of the movie is the clip with the sports car and the pick up talking. How can you judge a movie by that?

Relax and maybe you'll enjoy another great Pixar movie.
Re:Hmpf. by donnyspi · 2004-11-05 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

We've done bugs, toys, monsters, and fish, and they've talked about doing robots...
The above list contains all the things the average kid likes. These cartoon movies are made for the average kid, with elements that their parents will like so they'll sit thru the movie with their child. Kids aren't bored with movie titles or topics like the above. Keep it rollin, Pixar, you're doing fine.
Re:Hmpf. by Gogo+Dodo · 2004-11-05 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tell the Chevron people that talking cars aren't popular.
Re:Hmpf. by razmaspaz · 2004-11-05 05:54 · Score: 2

Isn't the problem really that DISNEY won't do anything new? Pixar is locked into a deal with disney and can't release their own movies. I can imagine that after they get out from under the disney brand, they will begin to release some not so disneyfied movies. Love him or hate him Steve Jobs and Apple are not known for doing the same old thing (they may have stolen the ideas from Xerox, but they sure as hell weren't copying IBM) so why would you expect the same old same old from Jobs and Pixar? Give 'em 2 more movies and you will see the real pixar!

--
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Re:Hmpf. by GSV+Ethics+Gradient · 2004-11-05 06:00 · Score: 1

Is it time for Toy Story 3 yet?

Disney are developing Toy Story 3 and Monsters Inc 2 themselves - as part of the original deal Disney own the rights to all sequels to Pixar films... If they follow the usual Disney sequel standard (Mulan II, Lion King 2, and 3, Cinderella II etc.) expect them to be a poor imitation of the originals...
Re:Hmpf. by chrome · 2004-11-05 06:02 · Score: 1

Right.

No doubt they're sitting on the best ideas for the movies that they'll be making under their own steam.

I don't know what it is about Disney, but I've liked them less and less over the years. Pretty much all they touch over the last few years has turned to crap.

Japanese Anime seems to have much more universal appeal these days. But then, I'm living in Japan, so I'm kinda biased ;)
Re:Hmpf. by jhkoh · 2004-11-05 06:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Disney started to make Toy Story 2 on their own, and before they could ruin it, Pixar stepped in and made it themselves, as is their contractual right. However, Pixar probably will not make future sequels, so caveat emptor. Details from CNN:
In addition, Disney probably will be able to make the sequels to all the Pixar films made under the current agreement, paying Pixar only limited royalties.
While Pixar has the right of first refusal to make the sequels, under the current agreement it would have to put up half the money and get only 35 percent of the profit, which makes it extremely unlikely Pixar will make the sequels, said Jeffrey Logsdon, analyst with Harris, Nesbitt and Gerard.
Disney said Thursday it's working on "Toy Story 3" as part of a new push to do its own computer-generated animated features, though it did not give a release date.
Re:Hmpf. by blamanj · 2004-11-05 07:12 · Score: 1

I saw the teaser for "The Incredibles" a long, long time ago, and laughed my ass off. It's not much to go on, granted, but based on that trailer, "Cars" will be Pixar's first dud.
Re:Hmpf. by thealmightyegg · 2004-11-05 07:25 · Score: 1

The racing part appears to have nothing to do with the movie, the only real hint of the movie is the clip with the sports car and the pick up talking.

I think that the pitstop in the racing scene, where little forklift-type thingies replace the tires on the car instead of people doing it, may be a sign that there will be no people in this movie. I think that every other Pixar movie has had people in it at some point, except maybe "A Bug's Life" and "The Incredibles". The complete removal of people would be nice, as it would get rid of that nasty "Uncanny Vally" effect we've been hearing so much about.

--

-----
120 chairs?! What the hell am I supposed to do with 120 chairs...?
Re:Hmpf. by djtripp · 2004-11-05 08:40 · Score: 1

Well put. And since most of us "adults" were "kids" once, I think it will drum up memories. But unlike some other animated movies out there that rely on fart jokes (Now don't get me wrong, i like fart jokes), the writers and directors delve a little deeper into the plots and sub plots, the comedy just comes naturally. I can honestly say, I laughed more than the kids did at every Pixar film, and like a little wimp, shed a tear or two.

--
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!
Re:Hmpf. by mr100percent · 2004-11-05 09:10 · Score: 1

Definately, this film looks like a movie to pander to babies the same age as "Thomas the Tank Engine" or "Jay-Jay the Jet Plane."

I loved Toy Story and will go see The Incredibles, but this one looks too babyish for me.
Re:Hmpf. by Refrag · 2004-11-05 09:59 · Score: 1

Didn't Pixar do commercials for Chevron before Toy Story?

--
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Re:Hmpf. by PhoenixOne · 2004-11-05 11:58 · Score: 1

The problem with making "alien stuff" (something that has little or no base in our reality) is that it alienates the crowd. Alienated crowds do not give good reviews and then Pixar doesn't make any money for Jobs. ;)
Personally, I *love* new and alien stuff. I go to art house films monthly, check out "guerilla" art shows, and create weird simulated AI lifeforms on my computer to entertain me. I know I'm not alone, but we are definitely in the minority. Hopefully, as the technology becomes cheaper and cheaper, there will be more alien stuff for us to consume... :)

--
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
Re:Hmpf. by Gogo+Dodo · 2004-11-05 12:55 · Score: 1

Maybe. I have no idea.

The Chevron car commercials are done by Aardman Animations. Some group who do Wallace and Grommit.
Re:Hmpf. by Rakarra · 2004-11-05 13:26 · Score: 1

Japanese Anime seems to have much more universal appeal these days. But then, I'm living in Japan, so I'm kinda biased ;)
When I first saw Spirited Away, so many reviewers were saying "Ok, this is it! This is going to be the anime movie that finally crosses over into American mainstream. Then I saw the movie, and knew it wouldn't happen. Why? Because the movie was extremely Japanese. Don't get me wrong, it was excellent. But I knew that American audiences wouldn't be able to get into it because it is very foreign in many respects. Beautiful story, but universal appeal?
Re:Hmpf. by Fnkmaster · 2004-11-05 15:57 · Score: 1

Cars may or may not be your type of movie, but talking cars and NASCAR racing will play well to a lot of the country. Just look at an electoral vote map - see all those red states? All the daddies in those red states will take their kids to see this movie, I guarantee you.

I like a lot of the Pixar movies. I don't have to like all of them. They are a company, they will make movies that people want to see, and hopefully that are creative and fun. The Incredibles looks quite awesome, and I'm looking forward to seeing it. If they make one that I don't like, fine, I won't go watch it.

I don't really see your point about bugs, toys, monsters and fish - other than all being things that kids are curious and can relate to in some way, what the hell do they have in common? The stories undoubtedly had some common elements, but were hardly clones of each other. The reason these movies do so well is kids can relate to them and enjoy watching them, but the stories are interesting and funny for adults too. So parents actually look forward to going to these movies with their kids (and some people like me use them as date movies because chicks melt when they see cute animated characters).

By comparison to these "boring" movies about bugs, toys, monsters and fish, try watching Shark Tale (what's that about? fish?). It was nearly painful to watch. The animation was decent enough I guess, but the acting and the directing were just terrible. Makes you appreciate what Pixar does well with their movies.
Re:Hmpf. by mblase · 2004-11-05 19:09 · Score: 1

This is fantasy - we need new fantasy environments. Really alternate-reality stuff that veers between comic and wondrous.

And I love stories like that, too. But believe it or not, most people don't. They want stories that exist in a world they know, that they can understand without having to use much imagination. Tragic, I know, but there you have it.
Re:Hmpf. by Provocateur · 2004-11-06 04:46 · Score: 1

to allow us to envision a previously unimaginable world.

Yes! I'd like to see them do Clive Barker's Imajica!

So that I won't have to buy the book. (I already did and managed to miss it or misplace it while moving. Swear to god.)

--
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Re:Hmpf. by chrome · 2004-11-07 16:30 · Score: 1

I wouldn't suggest 'Spirited Away' as being something I'd consider having appeal that works outside of Japan as well as inside.

Nausicaa and Laputa, made by the same group as "Spirited Away" were much more universal in their appeal. I too didn't understand "Spirited Away" as it draw heavily on Japanese mythology, I think.

"Laputa" is a fun, broad movie that has a grandness of scale that I loved in TV shows like "The Mysterious Cities of Gold", circa 1980's.

Nausicaa is just cool, very alien in some ways but its not based on anything inherently J so I'm pretty sure most western audiences would get it.

I guess this is the kind of thing that I'm asking for when I want different stuff than what is coming out of Pixar these days. I want to see something more grand and provoking that a few goofball superheroes ...

Don't get me wrong, I'll watch The Incredibles, and probably enjoy it. I just would like to see something more challenging, not mindless eyecandy for kids/adults with childlike appetites.

My Vent against Zemeckis by Ucklak · 2004-11-05 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just an opinion, nothing to see here.

Zemeckis was a talented director pushing the envelope in just about every movie he did.

I really felt ripped off and gyped with "What Lies Beneath" and "Castaway" with the marketing and even more so with the fact that he alone approved the maketing.

What I'm referring to is the fact that the endings of both movies were given away in the trailers. Watching those movies was just a waste of time if you've already seen the trailers.

What I can't believe is what he said about giving away the endings. He said that people continue to buy Big Macs because they know what they're going to get.

I'm just going to appreciate "Used Cars" to "Contact". If "Polar Express" is a good movie, then fine but I've already seen the trailers. The story is good and I'll just leave it as a book for me.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

... Super Babies? by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:20 · Score: 1, Funny

I was looking at the two things in the article, and then I saw .. SuperBabies.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/super_ babies_2/large.html

Oh, man, that movie is going to SUCK.

I mean, the thing is only going to appeal to pregnant women and George W Bush supporters ...

Re:... Super Babies? by Seanasy · 2004-11-05 05:26 · Score: 1

Whoa. That should be illegal.
Re:... Super Babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:28 · Score: 0

When it came out in August, it did sorta suck compared to most summer movies.

Super Babies: Baby Geniuses 2
Re:... Super Babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 0

Whoaaa.....
Now that ... is ... SCARY!
Re:... Super Babies? by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:38 · Score: 1

Hahahaha

Read the reviews on there? There was one really long post by 'kzoofilm'.

He says, at the end: By the way, Voight's next project is called "The Karate Dog," in which he'll co-star with Simon Rex, Pat Morita and Chevy Chase, who'll provide "the voice of Cho-Cho," according to the Internet Movie Database. Do an Oscar winner a big favor and call him this weekend -- really, the guy must be willing to do just about anything for a couple bucks.

Hahahaha. LMAO.

Oh, I'm so sad that such money can be thrown away so uselessly ...
Re:... Super Babies? by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:45 · Score: 1

Dude ... I just can't stop giggling from horror ..

from the IMDB Comments page thingie:

Summary: OH MY GOD!

Summary: Holy flaming tortillas!

Summary: Not bad, but my kids enjoyed it (WFT?!?)

Summary: worst movie ever made

Summary: This movie violates my beliefs!

Summary: My almost four-year-old grandson loved it! (STUPID CHILD)

Summary: rip off

Summary: a superb film. much better than I ever expected!!!!!!! (+5, Troll)

Summary: This One Makes Catwoman Look Good

Summary: Teething was more fun

Summary: my kids loved it!!!!

Summary: One of those rare horrible movies...that is a must-see!

Summary: Baby Geniuses 2-No Brains In Site

Summary: A Nappy Load Of Crappy

Summary: Impressively terrible

Summary: This movie made me lose my self respect.

Summary: Oh the pain!

Summary: Belongs in the trash, just like a diaper

oh. My. God. This movie has to be right up there with "Roller Blade Seven"
Re:... Super Babies? by mikey_boy · 2004-11-05 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Baby Geniuses 2?!?!! There was one before this?!

ye gods.
Re:... Super Babies? by ps_inkling · 2004-11-05 05:59 · Score: 1

The amusing thing is that they're using "Shake It Up", sung by The Cars, as their background music. It would be more appropriate for the Pixar movie.
I wonder what good movie movie idea was scrapped in favor of filming this... tripe. Oh, wait. This WAS the good movie idea. Nevermind.
Good story trumps production and set decoration. Break a leg, Pixar!
Re:... Super Babies? by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-11-05 06:23 · Score: 1

I mean, the thing is only going to appeal to pregnant women and George W Bush supporters ...

Wow. They're going to make a fortune.

--

I write in my journal
Re:... Super Babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:30 · Score: 0

Why on earth was this modded insightful? It's completely off-topic and the only thing that MIGHT be appealing to mods is the slam on Bush supporters. Sorry to insult such a low UID, but you deserve it.
Re:... Super Babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:21 · Score: 0

shouldn't all those beltway fucks be giving their money to the church and corporations, like good little sheep?
Re:... Super Babies? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 10:04 · Score: 0

TROLL ALERT

"...only going to appeal to pregnant women and George W Bush supporters"

Lemme guess - you're a liberal who believes that all babies (sorry, fetal parasites) should be aborted?

Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by Esteanil · 2004-11-05 05:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think the parent poster is unaware that this is the technique they used to make Gollum come to life in LOTR.

I, for one, certainly didn't find him wooden, stiff or lacking emotion!

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.

Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 0, Funny

Gollum wasn't human. He was a disgusting, piggish little shit. By the end of the third movie, there was nothing I wanted to see more than Gollum loaded into a catapult and fired off the end of that tall castle in the third movie.

As a matter of fact, if the DVD had included that scene with multiple camera angles, closeups and slow motion, I would have paid double.
Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by LocoMan · 2004-11-05 07:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Gollum was completely different. They did use motion capture to get him, but not exclusively. Sometimes the motion capture was only tweaked minimally by the animators, other times it was thrown away and used only as a guide, other times it wasn't even captured at all (like when Gollum is climbing down near the beggining of Two Towers) and he was completely hand animated. His face wasn't captured at all either, it was completely hand animated based on Serkiss's filmed performance. In Polar Express they seem to be using straigh untweaked motion capture for the body and faces of the characters, and at least from what I've seen in the trailers the results are the same I saw on the Final Fantasy movie, characters that just seem like moving mannequins, lacking the (in Disney's words) illusion of life. I guess it's the same that Disney found out when they were making Snow White, they were using some rotoscoping (filming an actor and then trace on top of it), and found that when they stayed too close to the filmed performance, the resulting animation was boring and lifeless.
Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by d-rock · 2004-11-05 07:24 · Score: 1

I don't know if that's a fair comparison. Gollum was intentionally unhuman, so the strangeness of the character I think covered up a lot of the flaws in the technique. That being said, there were still some scenes with Gollum where something didn't look natural outside of the character. See the previous poster on the "Uncanny Valley"; I wouldn't take my kids to see this if I had any because it looks too creepy.

Derek

--
Don't Panic...
Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by LocoMan · 2004-11-05 07:36 · Score: 1

Gollum was made differently. He was a mix of captured and hand made animation. It went from having the captured performance tweaked minimally, to being used only as a reference and re-creating the animation by hand, and even in some cases animating by hand from the beggining (like when Gollum is climbing down in the beggining of Two Towers). On top of that, Gollum's face was never captured, it was all hand animated using Serkiss's performance as a guide. On the other hand, IIRC Polar Express is untweaked capture both in the bodies and in the faces, and it shows.. they just, at least to me, seem like they're moving, but they're not alive. Like Disney said when they were using rotostoping when making Snow White, when they kept too close to the live performance, the resulting "animation" just didn't felt like it was alive.
Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:41 · Score: 0

Over half the fun in animated films is that the performance goes beyond what would be considered overkill in a live performance. Exagerated movements, facial features, colors, expressions.

Some flavors of animation even consist solely on stereotypical, over-exageraged performances. (Elmer Fudd, Bugs Bunny, Japanese Anime.)
Re:Gollum was wooden, stiff and lacking emotion? by LocoMan · 2004-11-05 11:57 · Score: 1

Sorry about the double post, computer was having troubles at work and didn't knew it actually went trough the first time.

Really? Human? by The-Bus · 2004-11-05 05:20 · Score: 1

I might have an inclination to see a movie like Polar Express. Then I saw the trailer and frankly it looked like the most lifeless movie I have ever seen. It's like the CG actors are not renditions of humans, but of hyper-active mannequins in some sort of mall recreation of the book.

No thanks, I'll pass.

Anyone else feel that way?

--

Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

Re:Really? Human? by Deathlizard · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 1

I have to agree on this.

seeing the trailer it looks like this movie was made on the same hardware to render the original Toy Story, but without the same rendering staff so it looks worse.

Maybe my expectations are much higher now since square pictures is doing such a great job with their renderings, but frankly The Polar Express characters look emotionless and puppetlike where Advent Children's characters look almost photorealistic and sometimes hard to believe their rendered.

--
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Re:Really? Human? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:45 · Score: 0

I might have an inclination to see a movie like Polar Express. Then I saw the trailer and frankly it looked like the most lifeless movie I have ever seen. It's like the CG actors are not renditions of humans, but of hyper-active mannequins in some sort of mall recreation of the book.

I was similarly unimpressed with the trailer, but just saw a Sneak Preview of the actual film.

Wow. See it.

The "lifeless" feel disappears after the first 5-10 seconds of watching. The stuff in the trailer just isn't long enough. Periodically, I would notice something that reminded me it wasn't live-action, but mostly I was sucked in. The non-actor CG effects were phenomenal as well. The movie has a lot more action than the book, so don't expect the same feeling a reading of The Polar Express before bed might evoke. But the movie is as true to the book as a movie could be, I think, while keeping the kiddies interested.
Re:Really? Human? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 11:31 · Score: 0

There could be a perfect movie that can use a lifeless humans now. Do you think someone would make a movie based on Terry Pratchett's Thief of Time and use the lifeless humans technique on Myria LeJean and the other Auditors?

another movie... by g-to-the-o-to-the-g · 2004-11-05 05:21 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm pretty sure "sky captain and the world of tomorrow" or whatever used this same technique.

I haven't decided whether or not it's really lame or cool yet, mostly because I haven't watched any movies that use the technique. Also, the only movies I know of using this technique look sorta lame.

--

Hi there

Re:another movie... by MDMurphy · 2004-11-05 05:30 · Score: 1

I was thinking that too, but realized that "Sky Captain" had the CGI sets , but actually filmed the actors and any props they held.

"Polar Express" seems to go this one step further, animating the actors as well.
Re:another movie... by MobyDisk · 2004-11-05 05:34 · Score: 3, Informative

No, not at all. Sky Captain was filmed in black-and-white in front of a blue screen, the backgrounds were added in, then colorized. But all the characters you see are the actual filmed characters, in their actual costumes. The Polar Express is completely digital, based on advanced motion capture. Nobody wears costumes, and nothing you see came from film.
Re:another movie... by meabolex · 2004-11-05 05:38 · Score: 1

The difference in technology between what Sky Captain and Polar Express did was that the actors in Sky Captain were placed into a digitally created environment. The actors in Polar Express are represented digitally by computer simulations of how they move. So technically, "Polar" is closer to animated movies than "Sky Captain," but they do overlap a bit.

So, in "Captain," you had real actors in a fake world. In "Polar," you have animations representing real actors with sensors describing the real actor's movements.

--
FORTUNE FAVORS IRONY
Re:another movie... by renderhead · 2004-11-05 05:38 · Score: 1

Actually, while the techniques sound similar based on the article summary, they are actually completely different. Sky Captain used green screens to drop actually real human actors into completely CG environments. Polar Express is using motion capture to drop CG characters into CG environments. I haven't read the article to see how this differs from traditional motion capture, but the end result is quite different from Sky Captain.

--
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Re:another movie... by sootman · 2004-11-05 05:47 · Score: 1

God dammit... Angelina Jolie was in Sky Captain but *Tom Hanks* is in the movie where no one wears costumes? eww...

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:another movie... by Lobo93 · 2004-11-05 05:54 · Score: 1

There's another flick utilizing the same technique, and indeed before "Sky Captain..." to boot: Immortel (ad vitam).
Some actors and most of the props are CGI, and albeit a bit crude and easily spotted, it creates a very special and unique atmosphere in the already "fantastic" story.

--
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
Re:another movie... by Rakarra · 2004-11-05 13:42 · Score: 1

Don't forget Casshern too!

creepy creepy creepy by bigbigbison · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 1

I have to say that the trailer to polar express has some of the creepiest looking animation I have ever seen.
Please, if you are thinking about seeing this with your kids, make sure they see the trailer and ask them if they want to see it first. I know I would have been scared as hell seeing that when I was a kid.

--
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players

Re:creepy creepy creepy by tsobo · 2004-11-05 05:57 · Score: 3, Informative

I have to say that the trailer to polar express has some of the creepiest looking animation I have ever seen. Please, if you are thinking about seeing this with your kids, make sure they see the trailer and ask them if they want to see it first. I know I would have been scared as hell seeing that when I was a kid.

I just saw a Sneak Preview of the actual film, and there were tons of kids in the theater. I didn't hear any of the kids get creeped out. Actually, for as many kids were there, I heard very little out of them period.

A phenomenal movie. See it.

The "creepiness" of the animation disappears after the first 5-10 seconds of watching. The stuff in the trailer just isn't long enough. Periodically, I would notice something that reminded me it wasn't live-action, but mostly I was sucked in. The non-actor CG effects were phenomenal as well. The movie has a lot more action than the book, so don't expect the same feeling a reading of The Polar Express before bed might evoke. But the movie is as true to the book as a movie could be, I think, while keeping the kiddies interested.

And no, I do not work for WB, though I am married to someone working with WB on a partnership.

Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by Basehart · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 1, Flamebait

I know the folks in Jesusland will be drooling over the NASCAR and Pickup Truck stuff, but I hope they throw some real race cars (F1, Rally) and Hybrid road cars in there so satiate the NW, NE and the rest of the World.

Re:Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:36 · Score: 0

I also agree. any idiot can drive in a circle.

give me someone in a souped up toyota careening on the edge of control across the country.

or the nice flat track of open wheel racing.

nascar drivers are pussies, no talent pussies.
Re:Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:59 · Score: 0

A lot of people across the US not just where you mentioned watch f1. Check out the discussion boards on speedtv.com. I totally agree that Nascar sucks, and Bush doing the start your engines thing this year, then taking off right next to the stadium in his 747 was sick look at me you loosers hee haw
Re:Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:31 · Score: 0

Well, seeing as Bush got 40% of the vote in New York, and 45% of the vote in New Jersey and California, this whole nation must be "Jesusland".

Yee-haw!
Re:Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by NardofDoom · 2004-11-05 06:33 · Score: 1

How about a Hybrid Rally Car? Electric motors in all four wheels, for microsecond traction control and a flat torque curve.
That baby would fly.

--
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Re:Hope there's some F1 and Hybrids in there! by asoap · 2004-11-05 06:55 · Score: 1

Haha... I don't see that happening.
If it has "stock car racing" in it, then it most surely has no real racing in it.
It just simply wouldn't work. Unless the story has something to do with a stock car having a self esteem problem, because it's not an f1 car. "Why does that car get to rev to 18k rpms?!?!"
Also I'll be depressed if the stock cars have different personalities, because they are all built to be the EXACT SAME.
Let's just thank God that F1 turned down Stallone when he wanted to make "driver" and f1 movie.
-Derek

--
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros

Where's Disney in all this? by wandazulu · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

I know that the Disney-Pixar deal lasts through the Incredibles (also Cars?) but unless there's some 11th hour deal to bring Pixar and Disney back together, one has to wonder what Disney is doing. Pixar is beating them to the punch with good characters and stories, and Polar Express looks pretty cool from a technology point of view (I can't comment on the story as I never read the book).

My guess is that Disney is either in deep denial, and will let Pixar slip away and then truly be SOL, they'll resolve their differences (at which point Disney is happy that they don't have to put out their own stuff to counter-act Pixar, which would probably put some unfinished and poorly thought out stuff (think Treasure Planet), or they're really honestly working on something very cool that will come out of left field a la Toy Story, and everyone will say that "Disney has found the magic again", and "Who needs Pixar when you've got Disney's ... "

Disney had a pretty long dry period until they hit it with Little Mermaid. Seeing how they were progressing (albiet slowly) from the ballroom scene in B&tB to the rather cool herd technology of Lion King (years before RotK), I'm actually pretty shocked that they've been unable to link good technology to a good story, being content to let Pixar do both jobs for them. My guess is that the Pixar-Disney deal never mentioned sharing source code, so Disney presumably will have to figure it all out for themselves.

OTOH, maybe they're abandoning animation altogether so they can put out more "Old Yellar" movies. In a few years, they may not have much choice.

Re:Where's Disney in all this? by WilliamGeorge · 2004-11-05 05:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

I used to work for Disney, and actually they are striking out into the CGI field on their own, after the recent falling-out with Pixar. They have done some of this in the past (Dinosaur), but look for "Chicken Little" coming out in something like Q2 of 2005. Also, Disney's normal animation department is still going, and I keep hearing rumors that the next big animated film will be a Princess movie again... though I can't think of any princess with a good story they haven't done already yet...

--
William George
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by cubicledrone · 2004-11-05 05:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

one has to wonder what Disney is doing.

Simple. Layoffs. Firings. Sequels. Crap. Raising prices. Destroying their 80-years-of-excellence animation division. 24 hours a day of garbage on television. Allowing Disneyland to turn into a toilet. Unsuccessfully trying to compete with anime, losing HUGE, like eight touchdowns huge, then frantically pouring mountains of cash into licensing deals so they can keep their name in theaters, then fucking up every anime product they have or just sitting on billion-dollar licenses for years and years and years and years for no reason.

In other words, the basic middle management results: clusterfuck

Then they started making movies about theme park rides and complaining that they can't make money with Monday Night Football. During this time they were paying about 197 lawyers to avoid paying royalties to Marvel and the Winnie the Pooh licensors. Now how much money do you suppose Disney has made on Winnie the Pooh? Billions? Tens of Billions?

maybe they're abandoning animation altogether so they can put out more "Old Yellar" movies.

They're abandoning animation altogether so they can save money. Big corporations are not interested in products. They are interested in brands.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by freqres · 2004-11-05 05:46 · Score: 1

The question comes down to, did Disney outsource all the Imagineers(c)?

--
Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by jfinke · 2004-11-05 06:10 · Score: 1

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Disney makes a play at getting Steve Jobs as the next president of the company.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by frank_adrian314159 · 2004-11-05 07:07 · Score: 2, Funny

though I can't think of any princess with a good story they haven't done already yet...
Favorite US Historical Figures: ... Abe Lincoln...
Sorry, man. I saw your sig after that comment and putting it together with Disney's notable rewriting of any historical tale, just got this really creepy image of Abe Lincoln as a princess in the next Disney movie. Yeah. It's high concept. Poor little pioneer girl, grows up to be a lawyer, puts on a fake beard and becomes President... We're talking mega-box office boffo here, babe!

--
That is all.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by Khomar · 2004-11-05 08:00 · Score: 1

The problem I see is that they will probably learn all of the wrong lessons from Pixar. Everybody keeps talking about the technology behind these films when the real strength is simple: great story, great characters. I would also add a clean script. They make a movie that all audiences can enjoy without regret. There are no scenes where people are squirming uncomfortably in their seats. It is the combination of these elements that have made Pixar great.

I see the same thing happening with LOTR as well. "Oh, well they are so much better than Star Wars because they used models as well as blue screen. We just need to use models." Forget the models. Forget the technology. You can make a great movie with pencil sketches if it has great characters and a great story. Once you have these components, the technology and art helps you to tell the movie in a more believable way. But it starts with the basics of good storytelling. Without that, you end up with "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Pearl Harbor".

--
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-11-05 08:23 · Score: 1

Exactly the same as Lucas.
EPIII will probably have 99 channel sound, multi petapixel/inch resolution, with spacecraft modelled using an array of supercomputers...
... and it will blow.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-11-05 08:26 · Score: 1

Is Jeffrey Katzenberg a factor?
As far as I know, Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King were all on his watch.
Remember, before The Little Mermaid, they'd been making sucky movies for quite a while.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by Refrag · 2004-11-05 10:02 · Score: 1

Almost all of the big CGI studios use Pixar's software to create their movies. I'm sure Disney does too.

--
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by wandazulu · 2004-11-05 10:11 · Score: 1

True enough, Renderman is the standard as far as I know. But because Pixar is both producer and consumer of said software (they also make some other tools that I'm forgetting the names of at the moment), they also have access to the developers, so if the Nemo team wanted water to look "just so", they'd merely have to walk over to the appropriate person's office, and maybe if it wasn't in there before, hey, a little coding and there you go. Even a paying customer like Disney wouldn't get that kind of service.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by Refrag · 2004-11-05 10:51 · Score: 1

And that is exactly how it works at Pixar. If the creative team needs to new effect to realize their story, they talk to the tools team about getting it. It seems like some of the other studios see new technology and build their movies around them.

--
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Re:Where's Disney in all this? by Spunk · 2004-11-06 04:53 · Score: 1

197 Lawyers

Well, it would have to be better than 102 Dalmatians.

Re:DO YOU HEAR THAT, HOLLYWOOD??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 0

garcia has spoken! You will obey! ALL HAIL GARCIA! HEIL GARCIA!

I think I speak for everyone that has read a book and been overly disappointed by its recreation on the big screen.

Big name actors, special effects, and altered storylines don't make the movie better. It makes it painful to watch.

Just because movie makers are hard pressed to find decent stories today and they continue to go back and remake old films, TV shows, and wonderful books into shitty, overbudget, special effects nightmares doesn't mean that they shouldn't hear some people speak their mind.

Maybe even the MPAA will hear and will understand why out of the movies made every year most of them suck.

Polar Express in 3D by Hieronymus+Howard · 2004-11-05 05:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Polar Express has also been created as a 3D IMAX Movie. Now I expect that will be worth seeing. I just wish that Pixar had done that with the Incredibles.

Re:Polar Express in 3D by emmaussmith · 2004-11-05 05:48 · Score: 1

It is starting on Wednesday at the IMAX here in Raleigh, NC. The IMAX 3D format is definitely better than the red/cyan that some may remember. IMAX 3D uses two projectors with glasses that have polarized lenses at right angles to each other.

http://www.exploris.org/ for the IMAX in Raleigh.

Motion-capture Animation? by da3dAlus · 2004-11-05 05:23 · Score: 5, Funny

The Polar Express was made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world.

Quick! Buy stock in Animotion!

Quoter: For automated stock prices, please state the company name.
Homer: Animotion.
Quoter: Animotion: Up one and one-half.
Homer: Yahoo!
Quoter: Yahoo: Up six and a quarter.
Homer: Huh? What is this crap?
Quoter: Fox Broadcasting: Down eight.

--

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

Re:Motion-capture Animation? by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:48 · Score: 1

heh, I giggle at this too, because I was watching this episode on japanese TV JUST LAST NIGHT.

SPOOKY OR WHAT.

We could be linked by our brains. BRAINS.

Is this really different than rotoscoping? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:25 · Score: 0

It's basically the digital equivalent to rotoscoping, which has been used in cel animation for decades, all the way back to Koko the Clown cartoons. Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" was almost entirely rotoscoped.

Re:huh? by mnemon1c · 2004-11-05 05:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Wrong! Nov 10th, 2004

--
Ah, the last peanut -- overflowing with the oil and salt of its departed brothers. -Homer

Good Story by cubicledrone · 2004-11-05 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Really all that is necessary is a good story. $150 million worth of special effects WILL NOT guarantee a success, as much as Hollywood wants entertainment to be a widget factory and as much as all other entertainment (except publishing) wants to be Hollywood.

Movies and television shows often fail miserably because stories are "written" by formula. Tired setting + predictable characters + smartass pop-culture insults = crap and it will always be crap.

Yet, just like the game industry, when something does succeed (Pixar) everybody comes running, checkbooks in hand and starts throwing money all over the place (Disney) in an attempt to duplicate the financial success without taking the time to understand the reason for the success. People like a good story. It doesn't matter if its a book, a comic book, a television show or a movie. Only the story matters.

And note, for all their money, and all their former excellence, Disney is so busy trying to avoid paying royalties to Marvel and the Winnie the Pooh licensors (and firing their animators) that they are completely unable to compete in the animation industry. Oh sure, their name is on "The Incredibles," but buying a ticket to a concert doesn't make someone an orchestra conductor.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.

Re:Good Story by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2004-11-05 08:29 · Score: 1

Another thing is voices. Some people have said that Shark Tale is really pushing that they've got Will Smith, Robert de Niro, Scorsese and all that.
Look at Pixar - they've pretty much stopped talking about famous voices, and instead just get the right voices.
Re:Good Story by djtripp · 2004-11-05 10:59 · Score: 1

Right on. Voice talent helps, but its the same thing as putting an good actor in shitty movie.

--
"This is you left and that's your left. This is your right and that's your right. You're gonna die!

Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:26 · Score: 0

Made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world. The technique has been used in some video games and, to a limited extent, in earlier movies. Warner Bros. says The Polar Express is the first feature made solely with the process.

Wasn't Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow made exactly the same way?

Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:45 · Score: 0

Nope. Reread what you quoted again and think about it.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:46 · Score: 0

No, Sky Captain (and Revenge of the Sith, it seems) has live action composited over digital backgrounds. This movie is taking the next step and taking motion captured actors and turning them into digital characters (like Gollum) and rendering them along with the digital backgrounds.

Studio Ghibli could teach Hollywood a thing or two by igorsway · 2004-11-05 05:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

I watched the trailers for both Cars and Polar Express and the animated characters in both movies seemed stiff and unattractive. As a fan of Anime and Miyazaki in particular, I think the Hollywood studios could stand to learn a lesson or two from the masters of Japanese animation. Just think how rich the colors and characters seem in Sen (Spirited Away) or Princess Mononoke. Compared to these masterpieces, Cars and Polar Express are just cartoons.

Trailers look dumb by Gothmolly · 2004-11-05 05:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

You have a cartoon that basically looks just like Tom Hanks, sounding like Tom Hanks, but isn't Tom Hanks... so why not just draw him totally synthetically, rather than attempting some live-action morph effect?

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:Trailers look dumb by kkrista · 2004-11-05 05:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

The reason that they took this approach is so the movie mimics the artistic style of the children's book it was based off of. If you compare the book and the movie, the scenary, characters, etc. you'll see that the movie's art is faithful to the book. By using motion capture and computer generated graphics they've combined realistic movements with the look and feel that's familiar to kids who've read the book. For this particular adaptation, it should work well.

Motion capture? by iantri · 2004-11-05 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world. The technique has been used in some video games and, to a limited extent, in earlier movies.

Eh? Is this different from motion capture? (I.e. when they stick little tracking dots all over someone and have them act.. this process was used to generate Gollum)

I was under the impression that motion capture was very widely used to create realistic 3d characters..

Re:Motion capture? by fizban · 2004-11-05 06:26 · Score: 2, Informative

The difference is that with performance capture, you also capture facial expressions. Most motion capture only takes into account large body movements of the torso, arms and legs. Performance capture tries to get more of the actual actor's acting into the capture as well, with all it's subtle nuances.

Unfortunately, the current technique doesn't capture eye movements, so you end up getting great facial movements but lifeless eyes, making the characters look like the walking dead, which is why this movie will be difficult and boring to watch for many.

--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.

Re:DO YOU HEAR THAT, HOLLYWOOD??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Just because movie makers are hard pressed to find decent stories today and they continue to go back and remake old films, TV shows, and wonderful books into shitty, overbudget, special effects nightmares doesn't mean that they shouldn't hear some people speak their mind.

But when it's done so at both the expense of the original author and the screenplay creators, one has to ask whether the artistic view of the original is kept in sync with the movie screen version. Sure, most screen representations aren't completely true to the original, but typically the vision and result of the director is congruent enough that the intent is both fluid and sufficient to the story. That, as they say, is the true key of filmmaking.

Is it messed up that I need iTunes... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:29 · Score: 0

To view the trailer?
I don't want iTunes. I just want to see the trailer.

Re:Is it messed up that I need iTunes... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:42 · Score: 0

To view the trailer? I don't want iTunes. I just want to see the trailer.
Didn't you bother to follow the link? You need QuickTime, but you don't need iTunes to watch the trailer.

Actually comes out November 10th, 2004. by Matrix_X · 2004-11-05 05:30 · Score: 1

It actually comes out November 10th, 2004.

Re:Actually comes out November 10th, 2004. by Matrix_X · 2004-11-05 05:34 · Score: 1

PE that is.

Polar Express by david.given · 2004-11-05 05:30 · Score: 4, Informative

I saw a trailer for Polar Express. It looks crap.

Look, this has been rediscovered again and again, every time someone's tried to do photorealistic CGI. It's hard. Producing humans that look and move correctly is really, really difficult, and unless it's spot on it just looks really dreadful.

Polar Express probably does it as well as I've ever seen it done; the result is that it;s just good enough to make it blindingly obvious how bad it is. There are figures on the screen that look at first glance like humans, but my hindbrain just screams when it sees them. They don't move right. Their expressions don't work right. They look creepy.

Pixar and Dreamworks got this right; the state of the art is just not up to this. Notice that all their characters are cartoonish? By deliberately not trying to make their characters realistic, they managed to avoid the entire problem, because my hindbrain doesn't expect them to look like real people. But Warner Bros. for Polar Express have jumped in with both feet...

Re:Polar Express by HarveyBirdman · 2004-11-05 06:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sky Captain had the correct idea, even if the execution wasn't perfect (I can forgive it for being a pioneer).
Real human actors. CGI everything else.
Oddly, an effective example of this is Drew Carrey's Green Screen Show. They do some improv skits, and then animate around it in post production. It works much better than I expected it to, and is a good example of the above rule. They actually animate clothing onto the people.

--
--- Ban humanity.
Re:Polar Express by toby · 2004-11-05 06:28 · Score: 1

They don't move right. Their expressions don't work right. They look creepy.
They digitised Tom Hanks. Just what else were you expecting? :)

--
you had me at #!
Re:Polar Express by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:32 · Score: 0

"Pixar and Dreamworks got this right; the state of the art is just not up to this. Notice that all their characters are cartoonish? By deliberately not trying to make their characters realistic, they managed to avoid the entire problem, because my hindbrain doesn't expect them to look like real people."

Actually, Pixar ran into this with the evil neighbor kid in Toy Story.
Re:Polar Express by danila · 2004-11-05 07:39 · Score: 1

because my hindbrain doesn't expect them to look like real people

I guess, you should have a hard talk with your hindbrain. Polar Express was not supposed to be photorealistic. It's an animated movie and if you don't understand it... well, it's rather stupid to not understand it, isn't it?

The whole problem with poor CGI is mostly made up by people who want to look smart and pretend their taste is too good for us mere mortals. People like you, David.

The truth is that us, humans, have a hundred or so muscles in our face. Disney's Winnie the Pooh has two or three of them, if even that. Computer animation is an attempt to fill the void between traditional animation and live action films. As such, every CGI animation is bound to have some drawbacks, compared with both extreme cases, but it will also have some advantages.

If they made Polar Express a live action, it would not be truly faithful to the book, would not agree with director's vision and would not present a sufficiently compelling story that people would enjoy. If they made it cel animation, the same would happen. But when they combine the principles of animation and live action, add some new technology and use their creativity, the end result is almost exactly what everyone needs. Everyone, except for those people, who are averse to change and will badmouth everything unless it looks exactly like everything they saw before. People like you, David.

My advice to everyone who goes to see the Polar Express would be to watch it with open eyes, so to speak. Enjoy the story that is being told, enjoy the images that you see, and don't turn your nose away because this film is not something else. Don't ruin your viewing with preconceptions and luddite attitude.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Re:Polar Express by david.given · 2004-11-05 08:26 · Score: 1

My advice to everyone who goes to see the Polar Express would be to watch it with open eyes, so to speak. Enjoy the story that is being told, enjoy the images that you see, and don't turn your nose away because this film is not something else. Don't ruin your viewing with preconceptions and luddite attitude.
All I know about it is from the trailer. I didn't even know it was a book until you told me. I came into it with about as open eyes as you can get, and I sat there and watched it for about fifteen seconds, realising there was something really, really unpleasant about these people, until I finally worked out why.
I'm not turning my nose away because of any 'luddite attitude', or any preconceptions, because I don't have any. I'm turning my nose away because just watching it made me feel uncomfortable.
As for the director's vision --- the scenes they showed in the trailer were, basically, a bunch of people standing talking to each other and some dance routines. I didn't see anything that couldn't have been done with real actors. So, why didn't they? Possibly it's because there were a lot of scenes they didn't show in the trailer that couldn't have been done with live actors, but the usual reason for this kind of thing is because live actors are expensive. To me, it looked very much like someone trying to do a big-budget film on the cheap. I'm very likely wrong; trailers are not representative of the films they're trailing; but I've seen enough bad films to recognise the symptoms.
By the way, 'presenting a sufficiently compelling story' has nothing to do with the technology, or the effects. It's got to do with a good script and good acting. The effects help, but no more than that. Good effects can't rescue a bad film; bad effects can't ruin a good film. If the director's not up to telling a good story, then no technology will make it a good film. If the director can do it, then the story will shine despite the creepy-looking people. But the creepy-looking people won't help.
Re:Polar Express by Jonas+the+Bold · 2004-11-05 09:39 · Score: 1

Damn right it's hard. What's more, it's pointless.

Animated movies have appeal not because they're real looking, but because they're not. They can do things with their characters live actors can't do. When you make the characters look like humans, pushing it that far doesn't work anymore, and so you're trying to duplicate reality, you get it a tiny bit off, and it looks terrible.

For this film what they really should have done is do something like lord of the rings, harry potter, or sky captain. You can have the fantastic fantasy worlds with live actors now which always looks better.

That, or do something like the incredibles, which is very cartoony looking, so has more appeal. Those characters are really only human in name. Put one side by side a real human, it doesn't look remotely like a person any more than a 2d cartoon does. And it works.

--
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
Re:Polar Express by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 11:40 · Score: 0

For the right movie current photorealistic CGI could be very effective. Imagine: Aki Ross (Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within) is Myria LeJean in the Thief of Time, based on Terry Pratchett's novel ...
Re:Polar Express by danila · 2004-11-06 00:42 · Score: 1

A film is more than a script and the scenes. It also has the look and feel. I bet I can give you a couple of screenshots from different recent movies that don't have the actors, memorable locations and such, but you won't have a problem telling Paycheck from I, Robot from Immortel and Matrix from the Thirteenth Floor from Dark City.

There is a visual style that can be impossible or prohibitively expensive to recreate in reality. That's why filmmakers use different creative tools. Another reason is that they are exploring the frontiers of possible to deliver the best product, the best story, the best looking images, and blaming them for trying new things is essentially luddism, which is on of the worst crimes in my book.

I still think that your dislike for the film has more to do with your preconceptions than with the shortcoming of the film itself. Animation is even worse, with it's flat, wooden and emotionless blobs of paint trying to persuade me their are live human beings. But you don't have a problem with that because you grew up watching lots of it. Just open your eyes yet more and try to understand that "wooden" characters are not a big deal, just like "plastic" skin was not a big deal with Final Fantasy. Go to the theatre and try to watch The Polar Express without thinking that these CGI actors are unnatural, non-human, overexpensive and bad otherwise. Think about it as just yet another visual style for telling a story, accept its conventions and have fun. I am sure that it isn't much more difficult than learning to enjoy eating foreign food (BTW, grasshoppers are delicious).

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Mod Parent Up by pixelcort · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 1

Why do I not have mod points when I need them, and have them when I don't?

The mod point system from Slash should be redesigned, In My Not So Humble Opinion.

--
http://pixelcort.com/

Animators hate this by adam31 · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 3, Interesting

The technique has been used in some video games

Yeah, but I know a lot of video games that won't touch the shit with a 40ft pole. Animators hate the thought of being reduced to the equivalent of highway-side trash collectors, trying to pretty the mocap solely by removing the trash.

Plus it prevents them from adding their own stylistic personality to characters. Look at Naughty Dog's games -- there's no way you could get that kind of genuine expression, both facially and with body language, from a perf-cap.

Of course, I have no idea how good the tech has gotten lately, I guess we'll see. Still there's just no way to replace a talented animator. All you can hope for is a more efficient way to generate gobs of average-looking content.

Re:Animators hate this by cubicledrone · 2004-11-05 06:03 · Score: 1

Animators hate the thought of being reduced to the equivalent of highway-side trash collectors, trying to pretty the mocap solely by removing the trash.

Therefore, management thinks it is the "next big thing" and will soon announce massive layoffs so they can invest billions in the technology. Now let's all sing the company song.

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.

The 3d version is lame! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 1, Funny

The train is always going backwards forward backwards forward backwards forward. And why is it that EVERY character seems to be waving a candy cane in your face for no apparent reason? I'd rather watch Dr. Tongue.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid me by JohnnyGTO · 2004-11-05 05:31 · Score: 2, Funny

I just showed the trailer to my 18 month old. Anyone know how to loop it :-)

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!

Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:33 · Score: 0

Wrong! Nov 10th, 2004

Unless of course he meant the OTHER movie. Cars is coming out Nov 5, 2005.

Garbage by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:34 · Score: 0

I've seen the trailer-it looks creepy. Hollywood should get off the 3D wagon and give talented artists (not talentless hacks) a break. I'll take Miyazaki (sic?) anyday.

Wrong. by Esteanil · 2004-11-05 05:35 · Score: 1

Wrong. Sky captain and the world of tomorrow was the first movie shot entirely in bluescreen.
"Polar Express" is using basically the same technique used to animate Gollum in LotR, only they're using it for the entire movie.

Shouldn't the moderators read the articles before they mod informative?

--
I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.

Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:37 · Score: 0

Shouldn't moderators have at least paid attention to things going on before they moderate? Oh, wait... that would be expecting a little much.
Re:Wrong. by Rakarra · 2004-11-05 13:36 · Score: 1

"Polar Express" is using basically the same technique used to animate Gollum in LotR, only they're using it for the entire movie.

Almost, but not quite. They're using half of the procedure used to create Gollum.

MoCap + animation = Gollum
MoCap + uh.. just mocap = Polar Express.

couldn't seem to play it in linux by Sark666 · 2004-11-05 05:38 · Score: 1

I have mplayer with all the codecs and the mplayer mozilla plugin. I'd say 90% of the sites work without issue, but sometimes I get a problem playing these trailers. This one in particular was downloading the trailer and when it was complete it said click here to play but clicking did nothing. I just copied it out of /tmp and watched it in standalone mplayer without issue.

Also the odd site wont play saying I don't have wmp9 installed. Maybe I need to update my codecs. Just wanted to know if there are some tricks to workaround the odd site that doesn't work.

Incredibles by Tony · 2004-11-05 05:39 · Score: 1

Well, Incredibles is out now, a Pixar film about retired super heroes. That sounds kinda fun. I haven't seen it yet, of course.

They said they made Incredibles because they wanted to do something different. Lassetter said he didn't want to make the same movie again, like he has with the other films. They know they've just been making the same film, over and over.

So Incredibles is supposed to be different. I think you have written Pixar off too soon.

--
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.

Re:Incredibles by MadMacSkillz · 2004-11-05 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is /. We write EVERYTHING off and criticize EVERYTHING!!! Star Trek? Sucks. Star Wars? Sucks. And now Pixar? Um, well, the TITLE to the movie sucks, so the movie will probably suck.
Sheesh. I've very much enjoyed the Pixar movies so far. I give them the full benefit of the doubt. Some people here just like to WHINE.

--
Music - www.richardmac.com
Re:Incredibles by Gryphon · 2004-11-05 09:36 · Score: 1

Hear hear.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by TheFlyingGoat · 2004-11-05 05:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

My big problem with the movie, based on the trailers, is that they just adapted the graphical style of Van Allsburg to animation. While the illustrations in the book are riveting and amazingly done, I don't think they work well as animation. It looks hokey and kind of creepy. I don't know how they could have done this differently while paying the proper respect to Van Allsburg. It's the same as seeing Mickey Mouse in 3D animation... it just doesn't have the proper feel.

--
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill

There are many firsts for Polar Express by NeedleSurfer · 2004-11-05 05:40 · Score: 5, Informative

I was the soundman/video engineer on an GSTA (giant screen theatre of america) event about 1-2 month ago where they were presenting, to giant screen theatre owners from around the world, various work in devellopement and work in progress. Several flick caught my attention (the 70mm IMAX version of Ghost In The Shell: Innocence being one! :) ) and Polar Express was part of those.

Polar Express is not only the first to be entirely made with digitized actors it is also the first feature lenght IMAX animation movie, the first feature lenght movie in IMAX 3D and the first movie funded by Tom Hanks himself. Tom Hanks was described as an avid Imax 3D supporter, he wants to push the technology and was actually the one who suggested Polar Express as a project, he was deeply involved in the process. The result does not look like a tech showdown at all, it looks like an incredibly good animation that plays with and use the 3D technology to enhance messages, emotion and aprehensions, not to showcase it. Nowhere in the extract they showed to the crowd did I had the impression they were just showing tech, actually as soon as the extract started I kinda forgot I was watching 3D, it just felt natural.

I'm really looking forward to the full release.

Re:There are many firsts for Polar Express by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:45 · Score: 0

Ummmm, Final Fantasy was the first film with realistic digital actors.
Re:There are many firsts for Polar Express by philipborlin · 2004-11-05 06:58 · Score: 1

> first feature lenght IMAX animation movie Lion King came out on IMAX a few years ago. -Phil
Re:There are many firsts for Polar Express by Apotsy · 2004-11-05 08:05 · Score: 1

It's also the first movie to CREEP ME THE FUCK OUT just by watching the trailers. When the train conductor winks, I just want to run away. I'm surpirsed the kid doesn't.
Train conductor: "All that matters is if ya get on..." *wink*
Kid: "AAAAAAAHH!! Get away from me!!!" *runs off screaming*
Does the term "uncanny valley" ring a bell? I get a first hand experience of it every time I see that trailer. No way in hell I'm sitting through two hours of THAT.

--
Free Hans!
Re:There are many firsts for Polar Express by NeedleSurfer · 2004-11-05 08:33 · Score: 1

Lion king wasn't made for IMAX, it has been ported to it, like Ghost in the shell: innocence, however GITS:innocence has been recomposited and remastered especially for IMAX, not just reprinted on 70mm...
Re:There are many firsts for Polar Express by NeedleSurfer · 2004-11-05 09:50 · Score: 1

Actually I feel the intense need to correct a mistake I made. I work everyday in many technical field, this is the nature of my work where I am from. No tech here is just a soundman or just a video tech or just a lightning technician and so on. Since I usually am the soundman and video engineer, I made the assumption I was doing that there and I realized after that I was there for the audience response system...

you don't give a shit but I do ;)

NEW STUFF PLEASE?!?!?!? by Tim_F · 2004-11-05 05:41 · Score: 1

Your ideas are just as cliched as the next guy's. Only more so. Pixar makes children's movies. One way to make a movie appeal to children is to anthropomorphize the characters. They make their characters cute. And yet they still add in a little humour for the rest of us to sit back and laugh.

God, you geeks make me sick.

Re:NEW STUFF PLEASE?!?!?!? by chrome · 2004-11-05 05:57 · Score: 1

The ideas were meant to be a cliche. But maybe I wasn't being cute enough for you to get the joke.

God, you assholes make me sick.

Re:huh? by Viceice · 2004-11-05 05:42 · Score: 1

Right on!

Pixar's first post Disney movie 'Ratatouille' is due 2006.

http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hp&cf=prev&id=180 84 90292

--
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.

confused by marketing speak... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

errrr... What the hell is "performance capture?". I have been in the 3D industry for 9 years and I have never heard of that term. There is "motion capture", which has been used extensively for years in a staggering number of movies and games.

It just sounds like marketing speak to me. Much like when Jeffery Katzenburg of Dreamworks SKG (he is the 'K') came up with the silly word "tradigital" when his studio was making the animated film Spirit of the Cimmaron. Apparently he believed that he had created a new genre of animation, basically it was toon rendered 3D, which has been done for years. It was no suprise that his new word never caught on.

"performance capture" what a load of....

Re:confused by marketing speak... by Sinistar2k · 2004-11-05 06:47 · Score: 1

The difference is the person in the mo-cap suit. Andy Serkis doing all the motion capture, on set acting, and voice acting for Gollum is a performance capture - his particular performance is cap'd, digitized, and used.

Orc #2304, on the other hand, is captured probably by the same person who did Orc #182, Orc #5003, and possibly Orc #9. That person's involvement with the character is only in the motion capture and they do not provide any dramatic elements like voice or characterization. That, it would seem, would be straight-up mo-cap.

Performance capture can probably get you an award. Mo-cap, not so much.

Reminds me of TRON... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:44 · Score: 0

Made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world.

Didn't Disney already did that with Kevin Flynn?

Oh wait...

Isn't that genre Roger Rabbit ? by sellers · 2004-11-05 05:46 · Score: 1

Was there not a movie in the 80's that was 1/2 animation and 1/2 real? Was it's it TOTALY popular?

http://www.movie-list.net/classics/whoframedroge rr abbit.mov

Re:Isn't that genre Roger Rabbit ? by ventivent · 2004-11-05 05:57 · Score: 1

Actually, I thought that the first movie that tried to make CGI look like real-life was 2001's Final Fantasy, The Spirits Within. It was a good effort, actually, if not a bit weak on the story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173840/
Re:Isn't that genre Roger Rabbit ? by laard · 2004-11-05 08:01 · Score: 1

Yes and you'll note it was directed by the same man, Robert Zemeckis

--
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by lukewarmfusion · 2004-11-05 05:47 · Score: 5, Interesting

What might ruin that great story for you, aside from special effects and profit-maximizing changes, is the nature of books themselves... your experience is unique. Translating one person's experience or interpretation of a book into a film is a dangerous act; you run the risk of alienating fans that didn't have the same experience. You also influence the experience of future readers by giving them a glimpse into your own vision of the story.

When I read Stephen King's The Stand a few years ago, there was a foreword where he said that he wasn't sure he'd ever make a movie version of the story. He cited "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" as evidence of the damage a movie can do to a book. As fantastic as the movie is, it isn't the same (and does not hold the same kind of value) as the original text. If you see the movie and then read the book (as I did) you will never be able to get Jack Nicholson's performance out of your head as you read the character. Unfortunately for me, I also saw the movie adaptation of The Stand before reading the book.

I felt this way about LOTR, but was happy to see that it matched up with my expectations pretty well. Plus, it depicted what I had failed to visualize - Ents. I just couldn't figure out what they would look like.

Re:Hmpf. - I think you're missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:48 · Score: 0

Think of who these movies are truly made for. Not you (unless you're 5). It's made for kids, which is why all of their previous movies have been G. Incredibles is their first movie with a PG rating.

Now think of what a kids life is centered around: Digging up bugs in the back yard, playing with toys (many of which happen to be cars), constant fear of what's under the bed or in the closet. And i guess kids might like fish to, my point breaks up a little there.

The fact that you can enjoy their movies is a testamant of their talent of appealing to a broad audinece. Regardless of whether you want to watch a movie with talking cars (I think I'll wait until it's on netflix) I'm sure there are millions of kids that will.

Teaser Trailer for 'Cars' by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:50 · Score: 1, Funny

I watched the trailer for "cars", and have to say that the pickup-truck character is an unpatriotic and disrespectful caricature of our President.

Re:Teaser Trailer for 'Cars' by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:58 · Score: 0

Only a 1 for that last post? I don't care who y'are, but that's a good troll right there! ;^)

Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:51 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure parent meant "Cars" not "Polar Express".

Probably Rapunzel or something by tepples · 2004-11-05 05:52 · Score: 1

though I can't think of any princess with a good story they haven't done already yet...

"Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair so I can climb up and get into your underwear." -- Beastie Boys, "What Comes Around"

Re:Probably Rapunzel or something by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 13:18 · Score: 0

Rat soup eating test cheating no business punk

Book by its cover? by hellfire · 2004-11-05 05:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Your judging the movie by the title? That's kind of ridiculous. Taxi Driver isn't a very exciting title either, is it?

By the entertainment value of the other pixar movies, I predict The Incredibles and Cars to both be enjoyable. I won't predict that Cars won't take a disney style nose dive the way their movies went after Lion King, but hey, they are fun so far, and have definitely taken children's movies to another level.

Also, the alternate worlds shtick has never worn off. It's nothing new to the children's genre and Pixar by far isn't someone who pioneered it. What matters is the acting, directing, and plot. Is it good and entertaining?

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

Re:Book by its cover? by NaugaHunter · 2004-11-05 06:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Taxi Driver isn't a very exciting title either, is it?

You think that's bad? What about The Godfather? Come on, a movie about some old guy you barely know that sends you bizarre Christmas presents? Please. At least Showgirls sounds exciting.

--
R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.

Marionettes by Morgahastu · 2004-11-05 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The animation in The Polar Express looks similar to that of the movement of the puppets in Team America.

The motion capture wasn't detailed enough to catch most of the facial expressions that are created by a human face.

The way the actors are moving it seems they are over acting everything as if they were cartoons except the animation tries to go a completely different directions. What's left are ridiculous and stiff motions with out of synch speech.

It's really creepy.

Re:Marionettes by HarveyBirdman · 2004-11-05 06:17 · Score: 1

It's really creepy.
So it's a must see, eh?

--
--- Ban humanity.

It did suck- weeks ago by hellfire · 2004-11-05 05:58 · Score: 1

That august 27th date didn't give it away did it?

Your a little behind the curve, pretty off topic, and very pointless.

--

"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

WOOP ... WOOP ... Fanboy Alert ... WOOP ... WOOP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 05:58 · Score: 0

Pixar is brimming with incredible talent. That's why it will be such a shame if the public tires of seeing it applied to rather cliche genres. This is fantasy - we need new fantasy environments.

Fan boy influence usually leads to unimaginative rubbish like Star Trek and the Star Wars prequels. I'm sure Pixar will do just fine without your suggestions ...

They do by ChibiOne · 2004-11-05 06:01 · Score: 1

Lasseteer has said in a couple of interviews that at Pixar they use to watch some Ghibli films in their projection room when they hit inspiration block. They use Ghibli animation to get inspired again.

Baby ubermensch by LGagnon · 2004-11-05 06:02 · Score: 1

I mean, the thing is only going to appeal to pregnant women and George W Bush supporters ...

You forgot neo-nazis.

Re:Baby ubermensch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:08 · Score: 0

You forgot neo-nazis

No he didn't
Re:Baby ubermensch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 13:02 · Score: 0

No he didn't

Yes he did

CGI IMAX Films by lxt · 2004-11-05 06:06 · Score: 1

It could be done - it's actually very easy to turn 2D CGI into 3D Imax - it's just actual film that's impossible. It's been done before - the Simpsons' Halloween segment shot in CGI by PDI was re-rendered in 3D IMAX resolution. It's just a matter of rendering a slightly different camera views for the stereoscopic effect. Whether they'll bother on the other hand...

Disney's Chicken Little Trailer as well! by antdude · 2004-11-05 06:07 · Score: 1

Here (big file). Seen on Dark Horizons today.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Best part of the Polar Express Trailer by cubicledrone · 2004-11-05 06:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

WARNER BROS MOVIE

This is a WARNER BROS MOVIE WARNER WARNER BROS MOVIE. See? We've even got snow on the logo! Warner Brothers! Remember that!

30 seconds of LOOK HOW IMPORTANT HOLLYWOOD IS!!

End of the trailer, for less than 0.5 seconds, the name of the author. Yeah! Way to reward the people with the ideas!

--
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.

Discrepencies in mass by The+boojum · 2004-11-05 06:14 · Score: 1

Agreed. A good animator is still needed to clean up the mocap data; smoothing it out and deleting spurious data.

The other problem that I have with exclusively using mocap is that without help from an animator, it fails to take into account the discrepencies in mass. By that I mean that size, weight, build, etc. all influence the range of positions and speed of motions that look natural. Mapping the movements of a skinny actor onto a huge ogre is going to look pretty odd, for example. Sure, the actor could slow down and exagerate his movements but you'll still want an animator to make the mapping look good. Besides, ever see an actor trying to pick up a light weight prop and but make it look heavy? It never works; physiologically you just can't control all those reflexive muscle tensings and it never looks good -- the prop usually seems to just lift off the ground a little too easily while the actor tenses himself a moment too late or too soon. And I'm not saying it isn't hard for animators either -- creating the illusion of mass with CG is one of the hardest things to do. But at least a good animator will know the tricks for that and be able to help.

Don't count the Pixar/Disney relationship out yet. by FrankieBoy · 2004-11-05 06:16 · Score: 1

Eisner has stated that he's leaving Disney and now he's just hanging around to force Disney to buy him out for an early departure. He was the main problem with the Pixar relationship (Miramax too). With him gone rumors are flying about Steve Jobs taking over the Disney helm, exactly the right person for this job. If that happens then Pixar will remain with Disney and Disney will have fresh, new characters with which to feed their Theme Park Empire. Disney needs someone with imagination and character like Jobs, not another suit like Eisner.

"Final Fantasy", the movie, did this by Animats · 2004-11-05 06:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Final Fantasy", the 2001 movie, did this, although they used more hand animation than motion capture. It was a beautifully rendered movie with a stupid plot, from a studio that came out of nowhere and disintegrated after the movie.

From an industry perspective, the problem with "Polar Express" is that it only took 30 days of principal photography, all of it in the studio, yet it still cost $150 million. "Sky Captain" was supposed to be low-budget, but wasn't. What's needed is technology that can produce similar movies for $20 million.

Re:"Final Fantasy", the movie, did this by Buran · 2004-11-05 07:11 · Score: 1

All the money went to getting the Walschaerts gear correct on the locomotive! (the locomotive is very very good, although it moves around so much in the trailers with an enormous amount of motion blur so I can't tell for sure what it is, it looks an awful lot like a Santa Fe 4-8-4, the sort used to pull the Super Chief before it switched to "warbonnet" F units.)

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Waking Life? by imstanny · 2004-11-05 06:26 · Score: 0

waking life was filmed as a movie then 'cartooned.' Nothing new.

Re:Waking Life? by tgibbs · 2004-11-05 11:48 · Score: 1

waking life was filmed as a movie then 'cartooned.' Nothing new.

I thought "Waking Life" was the only effective use of rotoscoping that I've seen. Usually, rotoscoping is used as a quick and dirty shortcut to animation that ends up with all of the disadvantages of live action (i.e. it's very dependent on the skill of the actors and the quality of the direction) and few of the advantages of animation. In "Waking Life," the artwork was free enough (and the acting good enough) that the combination was really effective

Not much of a teaser... by Ravensign · 2004-11-05 06:27 · Score: 1

That may be the least interesting teaser trailer for a Pixar movie by far.

1/2 setup of a bee, then a weak joke, followed by some not-that-imperssive cgi nascar, where nothing really happens, then one more flat joke and out.

I don't know who they are "teasing" here, but what about this trailier would make anyone excited about this movie? (contrast to other pixar teasers, which are either funny, or exciting, or well, something)

--
"Sig free in '03!"

Re:Not much of a teaser... by Overzeetop · 2004-11-05 06:43 · Score: 1

Nascar fans, I guess. They're kind of like kudzu...it keeps growing, and gets more annoying as it goes.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Not much of a teaser... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:13 · Score: 0

Don't you be makin' fun of us racin' fans.

I have halfa mind to get my wife and cousin to come up there and give you a whoopin.

(Don't worry about it bein' a 3 to 1 fight ... my wife and cousin are actually the same person. So that only makes it 2 to 1. Yeehaw.)
Re:Not much of a teaser... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:31 · Score: 0

Meh... the finding nemo teaser was lousy too.

Cold, dead eyes by jdbo · 2004-11-05 06:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

Well-performed eye motion is so central to good animation, but everything I've seen from the trailers makes the children look like sharks stuffed into the bodies of their child victims; I honestly find it that chilling.

Tom Hanks's characters seem to be treated a bit better, probably because the animators/sculptors had more & better source material to work with; still, better is relative to "awful" in this case.

This is very disappointing; Chris Van Allsburg's work is very sculptural in nature (and uses a distanced style and VERY careful framinh to invoke a sense of the wonder, and sometimes of the sublime), but from the trailers it appears that the translation to a full-motion format failed his style terribly.

considering how the election went... by rbird76 · 2004-11-05 06:29 · Score: 1

...how exactly is that a small market? 51% of 120M people and pregnant women (who you can be sure will drag friends and boyfriends/husbands with them by force or threat) doesn't exactly seem negligible. The Passion of the Christ was driven by a significantly smaller market than that and it did pretty well. While it likely to appeal to a less cohesive market, it's not a small one.

"normal animation" is over by fracai · 2004-11-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Actually Disney's hand animation department is gone. Their last hand animated movie, which is what I assume you mean by "normal" was that farm thing ...um Home on the Range.

Maybe it'll be Princess Buttercup? ;)

--
-- i am jack's amusing sig file

Sort of by HarveyBirdman · 2004-11-05 06:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

I had a similar reaction. It looked cool from the poster and some quick snippets early on when you couldn't tell what it was about. My mind leaped ahead and imagined an alternate Earth story about some mad genius/millionaire bent on running a rail line over the North Pole. The kid's an orphan hired to shovel coal. Maybe they disturb some under-ice civilization of Lovecraftian monsters. Work the Tunguska event into it somewhere.

Then I saw it was a fucking kid's movie about Santa fucking Claus with fucking underpants gnones running around. Shit. :-(

--
--- Ban humanity.

please by scaaven · 2004-11-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Hey slashdot, this isn't ain't it cool news

--
I know I'm going to be modded up on this

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by pfurlong · 2004-11-05 06:41 · Score: 1

I agree the request to not ruin the story. I had never heard of this story until last year, when I found it and bought it as a special story for my two young (6 and 3) sons.

We enjoyed reading the story, and I feel it really hit home with my older son, who seems to be growing nearer that time when he will ask the question "Does Santa Claus really exist?"

When I first saw the trailer for the movie, I recognized it as being based on the book (before the title appeared), and even seeing the trailer has disappointed me. Why did they have to take such a nice, simple, touching story, and add a lot of extraneous story? Would this not have been an excellent project for a short film?

My older son asks about seeing the movie, and I don't know if I want to, for fear of it ruining the charm of the book. The Lord of the Rings was translated (finally) to the screen well, but I fear that this movie just won't cut it.

sig typo by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 06:56 · Score: 0

You misspelled "Ronald Reagan"

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by frank_adrian314159 · 2004-11-05 06:59 · Score: 1

I am appalled at how this article trivializes the wonder that the original book The Polar Express creates. I just want to say that calling the book "slim" might be true of the physical thickness of the book but the story and pictures contained within are fantastic.

And this is why I cringe at the idea of a Robert Z. redition of the book. The whole reason why the book was able to sustain its stunning dark beauty was the denseness of the artwork and story line. In stretching the story to ninety minutes in length you cannot help but reduce the density and the beauty of the original. You can see it already in the TV commercials for the film where they show stupid roller-coaster ride imagery, include a back story of Hanks as wandering hobo, etc. I'd like to think this would have made a good twenty-minute short. But since we need a full ninety minutes to sell popcorn, it's proabably going to suck. Dark beauty traded for fluffiness.

Zemeckis doing it doesn't raise my confidence, either.

--
That is all.

Blue Sky is doing Robots. Not Pixar. by eMartin · 2004-11-05 07:09 · Score: 1

Blue Sky is the studio that's making Robots. Though you wouldn't know it from their own site or any of the promotional ones.

What "Performace capture" really is. by WebCowboy · 2004-11-05 07:12 · Score: 3, Informative

"performance capture" is just a euphemism for "motion capture" which has gotten a pretty bad rap among animators.

The term I heard when I was involved in classical animation (not involving computers at all) was "rotoscoping". And yes, it did and still does get a bad rap from animators from the "old school" when it is misused. The rotoscoped characters stick out like a sore thumb becasue of the inconsistencies--the characters MOVE like real life but LOOK like cartoons when rotoscoped, so they always look out of place.

Using computers to do rotoscoping in 3-D hasn't helped the situation. Computers capture real motion TOO faithfully, but are "not quite" there in generating realistic humans yet--so digital humans that look a bit "creepy" might even look creepier when rotoscoping is used.

I think that maybe one day computers will be able to visually re-create humans convincingly enough to make rotoscoping work (so a black man could convincingly perform as a white woman without it being a gag like it was in White Chicks for example). Perhaps it worked on Jar Jar or Gollum because there was little to no facial capture (just body movements) and the characters were far drifferent from humans.

In the mean time, it probably would've been better to use digital compositing to put human characters into the fanciful virtual world of the Polar Express. It has worked well enough in the past and at least the characters themselves would be consistent.

Animators exagerate and slightly alter movement for dramatic effect and visual appeal, and so the "spirit" of the movement matches the visual representation of the charater (which is very seldom photo-realistic).

Rotoscoping is a fine techniquein some cases (those being when the entire sceme is rotoscoped--background, characters and all, so the entire scene is "consistently inconsistent"). It is a bit much to ask an animator to paint a figure on movement she does not control and expect it to look better than when the visual appearance and movement of a character are under one person's control (be it actor or animator).

Re:What "Performace capture" really is. by mmkkbb · 2004-11-05 08:45 · Score: 2, Informative

If you want to see some rotoscoping in action, check out either Ralph Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings" or "American Pop".

--
-mkb

Let me guess the title song... by corngrower · 2004-11-05 07:14 · Score: 1

Cars by the 80's rock group 'The Cars'

Re:Let me guess the title song... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 11:33 · Score: 0

Ummmm,

It was actually Gary Numan who performed Cars -

http://www.vinylsingles.co.uk/cars.htm

The Cars never had a song called Cars (although they had one called Drive)

TRON!! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:17 · Score: 0

The Polar Express was made almost exclusively with a method called performance capture, which drops digitized human actors into a computer-animated world.

Just like in 82 when Kevin Flynn got sucked into his computer and ended up helping Tron defeat the Master Control Program ... is this too nerdy?

Hanks is also the kid.... by SuperKendall · 2004-11-05 07:19 · Score: 1

The thing they were going for is to try and get the most realistic facial expressions possible, by capturing a few hundred sensors on each actors face - they also had the real grownup actors (like hanks) playing children as well, where they had large props around them in a real sort of stage while the computers recorded thier faces as they acted out scenes.

I have to say that after reading an interview with the director and Hanks (I think over at IGN) it sounds a lot more interesting than I thought it would be. That said I too find the trailers to look terrible, so I'll wait to rent for sure - it might be the case that over the course of the whole movie the accurate facial expressions trumps the slight creepyness of the bodies and brings you closer to the characters.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Alternate site for trailer by slothjammin · 2004-11-05 07:19 · Score: 1

You can view it off of Pixar's site as well here I also recently came across this funny stop motion/Lego/SWEIII short film here

--
Squidward: "Spongebob, If I had a dollar for every brain you don't have, I'd have 1 dollar."

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by danila · 2004-11-05 07:20 · Score: 0

Yeah, and I hope that Dell will not ruin my new PC by concentrating on using latest AMD processors and ATI video cards. Are you a luddite or just stupid? Special effects and large budget can never take away anything from the real story. Crappy acting, poor script and piss-poor special effects, on the other hand, can and do ruin many potentially interesting films every year.

I mean, I can certainly understand a critical attitude towards Holliwood, its reliance on sequels and oft mentioned lack of creativity, but for fuck's sake, stop this crap about big budgets ruining movies. This starts getting ridiculous.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Should have been enough... by SuperKendall · 2004-11-05 07:21 · Score: 1

I agree they look odd. But reading an interview over at IGN it seems they had around 200 sensors on the face! It sure seems like that should have been enough.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

"wooden, stiff, and completely lacking emotion" by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:22 · Score: 0

So, it has a lot in common with THX sound?

Some support by SuperKendall · 2004-11-05 07:27 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I totally agree about the simple name being all bad. I think that could work.

But, I think I am going to agree with you that somehow there does seem to be a sort of sameness to the Pixar films, with each film I feel more and more like I've seen it before. The stories seem to end up being really similar deep in the heart of them, and they always seem to have the same kinds of characters.

That said I do think the Incredibles seems like a little bit of fresh air in that regard, it does look like it might be different enough to have the story and characters feel pretty different.

From just the brief preview of Cars though, I'm not even sure I really care yet when it comes out.

Possibly Disney is directing a little of the storylines behind these movies as the Pixar films feel very "disnified". When cars is over they are free to do thier own thing and then we might see some really different stuff.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

That's a really good point about the eyes. by SuperKendall · 2004-11-05 07:29 · Score: 1

They had a whole lot of sensors stuck to faces to do the capture. But as you say, so much expression is in the eyes and you can only stuff so many sensors around the eyes.

Now that you mention it the eyes are abig part of why I have trouble looking at the characters. I just wonder if children will care or if it will freak them out.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Issue9mm · 2004-11-05 07:30 · Score: 1

Clearly, the word he meant to use was verisimilituduousness.

DUH.

-9mm-

Performance capture is meant to be expressions by SuperKendall · 2004-11-05 07:35 · Score: 1

I believe performance capture here is all about capturing facial expressions, not the body - I don't even know they did any traditional motion capture, I got the feeling from interviews it was all about capturing facial expressions. I think there is room for a distinction there beyond marketing speak.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by drinkypoo · 2004-11-05 07:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, one flew over the cuckoo's nest was horrible. You never got to see nurse ratchet's blouse ripped open :P (Hey give me a break, the first time I saw it I was a teenager.) Seriously though, I thought that was a fantastic movie, and I read the book before I ever saw the movie. The stand, on the other hand, botched the book much worse. The ents were brilliantly realized, too bad they changed what they actually do. Actually they made a lot of the LOTR characters assholes compared to what they were in the book, including the ents.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by avdp · 2004-11-05 07:39 · Score: 1

I guess he was probably refering to big budgets where a big budget is not required. Great (and expensive) special effects are great where/when needed. But many film makers seems to overuse them for no apparent other reason that they have too much to spend.

Also there seem to be this mentality in Hollywood that movie can't succeed unless it is cram-packed with non-stop scene after scene of mind boggling special effects. They CAN get in the way of the story.

So you're right, there is nothing inherently wrong with special effect, only with the Hollywood formula of more_money + more_special_effects = instant_sucess.

Not that Impressive? So What? by Petersko · 2004-11-05 07:41 · Score: 1

I've read some posts here from people complaining about the quality of the animation, the apparent lack of depth, and the overall direction that "Cars" seems to be taking.

I remember the first time I saw a trailer for "The Incredibles". It was mostly just a guy trying to do up a belt. The animation looked iffy at best. Tomorrow I'll see the show and I know it'll be gorgeous, and I'll love the story.

Remember the initial clips for "Finding Nemo"? Nothing hinted at the sheer beauty of the final product, nor the kickass story.

No matter what you think about this short trailer, remember that the first glimpses of Pixar films tell you nothing.

Re:Not that Impressive? So What? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 16:17 · Score: 0

I have been reading this site for a few days and have enjoyed the witted and informative banter that consists of much of the commentary here. However I also see a dark side of the /. force in which all topics are ripped to shreds and all things denounced as A-NUMBER-1 FIRST RATE CRAPOLA.
I personally have been a fan of pixar since I first began seeing their short flicks in animation collections.
Its good that quite a few of you seem to know in advance how crappy things will be, but I will stick to actually shelling out some bucks at the screen in support of pixar for (at least I feel) quality movies. Until I actually see a bad one, and even then, they have earned a second chance on the likelyhood they may eventually screw up.
Not often a studio comes along that puts out good entertainment on a consistant basis, but for my taste (your results may vary) they are still batting 1000.

Paullywog

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:50 · Score: 0

Two alternate titles:

Polar Expressionless
or
Botox Express

errrr... by Thud457 · 2004-11-05 07:55 · Score: 1

I thought part of what was setting the choice of stories were still technical concerns. Each new movie allows the animators to develop techniques for handling different things. Toys and Bugs were easy to do in CG. Then furry monsters. Then fish in various ocean environments.

Just wait, within the same year of the release of "The Increadibles" and "Cars", dreamworks will have "Super Dudes" and "A Automobile's Story ".

Plus, in our society, kids have a certian fixed palette of things they are interested in - dinosaurs, bugs, toys, cowboys, cars, etc. Pixar's just picking through that set when they're looking for ideas for kids' movies.

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Steve Jobs? What about John Lasseter? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 07:58 · Score: 0

OK, while we're name dropping here, I think it would be a big mistake to let Steve Jobs take over at Disney. He's the money source behind Pixar and sometimes knows to stay out of the way of talent when he sees it (as in Steve Wozniak, as opposed to Jef Raskin).

I would say the real credit behind Pixar's success goes to John Lasseter, the former Disney animator who has gone through the art training process, and if I'm not mistaken, he was designer of the BSD Daemon mascot. Lasseter had been with Lucasfilm before Pixar and Jobs came together, worked on the cutting edge of computer animation in the 1980's, culminating in his work on everything from the Oscar winning Luxo Jr to producing every one of Pixar's hits.

"My grandfather once told me that there were two kinds of people: those who do the work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was much less competition." -- Indira Ghandi, former prime minister of India (she was later assasinated)

Not that Impressive? Are y'all NUTS? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:02 · Score: 0

Did somebody say that the Cars trailer is not quality animation? Were we watching the same thing?

When I saw the part where the stock cars come around the bend and head toward the camera amidst some heat shimmer & mirage effects, my jaw dropped.

I took enough computer graphics in college to know: that is not easy, people. Those are some really good mathematical models at work.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:26 · Score: 0

You have a 6 year old who would actually ask that question? Looking back at my childhood, I'm pretty darn sure I *never* believed in Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny. I just knew them as these characters that Mom and Dad would use, a nice comfortable myth, but always a myth. Come to think of it, I think that's why I became atheist later ... Notwithstanding a sort of last-ditch effort in my teens to assert faith as a born-again, I always knew in the back of my mind that none of this was really for real...

Anyway, the movie looks to be built on pure treacle. Not sure I could sit through it myself ... I certainly don't like pompous trailers that tell me "you *will* believe" (or use words like "magical").

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by L0rdJedi · 2004-11-05 08:35 · Score: 1

How could you not picture an Ent?!

I agree with another poster though. The characters were almost perfectly dead on (looks wise), but their actual character tended to get screwed over. Faramir would be one, and the best, example.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by register_ax · 2004-11-05 08:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

My big problem with the movie, based on the trailers, is that they just adapted the graphical style of Van Allsburg to animation.

Not only did they try adapting the graphical style, they recreated each picture from the book exactly in various frames throughout the movie. I am sure someone extremely attached to the original book may be able to pick this up. If they don't, I suspect they will find it an extremely drawing movie without really knowing why. The director said this was done out of respect for Van Allsburg original work. So yeah, damn straight they just adapted the graphical style. That was the whole point.

"can't play it in Linux" button by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 08:41 · Score: 0

Maybe we could just add a button to the Post Comment section that automatically puts in the standard Slashdot "can't play it in Linux" comment. That would save us a lot of trouble around here.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Sporkinum · 2004-11-05 08:51 · Score: 1

I guess that's why it looks so unappealing to me. My first thought was that it looked poorly rendered and generaly dorky. Every time I see a commercial it re-enforces that fact.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"

Exactly. Remember Monsters Inc teaser? by Speare · 2004-11-05 08:54 · Score: 1

The Monsters Inc. teaser was a horrible let-down. It was just a small room, Sully and Mike talking, and no hint to the plot or anything. The short movie with Mike's six-wheeled car was ten times better than the teaser trailer.

The first Incredibles teaser was just the belt-buckle scene. That's it. A belt that won't fit, and a really dumb looking super-suit. Very lame. But the other trailers since then have piqued my curiosity, haven't given too much away, and they might pull off a great story.

--
[ .sig file not found ]

Creepier when you see the raw footage of Hanks by ClockChaos · 2004-11-05 08:59 · Score: 1

At SIGGRAPH (a computer graphics conference) this year, they played the raw footage of Hanks performing his lines hooked up to the motion capture system, side by side with the animated characters he was portraying. The effect was way more *chilling* than impressive. Hanks looked great and you could see the emotion he was conveying (a mixture of sadness, wistfulness and bitterness), but when you looked over at the animated character mimicking him, (the hobo), it looked downright evil and sinister.

Creepy-Uncammy Time. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 09:24 · Score: 0

"I can't remember the last time I was so put off by a movie trailer. I don't plan to go see it. I think they really need to stick to cartoonish characters and ogres and such until the realism in facial expressions and body language catch up with the pretty graphics."

Has caught up, HOWEVER (there's always a however to these things) there's the rather consequential matter of TIME. Time to create, time to check, and double check, time to render. Motion capture is a TIME saving measure, and the whole process took three years. Imagine how long it would have taken if they wanted to beat the "Uncanny Valley", let alone the economic issues?

My Vent against Zemeckis-Road Atlas. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 09:28 · Score: 0

"I'm just going to appreciate "Used Cars" to "Contact". If "Polar Express" is a good movie, then fine but I've already seen the trailers. The story is good and I'll just leave it as a book for me."

Sometimes the fun isn't in the destination, but in the trip. Enjoy the trip.

Re:My Vent against Zemeckis-Road Atlas. by Ucklak · 2004-11-05 14:16 · Score: 1

Yeah, I understand that but for WLB, the whole point is supposed to be a mystery anyway. I like the style it was told in but I already knew the ending so it wasn't enjoyable for me.

Castaway, I like how Zemeckis painted the whole environment. The plane crash was beautiful and the journey of Hanks character was even worth it for me. I just hated the fact that I knew what direction I was being sent to.

Don't get me wrong, I love movies and can watch them over and over. Those two movies relied on the journey to the destination but if you knew the destination, there was no point to the journey.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.

creepy creepy creepy-Uncanny Kids. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-11-05 09:31 · Score: 0

"I just saw a Sneak Preview of the actual film, and there were tons of kids in the theater. I didn't hear any of the kids get creeped out. Actually, for as many kids were there, I heard very little out of them period."

Maybe the "Uncanny Valley" doesn't affect kids the same way?

Specs on Polar Express locomotive by Animats · 2004-11-05 09:54 · Score: 1

As any kid who's read the book can tell you, the locomotive pulling the Polar Express is a 2-8-4 Berkshire. From the size, it's the AMC-upgraded model with the 69-inch drivers and the bigger boiler, rather than the original 63-inch model.

So there.

Re:Specs on Polar Express locomotive by Buran · 2004-11-05 16:18 · Score: 1

I never read the book! But I was close -- just never got a clear enough view of the front truck.

Hi, fellow train geek! :)

--
i am a soviet space shuttle

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Chiron+Taltos · 2004-11-05 10:37 · Score: 1

I believe it stands a great chance of succeeding. Zemeckis is the same director who directed "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". Another project which could have been an unmitigated disaster in lesser hands.

--
CT

Gearheads should grow up by MachDelta · 2004-11-05 11:27 · Score: 1

Man, why does everyone have this grudge against NASCAR like its some lower form of motorsport? Every event has its strengths and weaknesses, nomatter how high you turn up your nose.
But if you're truly a "car guy" than it shouldn't matter WHAT is being raced, as long as it has an engine some wheels and some competition, you should be able to appreciate, if not enjoy it.
I like NASCAR because its a test of strategy (pit and otherwise) and a cars ability to take punishment. You just don't get the same kind of action anywhere else when you see someone go three wide into a corner, swapping paint and gas fumes. Likewise, where else can you witness the astounding technological feats of cutting edge motorsports than F1 or CART? High strung engines in the lightest shell possible, its just insane fun. I love rally too, because its a combination of mad driver skill and long term durability, all wrapped up in fairly "normal" cars. And there are countless other entertaining motorsports out there too. From the raw power of drag racing, to the flair and elegance of drifting, to the brutal mechanical punishment of a demolition derby.

I just don't understand... If you really like cars, why can't you like them all?

Re:Gearheads should grow up by Basehart · 2004-11-05 12:22 · Score: 1

Don't get me wrong, I like to watch Nascar from time to time, but the problem is that in the US if you're a motorsports fan it's rammed down your throat. Like that's all there is.

Turn on Speed TV and chances are there'll be some guys driving around a track in Bush country. Occasionally there'll be some other form of motorsport, but 75% of the time it's Nascar or Nascar related

And don't even bother looking for F1 or World Rally on ESPN, it doesn't exist, thanks primarily to the Nascar marketing people!

Maybe that's the whole point. Maybe it's an easy way for some Americans to internalize, look inward all the time by focussing exclusively on homegrown sports instead of taking a look at what's going on out there in the real world.

So, just don't show US only cars please Pixar, OK, jeez :-)

I don't plan to see either by bob_jenkins · 2004-11-05 12:50 · Score: 1

I'm a big fan of cartoons, computer animation, and children's books and movies in general. However, I'm not planning on going to either Cars or Polar Express. I've seen the trailers. Perhaps I'm looking for some Big Concept, and not seeing any. Cars with buck teeth? Wide-eyed kids at Christmas? Doesn't do anything for me.

I skipped work today to see The Incredibles. Fun fun fun! A few of the scenes (flying into the island, sitting down at the dark desk) I had trouble telling they were animated. Elastigirl and Violet were hot. The boss was fantastic, although the bad guy was dull. More could have been done (a few fewer cliches and more distinctive tastes for the adults), but even what they had covered a lot of ground. The kids fighting at the dinner table, with the mom asking for help to break it up, looked very familiar.

Re:Hmpf. - I think you're missing the point by Rakarra · 2004-11-05 13:29 · Score: 1

Think of who these movies are truly made for. Not you (unless you're 5). It's made for kids, which is why all of their previous movies have been G.

No, it's made for families, not just kids. Important distinction. Family entertainment anyone can enjoy.

Waking Life... by oneiron · 2004-11-05 13:29 · Score: 1

Actually Polar Express won't be creating any new genres. It will be following in the footsteps of Waking Life.

Personally, I think the Waking Life style of doing things creates a much more surreal experience. Polar Express looks like just another digitally animated cartoon with characters drawn to look like real actors. As far as animation goes, it hardly looks different than something like toy story because motion capture has been used to animate all of the characters for quite a while, anyway... Hardly genre-bending...just a tweaked cartoon with a familiar face.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by Deadstick · 2004-11-05 14:06 · Score: 1

It *is* possible to recreate a story on the big screen from a novel and have it hold the same feeling that it did in print.

It certainly is; Roger Murch's Return to Oz did it in 1985.

And the critics murdered it for not being an inane piece of fluff like MGM's Wizard of Oz.

rj

Consider it Ruined by zo219 · 2004-11-05 17:21 · Score: 1

Take a look at the trailer on the QuickTime trailer page, apple.com.trailers.
Dispiriting. If you've read aloud to children, then you know they already see something more wonderful than any movie.
All this one offers is to substitute something of waaay lower quality for a child's own imaginative powers.

Aspect Ratio?!? by SparklingClearWit · 2004-11-05 18:40 · Score: 1

Dammit! Just when you get a 16:9 TV and computer monitor, more and more stuff shows up with 2.35:1 "Super CinemaScope". Grr. Psst, directors? Black Bars on the top and bottom do not an 'edgy' movie make.

Please standardize. ;)

Your employers,
Movie Viewers

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by danila · 2004-11-06 00:28 · Score: 1

I'm afraid I disagree. First, I don't think you can name many films (one or two at most) where big budget was obviously wasted. I am not a frequent movie goer, so I am sure there've been other big budget films this year that I missed, but all that I saw were justified in spending a fortune on FX. Van Helsing, I, Robot, Spiderman, Sky Captain, Pirates of the Carribean, Last Samurai, Bourne Supremacy, Paycheck, Timeline, Kill Bill, Harry Potter, Night Patrol, Troy - all these films could not be made without spending a lot on effects. And I don't remember a single film where I would say "The money was wasted, the film would be better without good special FX".

This should deal with your argument that film makers overuse the special effects. I don't think so and I certainly don't remember any such examples.

Second, I think your criticism of the "cram-packed" mentality is misguided. There are different genres and for different genre the approach is different. Spiderman 2 would not be the film it was without gratuitous special effects. Harry Potter would not be a blockbuster on par with the success of the book without a fortune spent on recreating Hogwarts. The truth is that some time ago the filmmakers simply could not afford using special effects in every shot. So don't mistake the lack of special effects in 1970s films for some Golden Age of Filmmaking creative vision. It's normal to use FX in every shot, there is nothing wrong with it per se. As for getting in the way of the story, again, I don't remember this happening with the films I saw in 2004. If you could give examples, that may be helpful, but I doubt that this problem is very widespread.

I mean, it's ok to criticise a particular film, but if you criticise ALL or MOST of the films for making a certain judgement error, you are implying that your are a better filmmaker than all those directors, producers, etc., with all their Oscars and stuff, which makes your comments kinda questionable...

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by avdp · 2004-11-06 02:20 · Score: 1

I guess the difference between you and me is that you (presumably) consider the movies you listed good. I consider maybe 5 of those good. The other ones were probably created to support the special effect platform (Van Helsing certainly comes to mind there). Also, some of the ones I consider good in your list (Last Samurai, Bourne Supremacy, Kill Bill) are not really special effects movie - big budget maybe, but they all just rely on good old fashioned acting and a good story, with a few explosions here and there. It's funny I was just watching the Bonus DVD on Last Samurai last night - special effects are few and simple - they are not impressive by today's standards. Everything you see (the village, etc) they built either on a sound stage or in New Zealand. All the costumes are hand crafted, lots of training of the actors in sword fighting, and good old fashioned acting.

Don't get me wrong, I am not an artsy movie kindda guy. I like action movies and I like special effects. It's just that many of the big budget movies (most?) produced in the last decade or so are not any good, in spite of the excellent special effects. Some examples of my own to illustrate that faulty Hollywood "blockbusters" formula: Armageddon, Star Wars I + II - but there are so many others like that...

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by danila · 2004-11-06 09:32 · Score: 1

I consider them good for what they are - action-packed sci-fi, family-friendly adventure films, historical blockbusters and even oh-so-creative artsy indie Sky Captain. :) I am not saying that Van Helsing was very good (IMO it wasn't), but without the budget spent on the effects it would simply suck monkey balls. The point is that money spent on a film almost always improve it. With all those millions Van Helsing is a passable action flick that doesn't bore you and even entertains if you are not too picky. Verdict - worth 10$. Without the millions, it is stupid boring, stereotype-ridden crap, which is worth neither my money, nor time. It follows logically that spending lots of money on Van Helsing is correct.

I am not saying all those movies spent on digital effects, some simply spent money on old "no-so-special" effects. There isn't much difference in my view, CGI is simply a more cost-efficient (often) alternative. The point, again, is that with money spent on the effects the movie improves.

And even when you consider some sucky films, such as Armageddon or Star Wars I + II (personally I think SW2 was mostly good), without the money spent on effects they would be totally horrendous. Imagine the same Armageddon only with crappy effects. Does it become a better movie? I don't think so. The conclusion is that even though some movies turn up crappy, this rarely (or never) happens because too much was spent on the special effects.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by avdp · 2004-11-07 01:10 · Score: 1

I am not saying that SW I/II could have been done without special effects - indeed you can't make a movie in that genre without special effects by the truck load. But they are perfect example of movies where there are scenes or characters created for no other reasons than to show off special effects. That's what I would consider crossing the line between special effects supporting the movie and the movie supporting the special effect.

In the case of Armageddon, this movie wouldn't have existed (which would have been a good thing) if it wasn't for the "formula". I imagine studio exec saying "we need to produce a summer blockbuster that costs a lot of money and dazzles with effects, let's write a story to fit it!" rather than the other way around.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by danila · 2004-11-07 03:01 · Score: 1

Now that you say this, it appears that your problem has nothing to do with the special effects. You simply don't like the fact that not enough intellectual movies with an intricate story and rich characters are made. Another way to put it - you don't like that most people are stupid and like simplistic films. This is a very valid concern and I share it to some extent, but we must realise that it has nothing to do with the special effects.

Even if Congress passes a bill tomorrow prohibiting spending more than 15% of the budget on effects (special or traditional), do you seriously think that studios would suddenly start making movies that you consider very good. No, they would simply find another way to cater to the general public, by inviting more stars, dressing characters in fancy clothes, using more exotic locations, etc. They won't start making movies with excellent scripts and amazing characters, because... well, just because. ;) Let's not blame the special effects for this.

--
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.

Re:please don't ruin the story with fancy effects. by avdp · 2004-11-07 04:09 · Score: 1

You are correct, I don't have a problem with special effects per se (didn't I say that in the first post?) I have a problem with the way they seem to be a good substitute for a plot. In other words, if it dazzle the audience enough, they may not notice the lack of a good plot. This is what I (and many people) refer as the "Hollywood formula" for a blockbuster. $$$ + special effects + dreamy eyed beautiful woman (to go with weak romance subplot) = blockbuster.

And to get back on topic, when they adapt books to movie they tend to do that too - like adding whole scenes whose only purpose is to show off a bunch of effects (or cater to a made up romance subplot with dreamy eyed woman). Hopefully they won't do it with this book.

Slashdot Mirror

Teaser Trailer for 'Cars'; Info on 'Polar Express'

303 comments