Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream

Just the free market at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

What we're seeing here is just the free market at work, re-adjusting itself to the distortion of the past 20 or so years. It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly.

Projects like this were bound to happen sooner or later. Now that the technology is readily available, the market is able to take care of the problem of overpaid movie stars and distribution companies.

Re:Just the free market at work. by malraid · 2006-05-19 05:28 · Score: 1

Square didn't do very well with Final Fantasy and Aki Ross, so I'm not sure we're there yet.

--
please excuse my apathy
Re:Just the free market at work. by geoffspear · 2006-05-19 05:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Whatever. The thousands of low budget copyrighted short films produced before this "open" short film didn't kill Hollywood, and neither will this one. If you think Pixar and Dreamworks are worried, you're seriously deluded.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Ucklak · 2006-05-19 05:35 · Score: 1

Marketing and Tie-ins

Pixar surely isn't worried but the first time some toy company wants to foot the bill on some merchandise, they'll pay attention.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Just the free market at work. by starwed · 2006-05-19 05:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

They could have been replaced by human actors as well, many of whom can act better than those paid $20 million.
Re:Just the free market at work. by lawpoop · 2006-05-19 05:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

"It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly."

Clearly obvious to geeks, maybe.

The reason that Joe Public goes to see a movie is not for the plot, nor for the special effects, but for the star power. People will see Pirates of the Caribean for Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp, not because it's about pirates.

Even if we replace actual actors with CGI clones, or purely CGI characters develop, it will cost $20 million to license their image, because star power is what draws people to the movies in the first place. The movie industry is one of the freest markets, and I think it's a tough case to make that the money stars make is somehow distorted.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Just the free market at work. by geoffspear · 2006-05-19 05:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?
I'm absolutely shocked that you're not the CEO of Mattel by now, with brilliant thinking like that.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Ucklak · 2006-05-19 05:56 · Score: 1

Viral marketing will have more play within the next 15 years than traditional methods.

Mattel won't be the one to squirt out platic for a geek fan movie but those off companies that only sell to SunCoast or other comic shops certainly will.
At the point that demand outpaces supply, Mattel/Hasbro will listen.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:Just the free market at work. by demachina · 2006-05-19 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh...in a word.....no.

CG actors aren't even close to replacing human actors for most things. CG actors are great for cartoony characters that humans couldn't do anyway. You try to sell a CG actor, in their current state of development, off as a real human actor people immediately spot the fact its synthetic, start noticing all the little traits that aren't human, it immediately starts bugging the audience, they get distracted and turned off by the whole movie. Animation tools simply aren't there to pull off a synthetic human for any length of time. Its really hard for an animator to key every nuance of a lifted eyebrow, or just to lip sync well to a sound track of a voice recording. When an actor speaks every motion and nuance is perfectly in sync with and natural for the audio track. It takes enormous effort for an animator to just get close and then they still don't nail all the nuances of emotion that goes along with whats actually being said. Again it works for cartoon characters because people don't expect perfection. As soon as you try to pull off a synthetic human everyone does expect perfection.

Human actors who have real character, like Humphrey Bogart or Lauren Bacall are a pretty valuable commodity, though I will agree many actors today don't rate the salaries or praise they get. A key problem is they are often working off bad scripts and with bad directors.

I wager part of the wasteland that is film today is because todays movie makers, script writers and actors grew up in the TV age and are remarkably devoid of creativity and character. This is a reason we see so many crappy remakes of medicore plots and TV shows like Bewitched. I'm wondering if the rising generations will do better. They grew up in the Internet age and have the ability to search for ideas, and their searches can take them in a billion different directions, versus the one spoon fed direction TV takes its viewers. They have an increasingly vast pool of information and ideas at their disposal so maybe they will be more creative than the current largely failed generation of film makers.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just the free market at work. by bigredradio · 2006-05-19 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agree. Being a father, I am exposed to a lot of cartoon/CG movies. I love pixar movies becuase of the writing and the stars that say the lines. I am looking forward to seeing cars. Come'on can anybody replace "Larry the Cable guy" in a role like that?

However, I have also seen some real crap. The Barbie movies are CG and they suck. I can't stand to watch any of them. Along with the care bears (not cg but cartoon). Its not the medium, it's the story and the actors. Even if it's only their voices. Robin Williams as the genie? Have you seen the after-market dvds with another actor. It really makes a difference.
Take care.

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Re:Just the free market at work. by YrWrstNtmr · 2006-05-19 06:22 · Score: 1

They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses.
Not even close. Name one movie where CG actors were good enough to pass as real people. Some movie where you really couldn't tell. Just one.
Re:Just the free market at work. by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 06:33 · Score: 1

You think some toy company is going to want to market toys based on a short film no one but a bunch of geeks has seen rather than toys based on a movie that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars and was seen by every kid in the country, all of whom will whine to their parents that they want the toys involved with it?
I think its more likely that the toy company would take the movie and promote/distribute it where it can get more eyeballs on it (no development or licensing costs -- well, maybe some of the former if they do their own edits -- just marketing costs), and then squirt out a bunch of toys based on it.
Re:Just the free market at work. by saboola · 2006-05-19 06:36 · Score: 2, Funny

You can try to make a CGI person jump up and down on a couch like a monkey on a daytime talk show, but it will never be quite right. This is why actors are worth $20 mil.
Re:Just the free market at work. by AndyElf · 2006-05-19 06:52 · Score: 1

Simone?

Oh, wait, you mean where CG was better than real... :)

--

--AP
Re:Just the free market at work. by d34thm0nk3y · 2006-05-19 07:00 · Score: 1, Insightful

The movie industry is one of the freest markets

Except for that whole (un)limited time monopoly known as copyright...
Re:Just the free market at work. by jank1887 · 2006-05-19 07:06 · Score: 2, Informative

You got that right. My daughter has a book based on one of those Barbie ones. Even those still shots are hard to look at. CG isn't there yet for human actors. The problem is that it's too good, but not good enough yet. We can do cartoony people really well (Incredibles), but not real ones. Why? Because of The Uncanny Valley.
"The phenomenon can be explained by the notion that if an entity is sufficiently non-humanlike, then the humanlike characteristics will tend to stand out and be noticed easily, generating empathy. On the other hand, if the entity is "almost human", then the non-human characteristics will be the ones that stand out, leading to a feeling of "strangeness" in the human viewer."
As we try to inch closer to perfect, we actually get worse results from the general populace. Maybe film CG will break the valley, but it's a long road.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Lumpy · 2006-05-19 08:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

If you think Pixar and Dreamworks are worried, you're seriously deluded.

they shoud be. Blender gives the no budget 3d artist access to something that only multiple thousands to buy the low end Lightwave or even more to buy Maya. This movie is solid proof that a full 3d film is very possible and within the reach of garage artists and the poor highschool kid that has enough morals to not pirate a copy of maya or lightwave and do things that the big guys can do.

Have you even TOUCHED blender? I can do hair like Pixar does. If I build a render farm I can render it within a week just like pixar does.

Pixar should be scared, this is proof that the tools are available to have a new pixar competitor appear overnight.

Hell in 10 years time we will be taking about how Japanese middle school children learn this stuff on their laptops in art class, while us in the USA will wonder why they still do not teach trig in Middle school and Algebra in Grade school.. Want proof? look at how most of the 3d talent out there is from europe and Asia right now.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Lumpy · 2006-05-19 08:10 · Score: 1

REally??

so the hugely profitable and popular TV show "That 70's show" was a failure for not having "star power" but used no name actors.

And that Mission Impossible III is the biggest complete flop in history because of the retarted moron that is the star of the show but is a "mega-STAR" in every sence of the word.

How about the fact that "Happy Madison" films almost NEVER use a big name star, but typically use has-beens and ends up the most profitable movie studio on the planet right now?? Yes kids, He is making more money per dollar spent than all the others combined right now and is KILLING on DVD sales.

You might eat the nasty tripe that Hollywierd sells you in order to believe what you said, but most everything else proves otherwise.

It's like the retarted comment that Amercians do not want small or electric vehicles but want SUV's. Yet every electric ever created had waiting lists for prepaid orders that were nearly a year long and the hybrids today are impossible to buy without getting on the waiting list.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Just the free market at work. by bufalo_1973 · 2006-05-19 08:38 · Score: 1

Are you refering to the 2001 movie?
Re:Just the free market at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:53 · Score: 0

Pedant's point: that "after-market" genie is Dan Castellaneta aka Homer Simpson, Krusty the Klown, and a hundred other voices on The Simpsons and other shows. He's no voice acting slouch, and he does a great Robin Williams, and a pretty good "Robin Williams doing other voices."
Re:Just the free market at work. by onepoint · 2006-05-19 09:00 · Score: 1

Just a note of observation:
if the talent that creates the CGI actor is in demand, then that talent will command more money, and the copy write of that talent ( the artist, motion, and voice people ) will also be in demand, so it's a switch from one person to a group of people.

--
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Temsi · 2006-05-19 09:04 · Score: 1

They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses.

In a word, bullshit.

CG actors are good standins for dangerous action sequences, but a computer will never be able to react or emote the way a human being can.

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Just the free market at work. by lawpoop · 2006-05-19 09:24 · Score: 1

"so the hugely profitable and popular TV show "That 70's show" was a failure for not having "star power" but used no name actors."

TV shows are totally different. The audience doesn't have to go out of their way and drive to the theater, spend money, and be in a theater for 1.5 hours. With TV shows, you just sit at the TV, flip through channels, and if you see something you like, you watch it, for free. You aren't obliged to watch the whole thing to the end just to get your money's worth. That 70s show has run for years now, and those actors are now stars themselves.

"And that Mission Impossible III is the biggest complete flop in history because of the retarted moron that is the star of the show but is a "mega-STAR" in every sence of the word."

It's true that having stars won't guarantee the success of a movie, but a movie without stars is very unlikely to have success anywhere near a typical Hollywood film.

"How about the fact that "Happy Madison" films almost NEVER use a big name star, but typically use has-beens and ends up the most profitable movie studio on the planet right now?? Yes kids, He is making more money per dollar spent than all the others combined right now and is KILLING on DVD sales." "

No big name star?! How about Adam Sandler? A guy who already had an audience from a 5 year career at SNL. Hardly a nobody.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Re:Just the free market at work. by Eideewt · 2006-05-19 09:57 · Score: 1

I disagree. It all comes down to the talent of the animators. I've been very impressed by all the Pixar movies I've seen.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Temsi · 2006-05-19 10:13 · Score: 1

Do you honestly think a group of animators can match a nuanced performance of a gifted character actor?
Do you honestly think a group of animators could deliver something on par with Jack Nicholson in As Good As It Gets or Charlize Theron in Monster or Philip Seymore Hoffman in Capote?
Don't be ridiculous.

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Helios1182 · 2006-05-19 10:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The difference is that Pixar has hordes of great artists, producers, directories, writers, etc. working for them. They have the tools and the talent. Not to mention the marketing, distribution, name recognition, etc.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Eideewt · 2006-05-19 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sure.
Re:Just the free market at work. by bigredradio · 2006-05-19 10:36 · Score: 1

Dan Castellaneta who? I understand your point, but Dan Castellaneta is not a house hold name. Homer Simpson is a house hold name. If he did genie in the homer voice it would be recognized. It would also be funny as sh*t.

--
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Re:Just the free market at work. by redcane · 2006-05-19 11:24 · Score: 1

I will start by noting the following is not based on what I believe to be true, instead it is based on what I think is the way things should be.

People shouldn't go to movies for star power (but I admit they mostly do). They should be going because it is well written, or well shot, or the acting is good. Most stars don't tend to produce this. I'm actually really bad at remembering celebrities names/faces. My wife is forever telling me "thats the actor from ". And I have no idea who that person is. I'll remember a movie more so than an actor. And thats how I think it should be. A movie starring unknown actors (who aren't getting paid way more than anyone should ever be worth) is just as likely to be a good movie as one with megastar $$$$$ actors (at least to me it is). I know this is not the way the general populace sees it however, but I couldn't care less if the movie studios saved money on producing a film by paying the actors $200,000 instead of $2 million. Especially if it means the movies are cheaper, and thus I can go see more good films.
Re:Just the free market at work. by presidentbeef · 2006-05-19 15:20 · Score: 1

People will see Pirates of the Caribean for Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp, not because it's about pirates.

No, they see the movie because it's Keira Knightly, Johnny Depp and pirates! Hooray pirates! Arrggg!

Seriously.

--
Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Temsi · 2006-05-19 18:19 · Score: 1

Your overwhelming reasoning skills have rendered me speechless.
How can I possibly respond to this incredibly detailed explanation of your position?

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Eideewt · 2006-05-19 18:55 · Score: 1

You didn't ask for one, nor did you explain your position in detail. You still haven't, but I'll explain myself anyway.

Just as there are very gifted actors in this world, there are very gifted artists. It seems a little premature to decide what their limits are when CG people still haven't moved out of the Uncanny Valley. At one time (pre-Renaissance, I suppose) people might have said that it wasn't possible to paint a realistic person. Obviously they were wrong. For that matter, heavier-than-air flight was once deemed impossible. Unless you've got a crystal ball sitting there in front of you (that would be a hell of a trump card), then you probably can't predict the future any better than the naysayers of the past could.

Real actors emote all the time, so they have an advantage because they can apply their natural skills and don't have to micromanage all the muscles in thier faces. Animators have an advantage because they can see what they're producing from the outside, and they can tweak it without doing another take, and they *can* control facial muscles as precisely as they want to. I don't know which approach will produce better results in the long run, but neither do you. Like I said, it all depends on how good the animators are. I don't feel qualified to decide how skilled future animators will be, but if you do, then I'm sure they'll be glad to get your input.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Zaphod2016 · 2006-05-19 19:53 · Score: 1

Depends.

Could a 100% CGI cartoon be developed (including voice) that kids would love and demand DVDs and lunch boxes of? I would say: absolutley.

Could "live action" CGI replace the stars in "grown up" (ha) movies? IMO: not for another decade, at the very earliest.

--
barack to the future?
Re:Just the free market at work. by Zaphod2016 · 2006-05-19 19:57 · Score: 1

star power is what draws people to the movies in the first place.

Agreed. (as far as "the great 90%" goes)

Even if we replace actual actors with CGI clones, or purely CGI characters develop, it will cost $20 million to license their image

Not if they are developed in house, for use in works created by the owner. I wouldn't be at all suprised to learn that Nickelodeon is already hard at work on this.

--
barack to the future?
Re:Just the free market at work. by cfuse · 2006-05-19 20:29 · Score: 1

What we're seeing here is just the free market at work, re-adjusting itself to the distortion of the past 20 or so years. It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly.
Expenses of any kind in a movie are only relevant when compared to profits. Sure, it might cost me $20 million to get an actor, but if the movie makes back it's costs and goes on to make a profit then I could care less how much I had to pay them. Do you really think that the studios would make a multi name actor picture (like X-Men for example) if they didn't think that they could make back the money? A 'successful' indie movie will rarely gross anything even approaching what an average big budget will - they make a profit by costing less to make.
Re:Just the free market at work. by bbc · 2006-05-20 02:26 · Score: 1

FWIW, the voices in Elephants Dream were done by professional Dutch actors Tycho Gernant and Cas Jansen. I do not know why they volunteered their time; presumably because they thought it was a fun experiment, -- and who knows, maybe in twenty years time they will be seen as pioneers.

There are/were directors who are/were notable for the fact that actors featured the very last in the list of priorities, such as Lucas and Hitchcock. If it were up to these directors, the sooner they could replace all actors by CGI, probably the better. But these directors probably think that telling a story is done by the screen writer/director, not by actors. For them, collaboration is part of a production process, not part of telling a story.

(Perhaps it is interesting that Lucas predicts that in twenty years time the average price of a Hollywood movie will have dropped to US$ 15M. No idea why he thinks that, though, but top actors easily get a per-movie wage that is higher than that amount.)
Re:Just the free market at work. by evilviper · 2006-05-20 05:05 · Score: 1

The reason that Joe Public goes to see a movie is not for the plot, nor for the special effects, but for the star power.

Right... Like Star Wars... Or E.T. Or Titanic... Or The Terminator... Or any of the huge list of other massively-successful movie lacking "stars".

Not to mention the inverse... The huge number of flops, that happened to be filled with highly-paid "stars".

Not to mention that these same "stars" have continued making movies for the past couple years, and yet the decline continues.

People will see Pirates of the Caribean for Keira Knightly and Johnny Depp, not because it's about pirates.

There seem to be a few cases where that happens, but not many.

I personally will be more likely to see a movie when it stars someone who has done nothing but good movies the past several times out, or by a writer/director/producer with an equally good record, but that's as far as it goes, and I believe that's true for the large majority of the movie-going public as well.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Just the free market at work. by Temsi · 2006-05-20 06:29 · Score: 1

You proved my point when you said "they can see what they're producing from the outside, and they can tweak it".
A real life actor doesn't "tweak" a muscle or something like that. What you'll wind up with is a mechanical effort, not artistry.
You know why King Kong succeeded in the closeups? Andy Serkis. Not the animators who applied his motion capture to the model.

--
-- This sig for rent.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Eideewt · 2006-05-20 11:31 · Score: 1

I didn't prove your point at all. You don't know that the animator's "design and tweak" approach is inferior to an actor's approach. There's no possible way that you can know that. You just think it's unlikely that there will ever be animators skilled enough to be a real actor's equal. I say, "Why the hell not?" I suspect you don't have a good answer.

Also, why would tweaking an animated character's facial expressions be mechanical? It's no more mechanical than creating any drawing, or sculpture, or 3d model.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Farmer+Tim · 2006-05-20 23:41 · Score: 1

Human actors who have real character, like Humphrey Bogart or Lauren Bacall are a pretty valuable commodity

Neither of those two are valuable commodities today, unless perhaps you're making a zombie film.

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Re:Just the free market at work. by zippthorne · 2006-05-21 05:37 · Score: 1

Similarly, I've been very unimpressed by most of the $20 million dollar actors I've seen. I'll believe CG artists have made a computer act like a human before I'll believe these con-artists have stopped acting like machines...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Just the free market at work. by zippthorne · 2006-05-21 05:43 · Score: 1

I think many people share my opinion that it's not the actors that make the movie. A good movie will be good even without million dollar actors (maybe even better, since you wouldn't be distracted by "What's Mr. Jackson going to do next" and instead concentrate on the character). And a bad movie will still be bad even with them. But the bad movie will probably still get watched on name recognition.

So if the studio could have made the same amount of money, but saved $100 million on talent, they really should have. At those levels they're not buying talent. They're buying a security blanket. It's the same model the keeps CEO salaries high.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:Just the free market at work. by grumbel · 2006-05-21 13:43 · Score: 1

### There's no possible way that you can know that. You just think it's unlikely that there will ever be animators skilled enough to be a real actor's equal.

Have you ever seen anything hand animated that came even close to real motion or well, any kind of computer animation of a human where you couldn't tell if its real? I havn't, there is after all a reason why we use motion capture these days. Hand animation never did produce realistic results, it can produce good and usefull results (cartoon), but there is no way you will ever get very realistic results out of it, let alone in reasonable time. The human motion is quite a bit to complex to be replicated manually by hand.

That however doesn't mean that a CGI actor will never replace a real one. However to produce a realistic CGI actor we would first need a way to generate the proper motion, even motion capture is quite limited, since it leaves out far to many details. Beside from that it would be cheating, what got is it to replace a real actor, when all you do is moving him into the motion capture studio to do his moves there, instead of infront of a camera? You still would have to pay him, and you also in addition now need to pay the anmiators and other personal that will transfer him into CGI. So instead of motion capture we would need a way to generate motion automatically, basically creating something like a virtual human that we can give direction and some attributes and then will perform something to our liking, when we have that, we might get closer to replacing a real actor, but we are nowhere near that. There is some progress in that area, but its still pretty much in its very early days, since it doesn't go bejoint some half realistic reaction to collisions and a bit of walking. Something that looks realistic enough to replace a real actor is still far far away, 20 years at least I would say. But if that, even when it looks realistic, is good enough to replace a good real actor is still quite doubtfull.

For the next years computer animation will still be either cartoony or all backed up by motion capture, meaning you will 'replace' a "real actor" with a "real actor + animator + motion capture crew + ...", not exactly a way to make things cheaper, but a way to give some more flexibility in what a actor can do.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Eideewt · 2006-05-21 14:24 · Score: 1

I agree, although I wasn't actually arguing about whether CGI actors can be exactly the same as a human actor (at least I don't think I was), but more about whether they can emote as well. Actually, I think that the exaggerations possible with a CGI or traditionally animated character offer great oppurtunities for conveying expression. That's not to say that I think real actors will become obsolete or that animated characters are better, but I expect to see some great stuff when CGI can look real (in a material, shape, and lighting way), but break with reality in other ways.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-21 20:50 · Score: 0

As someone else said: a star does not guarantee high earnings, nor does no-star guarantee low earnings.

As for the ones you have there, an argument could be made for almost all of them except for Star Wars, and given the studio's surprise when it did become a hit, it's could be said that it was an aberration.

For example:

E.T.: Steven Speilberg (A director can be a "star" too.)
Titanic: Leonardo DiCaprio (Maybe you're forgetting the sheer number of teenage girls who swooned over Romeo + Juliet, which had already been released before Titanic was? At the time, the promise of Leo + melodramatic love story probably would have brought them in in droves regardless of the film.)
The Terminator: Does Conan count for Arnold? IMDB's stats show that movie doing over twice the business on opening weekend, and having a slightly higher total gross than Terminator did.

Yes, every star has to start somewhere. However, for every one of those movies which became major blockbusters, but didn't have any (at the time) recognisable stars, there are ten or more examples of successful films that did.
Re:Just the free market at work. by gtada · 2006-05-21 21:30 · Score: 1

I don't give a crap what Blender can do. If you really think that it's simply the capability of some free tool like Blender that'll make Pixar quake in their boots, "you're seriously deluded". Anybody could do traditional animation at home for years, but I don't think that ever worried Disney.

Let's look at it this way: Maya Unlimited costs what, $7000 per seat? Compare that to the cost of the person sitting in that seat. Pixar is about talent and creativity, and that doesn't "appear overnight" nor does it come cheap. When I first see a Pixar movie, I'm awed by the eye candy, but I leave the theatre appreciating the content even more.

Worried? I think not. Maybe amused.
Re:Just the free market at work. by tehcyder · 2006-05-21 22:33 · Score: 1

They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses
You obviously have ony ever seen Hollywood blockbusters or dubbed manga films.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Just the free market at work. by smidget2k4 · 2006-05-22 02:16 · Score: 1

You can't forget that no-name Chris Farley.
Re:Just the free market at work. by vizualizr · 2006-05-22 02:56 · Score: 1

While I agree that the idea of the open source movie is intriguing and do-able, I'm not sure that just being able to get your hands on a quality 3D package for free is enough to threaten the Pixars and Dreamworks of the world.

I'm a 3D artist that works in the architectural market, and I use one of the most expensive packages out there (3ds max). I haven't had a chance to play with Blender yet, but I've heard nothing but good things about it. The thing is, in the big picture of what it takes to put together even a short film, the cost of the 3D software is a drop in the bucket. The real cost comes in the production time. At the end of the day, if animation is your lifeblood, the hours you put in had better have a dollar cost assigned to them - otherwise your kids aren't gonna be eating.

If you're running a WETA-style large scale renderfarm, you've probably got a buck or two tied up in hardware, too.

To me one of the best things Blender does is to provide a pro-quality tool to the masses. Once you learn the basic concepts, switching packages wouldn't be that big a deal. If you told me I had to switch to maya/blender/lightwave/softimage/cinema4d, I'd bitch and moan about it for a few weeks, but like a codemonkey switching languages, I'd pick it up a whole lot faster than if I'd started out cold.

Not that having a good, free option will keep your average 15 year old videogame designer wannabee from just digging up a cracked version of the flavor of the week 3D package .. .

--
anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 05:21 · Score: 0

Making movies (especially animated ones) is not about tools, it is about story. And that is the tough part. In fact I would say that there are already tools to tell a great story: pen and paper. But still not everyone is a bestseller writer....
Re:Just the free market at work. by demachina · 2006-05-22 11:04 · Score: 1

"Neither of those two are valuable commodities today, unless perhaps you're making a zombie film."

I guess its a matter of taste and age. They were two of many actors who were at a peak during an era when film making was also peaking. Before TV, the internet and video games began to dominate people's lives people went to theaters as a dominant form of entertainment. Films of that era had a lot better dialog and were focused more on acting than today's are. There weren't special effects, sex, profanity, shock and awe or any of the other crutches today's film makers rely so heavily on to hold an audience's attention. Movies were heavily centered on actors acting and script writers writing compelling dialog. You find it boring, I still think they have something interesting to offer. How many of today's films are people going to still watch 50 years from now. I doubt very many. Unfortunately most of those old films don't hold the attention span of today's audience, whom unfortunately have no attention span unless they are being bombarded with non stop sensory overload and scripts at the level of a comic book.

--
@de_machina
Re:Just the free market at work. by Farmer+Tim · 2006-05-22 21:18 · Score: 1

I get what you mean (and FWIW I agree), I was referring to the fact that those two actors are long dead, which rather limits their casting opportunities.

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Re:Just the free market at work. by demachina · 2006-05-23 05:17 · Score: 1

Lauren Bacall isn't dead but at 82 she does have limited casting opportunities :)

--
@de_machina
Re:Just the free market at work. by Farmer+Tim · 2006-05-23 11:45 · Score: 1

Oh, I didn't know Bacall was still around. My mistake.

If I might, I'd suggest you track down a movie called "Primer". Sci-fi, but almost no special effects, purely plot and concept driven and remarkably gripping.

http://primermovie.com/

Also interesting, nearly dialogue free, but containing some nudity (used as a device to accentuate the utter subservience of a humanoid robot, a situation more morally repugnant than sexual which is in a way reversed by the end of the piece) and an equally small amount of CGI is a short film called "Eve".

http://www.visceralpsyche.com/welcome.html

Obviously I'm a sci-fi fan. To be honest, I see well written sci-fi as a plot device (like the transporters in Star Trek were originally a method of eliminating the boring bit of getting from scene to scene), and the stories themselves are really other genres disguised by gizmos. Alien: horror. Soylent Green: conspiracy/mystery. Solaris: boring ;) (actually I liked the original, so: psychodrama)

As much as I agree with what you said, I also think there are some wonderful opportunities opened up to film makers by the new technologies. Granted, this is often used to make plotless drivel. I wouldn't call the Star Wars series "art" by any stretch, although I do respect them as technically well made action films which (compared to the old Zane Gray, Tarzan and Flash Gordon films) are highly absorbing on a purely escapist level. I don't expect brilliant writing or deep examination of characters from the likes of Lucas or Speilberg, though, because they grew up watching those old action films, and that over-awed-child-like thrill is exactly what they're aiming for. I can enjoy them on that level, despite the two-by-fours delivering crass dialogue, but I don't take them seriously.

But speaking as a very minor film maker myself (I'd link to my IMDB listing, but I want to keep some anonymity around here), I prefer to make films that rely first and foremost on story. I also co-produce a show on community TV devoted to short films, and I must say I'm consistently impressed by the imagination and thought that goes into them, and the high standards that are achieved on tiny budgets; but I know many of these directors could produce truly remarkable results, given adequate funding and a free hand (absolute directorial freedom? Not from any funding body I can name). The problem I see isn't that money inherently makes things bad, but that money comes with strings attached.

I could go on, but the point I'm making is that trite action films have always been there (don't tell me Sylvester Stallone is any more of an ape than Johnny Weissmuller ;)...well, maybe), and it is only the filter of time that separates the wheat from the chaff. Our age is no different, except that the major studios have now pegged the cost of production, distribution and promotion so high that they can't afford not to be populist. There are as many good writers, actors and directors as ever, but you won't see them in your local multiplex. I'm probably preaching to the choir, but search them out and you'll be pleasantly rewarded, I assure you; the internet is good for that, at least.

Happy viewing!

--
Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
Re:Just the free market at work. by Willuknight · 2006-05-23 21:10 · Score: 1

it's called anime, not manga you ignorant.

--
Do not anger the Karma Whores, for they don't bathe often, and might decide to come visit you in person. -Ryan Amos

Before it's slashdoted.... by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:08 · Score: 4, Informative

Download the movie AVI, MPEG4 (mp42) / AC3 5.1 Surround

Only playable in: VLC Media Player MPlayer

--
fak3r.com

Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by Mr.+Frilly · 2006-05-19 05:11 · Score: 1

Anyone have a mirror of the .torrent file? Look like even that's been slashdotted...
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:14 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, even bigger too! 1920 (HD):
http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD. avi.torrent

--
fak3r.com
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by goldaryn · 2006-05-19 05:27 · Score: 1

Well while we're assuming the tracker will hold up:

Here's low res and hi res to go with the HD.

We'll see..
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by Elrond · 2006-05-19 05:29 · Score: 2, Funny

They should have put it up on video.google.com.
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by forkazoo · 2006-05-19 05:51 · Score: 1

Somebody mod this guy up -- The 1024 res one is the one I'm downloading, so I hope the torrent gets slashdotted! :)
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by khedron+the+jester · 2006-05-19 06:00 · Score: 0

Wow - 700 leachers...
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by dasdrewid · 2006-05-19 06:20 · Score: 1

It's been on YouTube since before it was officially released on the web...

--
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by adamlazz · 2006-05-19 07:27 · Score: 1

Thanks for this!!!
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by jsharkey · 2006-05-19 07:45 · Score: 1

But wait, the BitTorrent tracker they're using is hosting a copyrighted DVD-R of the movie "The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)."

Tracker webpage: http://jip.cs.vu.nl:6969/

Irony at its best! :)
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by LetterRip · 2006-05-19 11:20 · Score: 1

"But wait, the BitTorrent tracker they're using is hosting a copyrighted DVD-R of the movie "The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934).""

The 1934 version is public domain, the copyright is expired.

LetterRip
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 11:56 · Score: 0

It's disheartening that the "open movie" project doesn't release the fruit of its labor in an open format like Ogg Theora.
Hopefully someone will re-encode the film in a format that will give more people the opportunity to enjoy it without legal encumberances.
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 14:21 · Score: 0

"Only playable in: VLC Media Player MPlayer"

Wow. I can't wait to download yet another video player.

I realize that THIS video player is far superior to all of the others, because it has marginally better playback quality, or because it was written by underpriveleged children in a Calcutta ghetto, or because it refuses to support codecs that someone thinks are morally wrong, but guess what? I don't care.

I'm not going to do it.

If you want me to watch your video clip, put it in a format that I can read. Every freaking file can't require its own unique program.
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by samael · 2006-05-19 21:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why on earth is it only available in those formats rather than being a straight MPEG?

--
My Journal
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by cduffy · 2006-05-20 08:29 · Score: 1

Maybe because MPEG2 is intended for high-bandwidth applications, which streaming over the Internet isn't?
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by samael · 2006-05-20 09:06 · Score: 1

But these aren't designed for streaming either - they're designed for download and playing locally.

--
My Journal
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by cduffy · 2006-05-20 10:07 · Score: 1

Even so -- using a high-bandwidth codec for information that's going to be distributed in such a way that cost scales with size is silly.
Re:Before it's slashdoted.... by samael · 2006-05-20 10:13 · Score: 1

But these files are basically MPEG4 files - encoded with something that's almost DIVX - but clearly not quite, as I can play DIVX files with my normal media player (and on my DVD player) but these won't work at all.

--
My Journal

Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-05-19 05:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Anyone else have to read that title a few times before it made sense?

--
This guy's the limit!

Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:11 · Score: 1

Release of first 3D 'Open Movie'; Elephants Dream

That would have worked better.

--
fak3r.com
Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by szembek · 2006-05-19 05:37 · Score: 1

Yep, I was just scrolling through the comments to see if anybody beat me to that comment.

--
nothing
Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by njchick · 2006-05-19 07:07 · Score: 1

Open Movie Dream of the Web Elephants Release
Elephants Movie of the Web Release Open Dream
Elephants Release Open Web of the Dream Movie
Movie of the Open Dream Web Release Elephants
Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by gEvil+(beta) · 2006-05-19 07:10 · Score: 1

The title originally didn't have the word 'the' in there, which just made the whole thing fairly awkward: Web Release of Open Movie Elephants Dream. The addition of 'the' helps a whole lot, IMHO.

--
This guy's the limit!
Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 07:17 · Score: 0

Punctuation on Slashdot? You must be mad!
Re:Zonk Title Sense Make Little Gah! by William+Robinson · 2006-05-21 20:59 · Score: 1

That was hillarious. LMAO.

--
hilarious

And That's not all... by Cherita+Chen · 2006-05-19 05:10 · Score: 2, Funny

There is also the Open Video Project which sports a very cool library of footage, etc...

--
I'm not fat, just big boned...

Elephants Only Web Dream Release? Huh? by i_am_the_r00t · 2006-05-19 05:11 · Score: 2, Funny

did someone chew on these words and spit them on my slashdot?

Any information at all? by PCM2 · 2006-05-19 05:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

OK, so the homepage is Slashdotted, and the Mirrordot link is just the notice explaining the Slashdotting. So does anyone have any information about this movie at all?

How long is it?
If it was created using a "community process," how did the writing and direction work?
Who does the voice acting, if any?
Where did the music come from?
WTF is it about?

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:Any information at all? by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:19 · Score: 5, Informative

ummary from Motevideo:

Elephants Dream is a story with quick-witted dialogue, tightly designed architecture and unusual sound effects. The main characters, Emo (a cool young trumpeter) and Proog (a confused - or maybe not? - loner) are each stuck in a world of their own. At a certain moment they cross paths with one another. The oddball Proog cautiously tries to introduce his young friend Emo to his world. When Emo realizes that Proog primarily wants to push his ideas on him, this leads to a conflict between them. But can Emo survive in Proog's world? And can they overcome their conflicts, or will they each go their own way in life? Tygo Gernandt and Cas Jansen create two unique personalities that command the imagination, and carry the viewer along into a bizarre world that consists of a bleak wasteland with a tangle of cables and other alien landscapes, a living typewriter, an enormous elevator shaft, and especially a lot of very strange birds.

Also checkout the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephants_Dream

--
fak3r.com
Re:Any information at all? by slapout · 2006-05-19 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

The whole point of the project was to see if a movie could be created using Blender 3d. It's called the Orange Project and they have a blog about the production. The Orange Project website, however, is currently slashdotted.
When it comes back you can check it out at: http://orange.blender.org/

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:Any information at all? by goldaryn · 2006-05-19 05:47 · Score: 1

Just type elephants dream into Google and click cached for the first result (clearer if you click cached text only too).
Re:Any information at all? by WWWWolf · 2006-05-19 06:07 · Score: 1

Quick questions warrant quick answers!

"How long is it?" 10 minutes plus end credits. "If it was created using a "community process," how did the writing and direction work?" Uh, looks like they, like, picked a writer and a director and stuff? You know, "benevolent dictator" stuff and all? "Who does the voice acting, if any?" Fellows by the names of Cas and Tygo, apparently. "Where did the music come from?" There was this composer, you see, and apparently he got the bright idea to make some Music, you know. "WTF is it about?" Well, good question. 3D artists tend to love Weird Dream Stuff. This is just that! And I kind of liked it.
Re:Any information at all? by ultranova · 2006-05-19 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Elephants Dream is a story with quick-witted dialogue, tightly designed architecture and unusual sound effects. The main characters, Emo (a cool young trumpeter) and Proog (a confused - or maybe not? - loner) are each stuck in a world of their own. At a certain moment they cross paths with one another. The oddball Proog cautiously tries to introduce his young friend Emo to his world. When Emo realizes that Proog primarily wants to push his ideas on him, this leads to a conflict between them. But can Emo survive in Proog's world? And can they overcome their conflicts, or will they each go their own way in life? Tygo Gernandt and Cas Jansen create two unique personalities that command the imagination, and carry the viewer along into a bizarre world that consists of a bleak wasteland with a tangle of cables and other alien landscapes, a living typewriter, an enormous elevator shaft, and especially a lot of very strange birds.

In reality, it is two weirdos running through psychedelic landscapes and talking mostly nonsense. The graphics are very well done and quite imaginative, and the big battle at the end is cool - the Colossus rocks, even if we see just a hand.

But no, this thing has no real plot. Sorry. It just doesn't. It is, essentially, a demo. Perfectly understandable, since the whole point of this project was to see if you can make a movie with free open source tools, and a success as such - but for this very reason the whole script is simply and excuse to show as many special effects as possible. They are very good, and the whole thing is quite entertaining in its own surreal way - but the description you gave assigns it philosophical qualitites it just doesn't have.

Don't get me wrong, movie makers: your work is truly amazing. However, you if the description given was what you wanted to say, you failed. The reason for this failure was giving too much priority for FX, and failure to give the viewer any frame of reference (maybe you should have shown the two people meeting instead of starting from the middle of their journey ?). This improved somewhat near end, but most of the movie was just too surreal to carry any recognizable meanings.

So, basically: a huge technological success, mediocre at best in storytelling, characters simply didn't interact enough with each other (or anything else) to develop any personality beyond simple "youth curious, old forbids him" stereotype.

Nice surreal tech demo, but only that.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Any information at all? by Hormonal · 2006-05-19 08:20 · Score: 1

Obviously, you're just supposed to download the movie and see for yourself. Because downloading a video file weighing in at multiple hundreds of megabytes is an extremely efficient way to get answers to the questions you just posed.
I know the site owners put the placeholder page up in a hurry, but at least a single frame from the movie would have been nice.
I just ended up bookmarking it, and I guess I'll check it out in a few days.
Re:Any information at all? by Ruud+Althuizen · 2006-05-19 08:29 · Score: 1

Nope, it isn't slashdotted. That is because you could see that page well before the article reached slashdot. Apparently it showed up on some other high-profile website.

--
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Re:Any information at all? by slapout · 2006-05-19 09:08 · Score: 1

Sounds like the last three Star Wars movies. :-)

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:Any information at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:14 · Score: 0

"Where did the music come from?"

The music and voice acting was recorded and composed by Jan Morgenstern using 100% propriatory software. The production team decided to avoid using open source software as otherwise it would have meant the film would have been made using just open source tools.

From the site about Jan's studio:

Apple Power Macintosh Dual G4/867 Main studio workstation
MotU 2408MkII Audio interface (8 analogue I/Os, 3x8 ADAT I/Os, 3x8 TDIF I/Os, 2 S/PDIF I/Os, Wordclock)
Universal Audio UAD-1 DSP platform with 1176LN, LA2A, Fairchild 670, Pultec and Precision Mastering Suite
emagic unitor8 8x8 channel MIDI interface and synchronizer
emagic amt8 8x8 channel MIDI interface
2x Intel P4 3.4GHz Software sampling workstations (4GB RAM, 150GB HD, 19" rackmount)
RME Digi96/8 Digital audio interface (8 channel ADAT I/O)
emagic Logic Audio Pro 7 MIDI sequencing and HD recording software
MakeMusic Finale Notationssoftware
Native Instruments Reaktor Modular synthesis and sampling environment
Native Instruments Kontakt Software sampler
Native Instruments Absynth Subtractive/FM/granular software synthesizer
Nemesys Gigastudio Software sampler
Audioease Altiverb Realtime convolution reverb plug-in
Waves NPP Plug-in-Suite
Re:Any information at all? by LetterRip · 2006-05-19 11:32 · Score: 1

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls but...

"The music and voice acting was recorded and composed by Jan Morgenstern using 100% propriatory software. The production team decided to avoid using open source software as otherwise it would have meant the film would have been made using just open source tools."

It is true that Jan used proprietary software. The purpose of Orange was to prove the capability of opensource for the 3D content creation. While it would have been nice to use open source tools for the sound it just wasn't deemed feasible (Jan did investigate the various open source audio tools for suitability). Also the orchestral scores that were done, there are not any open sound libraries that could be used for doing orchestral scores.

Personally I would love a project to create an open/free orchestral sampling library then it might be feasible to do the sound using only open source tools in the future.

LetterRip
Re:Any information at all? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 12:23 · Score: 0

"It is true that Jan used proprietary software. The purpose of Orange was to prove the capability of opensource for the 3D content creation. While it would have been nice to use open source tools for the sound it just wasn't deemed feasible (Jan did investigate the various open source audio tools for suitability). Also the orchestral scores that were done, there are not any open sound libraries that could be used for doing orchestral scores."

Fair enough. I was mislead by the gushing slashdot headline as to the intent of the project.

There are some good equivelents to apps like Reaktor. One thing not lacking in the open source world is software modulars. I know as I own both Reaktor and many free modulars too.

There are also thousands of free orchestral samples and libraries out there to use...
http://theremin.music.uiowa.edu/MIS.html for a start. Google brings up millions.

To say it couldn't be done is like saying you could not make the film as you did not have access to all the 3dstudioMax models and adobe whatever effects to make your film with. I bet there were loads of limitations and workarounds you had to do that could have perhaps been done quicker with propriatory tools. To say nothing of all the textures, plugins etc.

I reackon Jan just stuck with what he knew, and with the system he does his normal everyday commercial work on. I would have probably done the same. He could have made a least a single post on one of the audio mailing lists or free audio software places asking for help though. you never know what people are reading.

(Same AC troll)
Re:Any information at all? by markdavis · 2006-05-19 14:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I couldn't agree with you more. And calling it a "movie" or "film" is just... well.... WRONG. A ten minute psycho-trip with no story, no plot, and uninteresting/undeveloped characters is more like a graphics demo. Perhaps a video hardware benchmark (HD).

I am impressed at the graphics... and the open nature... but that is about all it has going for it.
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-19 15:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Script writers shouldn't render 3D demos, and geeks shouldn't write scripts. That's the moral of the story.

While the scenery, effects and character modeling were intriguing and really really well done, the character animation was odd and crude.

The voice acting and dialog not just lack any logic or consistency but were flat out annoying.

One would wonder why they spent all those resources and time on creating this animation but didn't care to get a decent screenplay at first.

All in all, it may've used OSS tools, but they followed the good ol' Hollywood paradigm: all effects and the story sucks.
Re:Any information at all? by bleckywelcky · 2006-05-19 17:59 · Score: 1

Maybe it should have been a silent movie?
Re:Any information at all? by ultranova · 2006-05-19 19:58 · Score: 1

Script writers shouldn't render 3D demos, and geeks shouldn't write scripts. That's the moral of the story.

More to the point, you should decide beforehand if you want a tech demo or a movie, and then stick to that decision. Geeks can write scripts just fine, but they shouldn't confuse SFX tours with actual plots. Heck, take Star Wreck, or that parody of Star Wars floating around the net with the dark clown guy - both are real movies with special effects in them. That fan-made SW3 pre-release trailer was pretty clever, too - I was waiting for Yoda to down a few beers when watching SW3 proper. I know I would had, had I been him ;).

Hmm... Maybe it's time to learn Blender and de-mothball a few of the scripts I've written through the years. The only question is: Robotic chick or alien spider chick ?-)

While the scenery, effects and character modeling were intriguing and really really well done, the character animation was odd and crude.

Character animation is very, very difficult. There's a reason why you have a whole brain center dedicated just into controlling your muscles; there's many of them. I don't think that current technology can really create a realistic animated human being; to do that you'd have to consider the internal structure and not just the skin, and use some kind of high-level control scheme with the computer worrying about small movements - which in turn would require computer to understand human body language.

The voice acting and dialog not just lack any logic or consistency but were flat out annoying.

Well, the old man was consistently annoying ;).

One would wonder why they spent all those resources and time on creating this animation but didn't care to get a decent screenplay at first.

From what I've understood, the Orange Project was found to make an open movie, and developed the script as they worked. The script was always secondary; the prime goal was simply to make a movie, any movie, with open-sourced tools. ED was meant to know what Open Source can do, it was intended to be a demo from the start. Scripts aren't that important in demos, as long as they show all the cool tricks the demo makers made.

But hey, maybe (now that they have the experience) they might want to start an FX company, or Blender training company; that they sure can do.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-19 22:11 · Score: 1

Character animation is very, very difficult. There's a reason why you have a whole brain center dedicated just into controlling your muscles; there's many of them. I don't think that current technology can really create a realistic animated human being

You're missing the point. I didn't say it's easy or I want it like a real human would move, but I don't want it like Pinocio after 3 bottles of vodka as well.

I've seen plenty of fan films with better animation, either stylized or going for realistic. Commercial features are also doing pretty well.

the Orange Project was found to make an open movie, and developed the script as they worked.

it shows
Re:Any information at all? by bbc · 2006-05-20 03:30 · Score: 1

I have submitted information to IMDB.com, but it will take a few days before they accept it, if at all. The information I got from http://orange.blender.org/theteam, BTW. (In other words, the original site is still there, just hidden.)
Re:Any information at all? by Keebler71 · 2006-05-22 01:21 · Score: 1

The reason for this failure was giving too much priority for FX, and failure to give the viewer any frame of reference (maybe you should have shown the two people meeting instead of starting from the middle of their journey ?). This improved somewhat near end, but most of the movie was just too surreal to carry any recognizable meanings.
Now I'm confused,... are you talking about Elephant Dreams or the Star Wars prequels?

--
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Re:Any information at all? by ajs · 2006-05-22 08:52 · Score: 1

And how popular was your open source movie?

It's always trivial to cut down the work of another, but if you can't do better, is there really any point?
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-22 21:52 · Score: 1

And how popular was your open source movie? It's always trivial to cut down the work of another, but if you can't do better, is there really any point?

This is a ridiculous, worn out, cliche argument. You can slap that at any critic if you're out of real arguments, except it doesn't really make sense.

You're walking out of a bad movie at the cinema. What are your thoughts? "Sheesh I wish I had a moviemaking studio so I could post on my blog how bad this movie was."

You ate a bad burger. "I'll tell my friends the burger was great, since, after all, I don't have my own fast food restaurant."

Movies are targeted to general public, not to moviemakers. You know, those guys who generally aren't making movies themselves, but are perfectly capable to tell you if the product was good nevertheless.

I don't need to know how the vertices weight and IK joints on the character skeletons were setup, or did they use NURBS, patches or box modeling, did they use global illumination or lots of fill lights to fake it, how did they map the textures to the model's UV. Those are technical details I don't care about. I just see the end result and judge it based on that. I'm in my right.

Moviemaking is extremely hard, the results are extremely sophisticated, and you can expect to be judged on a much higher and tougher standards than if you were making a mere flash cartoon parody for the web.

Should've they called it "Tech Demo demonstrates the power of open source" and didn't write up that fake description of stuff that doesn't even happen in the movie, I wouldn't comment on the voice acting or script (though they'd still be annoying). As I said, the scenery and modeling were superb. It's basically them to blame for trying to make it as if their product was a complete movie with some kind of deeply thought through phylosophical message.

Even worse, in their interview later they tried to explain the confusion with the script as a "they don't get it" issue, which is about the worst way to react to weaknesses in your product (in software products also known as "it's not a bug, it's a feature").

So they have a long way to go from impressive 3D demo makers to the point where they become true moviemakers.
Re:Any information at all? by ajs · 2006-05-23 00:56 · Score: 1

Except that it's not a cliched argument. It's just a fact. It's trivial to cut down anything that you want. Holes can be picked in anything. I don't listen to reviewers who spend their time finding flaws to complain about. Some of my favorite films, in fact, have poor sound or bad music or a weak plot or some other flaw or combination of flaws. The question is: who IS the target audience. That's harder to figure out than it is to pick nits.
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-23 01:19 · Score: 1

It's trivial to cut down anything that you want. Holes can be picked in anything. I don't listen to reviewers who spend their time finding flaws to complain about.

As I hinted you above, you all can go read the interview these guys made in wikinews. Over there you'll see most of the people found the same flaws as I did (some of them experienced animators doing this to put food on the table): character animation is crude, voice acting bad, dialog makes no sense, and description is wrong.

That's it about the flaws. I also pointed out the strong sides of the project, and I'm getting really tired of repeating myself.

Lying to someone about his product so he can feel good, instead of telling him where he has to improve his skills is a really really bad favor. If all people were like you, we'd be in the Stone Age.
Re:Any information at all? by ajs · 2006-05-23 04:06 · Score: 1

"Lying to someone"?

Did you re-read your post? Let me review:

...the character animation was odd and crude. The voice acting and dialog not just lack any logic or consistency but were flat out annoying. One would wonder why they spent all those resources and time on creating this animation but didn't care to get a decent screenplay at first. ... all effects and the story sucks.

I'm not suggesting lying to someone, I'm suggesting that you're just ranting in a way that is hurtful to the people involved (that's not me, BTW), and accomplishes nothing. Why must people tear down the work of others? "I didn't like it" is one thing. "I found the characters kind of flat" is valid opinion. But, "the story sucks" is mindless arm-waving at the expense of the hard work of others. It accomplishes nothing. With people like you bashing anything that comes out that is even vaguely off-center from mainstream, one wonders why anyone but Hollywood schlock artists would bother.
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-23 04:40 · Score: 1

But, "the story sucks" is mindless arm-waving at the expense of the hard work of others. It accomplishes nothing.

This is what happens when you hype up something and it quickly deflates upon closer inspection. You're saying I'm bashing it since it's vaguely off-center from mainstream, but that's not the reason I bash it and you know that.

If they wanna try themselves at matching Hollywood (see the context of the entire "campaign") then I'll act as if I watch a commercial short movie.
Re:Any information at all? by ajs · 2006-05-23 07:32 · Score: 1

I don't think my responses are actually being read, here, so there's little point in continuing. Have a nice day.
Re:Any information at all? by suv4x4 · 2006-05-23 07:55 · Score: 1

I don't think my responses are actually being read, here

Are you offended of not appreciating your work up there?
Re:Any information at all? by ajs · 2006-05-23 08:51 · Score: 1

I am not offended. Just too busy to carry on one-sided conversations.

NOOOOO by benjjj · 2006-05-19 05:12 · Score: 5, Funny

YOU CAN'T MAKE OPEN-SOURCE MOVIES!!! Who gets the money??? Who sells shitloads of licensed garbage??? My head is about to EXPLODE!!!

Re:NOOOOO by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:15 · Score: 0

Mod parent up! LOL
Re:NOOOOO by dasdrewid · 2006-05-19 07:03 · Score: 2, Funny

This can only lead to one thing:
Open Source fast food restaurants with toys that choke young children because, after including the GPL, there's no space left for the "CHOKING HAZARD" warning...

--
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
Re:NOOOOO by TheModelEskimo · 2006-05-19 07:24 · Score: 1

That is so strange, I thought I saw this exact reply in the Digg story yesterday...

Misread headline by cgrayson · 2006-05-19 05:13 · Score: 0

And thank god it wasn't right. At first skim all I caught was "wet" (rather than "web"), "release", "dream" and "Elephant's".

I don't care how it was made, the last thing I want to see is a movie about elephants having wet dreams!

--
Cool funny t-shirts for geeks, gamers and everyone else

Re:Misread headline by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:11 · Score: 0

Already been done. It's called Dumbo.

Elephant's Dream by Tackhead · 2006-05-19 05:15 · Score: 4, Funny

> From the site: "The 3D animated short 'Elephants Dream' will today be released as a free and public download.

Also from the site:

> 425MB (USA #1)

Not for long, it won't be.

(Where are an elephant's genitals located? In his feet. Because if he steps on you, you're fucked. Any parallels between a webserver with a 425 MB .avi file that just got linked on the front page of Slashdot are purely coincidental.)

Re:Elephant's Dream by Seft · 2006-05-19 22:53 · Score: 1

I'm getting 2.3MB/s off the Czech server.

Re:This Equates to... by Pantero+Blanco · 2006-05-19 05:15 · Score: 1

I think the score for the "big corporations" is somewhere in the thousands, actually. It's nice to see this sort of thing, but don't expect the big players to roll over and die anytime soon.

Just wishful thinking at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

"What we're seeing here is just the free market at work, re-adjusting itself to the distortion of the past 20 or so years. It's clearly obvious to many that a movie star is not worth $20 million per movie these days. They can easily be replaced by high-quality, CG actors and actresses. Thus their real value has declined significantly."

Translation into slashspeak: I want free movies. Of course as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".

Re:Just wishful thinking at work. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:59 · Score: 0

+5, Insightful. But I suppose you meant to say "translation FROM Slashspeak to English".
Re:Just wishful thinking at work. by jank1887 · 2006-05-19 06:32 · Score: 1

Movies at the lowest price possible, consistent with quality.
Re:Just wishful thinking at work. by orasio · 2006-05-20 02:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Of course as the saying goes, "you get what you pay for".

Do you pay for slashdot?
Do you think slashdot is worthless?
Why do morons keep repeating that, when there are soooo many counterexamples?
the saying just has no meaning in real life.
Do you pay for Linux?
Do you pay for GNOME?
I even didn't pay for my Ubuntu CDs, and I have a great OS!!!

Of course, you could say that things don't get made for free, magically, and that someone has to pay for stuff, always. But you don't get what you pay for.
About movies, Da Vinci code's production must have paid top dollar for that Tom Hank's hairpiece, and it looks like shit. They surely didn't get what they paid for.

A start, I suppose by Benanov · 2006-05-19 05:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Open movie...open build process, open tools... But...no open codecs.

Re:A start, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:33 · Score: 0

mpeg4 and AAC are open codec standards. They could have used Ogg for the container format, but it's just not as widely supported.
Re:A start, I suppose by fossa · 2006-05-19 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Truly a shame... especially if the claim of a previous poster is correct "VLC or MPlayer only". Both of these play Ogg Theora for example on Linux, Mac, and Windows. If you're already using a format that doesn't work by default with, say, QuickTime and Windows Media Player, why not go all out and use Theora?

P.S. It looks like the latest version of Xiph's QuickTime Components has preliminary Theora playback. And there have been DirectShow (Windows Media Player) filters for Ogg codecs for some time now.

P.P.S. Anyone know that status of Dirac?
Re:A start, I suppose by WWWWolf · 2006-05-19 06:44 · Score: 1

Before the movie site went all bare-bones, I recall reading somewhere that they did consider making Theora / Vorbis files, but making the "common" formats available first was of higher priority. I guess they'll get Theora/Vorbis stuff out eventually.

As for Dirac, the website doesn't really tell, apart of "some ffmpeg support" and "yes, there's a DirectShow filter", though the FAQ was updated over an year ago... though apparently VLC is supposed to support it now, too. Not sure about anything else.
Re:A start, I suppose by CreatorOfSmallTruths · 2006-05-19 08:30 · Score: 1

You say that "they" will create a theora and ogg version, "they" didn't do it, and you are pissed off about it for some reason.

The project is open, download the HD version and reencode it in Theora. I'm sure "they" will be happy to put your turrent file on their site if it's good enough.

And stop whining.
Re:A start, I suppose by WWWWolf · 2006-05-19 09:04 · Score: 1

A bit misdirected comment, as I personally don't care a lot what format the movie is in as long as I can watch it =)

Anyway, "just grab the high-res version" isn't a solution - both video and audio are compressed with lossy codecs. A transcoded clip wouldn't do justice to the OSS codecs, right? The movie makers didn't provide a high-res, lossless version. Thus, at this time, the only really cool option would be to render the whole thing again... which may not be plausible because people don't have the computing power for that, and I'm not sure if that even can be done without extra tools, as I haven't looked at the provided source files.
Re:A start, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 13:03 · Score: 0

They provided all the source files.

Hell, you could render your own multi-angle high-definition ogg-encoded movie...
Re:A start, I suppose by FunkyChild · 2006-05-19 13:36 · Score: 4, Informative

We tried our best to make a Theora/Voribs file for the release, but weren't able to. I (a Mac user) spent the best part of a week attempting different things to encode versions from 1024 down, analogous to the H.264 ones. I even installed Linux on an old PC in the hope that it would make things easier, but it didn't. Our audio guy was in contact with Ogg Vorbis developers and produced what may be the first 5.1 surround Vorbis file in existence. Currently, after a lot of trial and error, I'm left with an Ogg Theora video file, and a stereo Ogg Vorbis Audio file. They seem both fine on their own, but when I tried to merge them with oggzmerge, the two are out of sync. Along with the encoding of the other files, the release of our new website, our promise to release the videos, and thousands of screaming fans, I didn't have time to keep trying so we released as is.

Hopefully when the release fuss dies down I'll blog about it and try and get some help. In any case, those who condemn others for not using open formats should actually try and use them themselves. I'm sure Theora would get used a lot more if it were easy, or even at least possible for content producers (i.e. artists, not developers) to actually use. My experience hasn't shown that to be the case so far.

Cheers

Matt
Re:A start, I suppose by fossa · 2006-05-19 20:12 · Score: 1

Thanks for the reply pointing out why Ogg Theora was not up to the task. It isn't really relevant other than for my ego, but I'll say that I have created a short movie (much smaller in scope than your own; a one-man lego stop-motion) using entirely Free Software, released in Ogg Theora (and MPEG-4/AVI, violating all sorts of patents), so I'm not completely unqualified to comment (it's one of the samples linked from illiminable's Ogg DirectShow filters audio encoding example filters). I do agree that getting things into Theora is not exactly easy. For my part I've recently surveyed many Windows based tools for encoding to Ogg Theora (easier said than done for one not owning a copy of Windows) with the intent of creating a tutorial for a community of RealVideo-loving stop motion animators and found little encouragement; the FreeAnime frontend to ffmpeg2theora is my current favorite but can almost certainly not handle anything beyond the basics such as Vorbis 5.1.

That said, I do feel that things would progress faster if more folks cared about free formats, and it seems frustratingly few do actually care (perhaps I should stop fighting losing battles). The fact that you cared enough to put in this much effort is encouraging to me; it's a shame the available tools came up short. I hope this improves someday...
Re:A start, I suppose by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 03:32 · Score: 0

ffmpeg2theora does a fine job, the 1024 version (transcoded from the MP4 version) overhelms my Athlon 2500+ in places, but totem-xine drops some frames and keeps video and sound intact sync, certainly more playable then the H.264 (playable in mplayer and vlc, what a joke!) version that I wasted my time on first.
Re:A start, I suppose by evilviper · 2006-05-20 04:23 · Score: 1

Both of these play Ogg Theora for example on Linux, Mac, and Windows. If you're already using a format that doesn't work by default with, say, QuickTime and Windows Media Player, why not go all out and use Theora?

VP3/Theora work wonderfully on VCD resolutions (1/4th PAL/NTSC). However, once you try to get up even to D1 res, the performance drops ridiculously, using 70% CPU-time on my AMD 2000+ (which plays D1 MPEG-4 at ~1% CPU-time)! h.264, the most modern (and very CPU-intensive) video codec, uses far less CPU time than VP3/Theora (a 10 year-old codec).

Additionally, I don't know why people suggest Theora, anyhow. VP3 support is far more widespread, playback is faster, and Theora (despite 5 years of development) still doesn't have the slightest improvements over the stock VP3 codec.

The patent-free codec everyone has forgotten about is MPEG-1. It's nearly as good as MPEG-2 (for non-interlaced video) and the patents have long sinced expired.

MP2 audio is in the same boat, with MP2 (toolame/twolame) being on-par with AC3, except for lacking multi-channel coupling.

IMO, (joint-stereo, psy=1, toolame/twolame) 128K MP2 audio sounds better than (joint-stereo, aq=2, lame) MP3 at the same bitrate, due to the lack of MP3 distortion artifacts.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:A start, I suppose by HeroreV · 2006-05-21 15:16 · Score: 1

In three thousand years perhaps, unless you just happen to have access to a bigass render farm.

Teasers / Trailers for the impatient by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

30MB MPEG4 (BitTorrent)

30MB MPEG4 (blendertestbuilds.de)

Update Oct 17: Here are some other mirrors and compressed versions made by the community!

24MB MPEG (BitTorrent)

9MB Xvid/Vorbis OGM

--
fak3r.com

Resolution by gr8_phk · 2006-05-19 05:18 · Score: 1

I was hoping for a nice 1280x720 version. I'm sure someone will rerender it at that resolution since all the source files are available ;-)

Great stuff.

Re:Resolution by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:21 · Score: 1

Yep, just found the HD (1920x) version:

http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD. avi.torrent [tribler.org]

--
fak3r.com

wait for it.... by simonjp · 2006-05-19 05:21 · Score: 0, Troll

Where's the lawsuit...?

--
, , , , , karma elon

Re:wait for it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:55 · Score: 0

Do you end everything you say in ...? ...
Re:wait for it.... by simonjp · 2006-05-19 06:06 · Score: 1

Dunno who you think I am, but this is only post of 3 today that ends in a question. Why don't you get your facts straight?

--
, , , , , karma elon

i can't wait by icepick72 · 2006-05-19 05:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I laughed, I cried, it was part of me. Too bad it's still downloading.

A little more info by lawpoop · 2006-05-19 05:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Since the link only provides download mirrors and torrent links, here's some background about the project from Wikipedia:

"Elephants Dream is a computer-generated movie made using open source applications that premiered on March 24, 2006. Beginning production in September, 2005, it was developed under the name Orange by a team of seven artists and animators from around the world. It was originally known as Machina, before being changed to Elephants Dream to more closely match the way the script was developed.

The film was first announced in May, 2005 by Ton Roosendaal, the chairman of the Blender Foundation and the lead developer of the foundation's program, Blender. A 3D modelling, animating, and rendering application, Blender is the primary piece of software being used in the creation of the movie. The project is joint funded by the Blender Foundation and the Netherlands Media Art Institute. The Foundation raised much of their funds by selling pre-orders of the DVD. Everyone who preordered before September 1 has their name listed in the movie's credits. A number of companies also donated render farm time for the movie.

The film's purpose is primarily to showcase the capabilities of open source software and evaluate it as a tool for organizing and producing quality content for professional films.

During the film's development, several new features, such as hair and fur rendering [1], were added into Blender especially for the project.

The film's content was released under the Creative Commons Attribution license [2], so that viewers may learn from it and use it however they please. The DVD set includes NTSC and PAL versions of the movie on separate discs, a high-definition video version as a computer file, and all the production files.

The film was released for download on the Official Orange Project website on May 18, 2006, along with all production files.

"

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.

A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License".

Content on Wikipedia is covered by disclaimers.

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

Re:A little more info by Otter · 2006-05-19 05:39 · Score: 1

Wow, you haven't just taken the Pointless Wikipedia Link to a new level, you've taken it to two new levels!

--
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Re:A little more info by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:46 · Score: 1, Informative

You do realize that all of the Wikipedia links you copied are relative, right?
Re:A little more info by lawpoop · 2006-05-19 05:50 · Score: 1

ARGH!

--
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso

High Definition (1920x) torrent now available by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:24 · Score: 0, Redundant

High Definition (1920x) torrent:
http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD. avi.torrent

Leave those windows open when you go to Lunch people!

--
fak3r.com

Re:High Definition (1920x) torrent now available by goldaryn · 2006-05-19 05:31 · Score: 1

Karma whoring rule #1: Don't break your links
Re:High Definition (1920x) torrent now available by fak3r · 2006-05-19 05:38 · Score: 1

Thanks for the refresher, this time I'll remember:

http://www.tribler.org/content/Elephants_Dream_HD. avi.torrent

--
fak3r.com
Re:High Definition (1920x) torrent now available by fruity_pebbles · 2006-05-19 06:24 · Score: 1

Link works, but it wants a codec I don't have.

Project background by bartv2 · 2006-05-19 05:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I've posted an article on the background of this project: http://www.blendernation.com/2006/05/18/the-worlds -first-open-movie-released/ Enjoy!

I Dunno About ALL Open Tools... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:27 · Score: 0

...wikipedia identifies Reaktor as Proprietary.

Just sayin'

Re:Wrong... by damg · 2006-05-19 05:28 · Score: 1

Where did you get this information from? From the credits it shows: Special Thanks to Open Source Projects Gimp Twisted Python Ubuntu Linux OpenEXR KDE Verse GNOME CinePaint DrQueue Inkscape Subversion Not that your wrong, but I just haven't heard that anywhere else...

Multi-core by gr8_phk · 2006-05-19 05:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Now we know what people will do with 4 cores and up. Render their own movies.

Re:Multi-core by ggy · 2006-05-19 05:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Yup, I just did 'emerge elephantsdream'. Should be ready in time for the sequel. ;)
Re:Multi-core by starwed · 2006-05-19 05:45 · Score: 1

Apparantly they got companies to donate processor time for the rendering, so not quite yet. ^_^
Re:Multi-core by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 07:40 · Score: 0

Well they had about ~200 machines in their render farm, so no, 4 cores doesn't quite compare.

However, I'm in the process of making a feature-length animation in an Anime style using just a 4-core machine. With such a traditional cartoon style, one can use "quick" settings for things like lighting and fluid dynamics and so forth, making the renders much much faster. But, the end result looks like a 2D cartoon, not like a Pixar movie.

Still, I certainly expect to see more 2D cartoons like this. Models are readily and cheaply available, so really you just have to play puppet master and render scenes overnight.

By this price... by Zaatxe · 2006-05-19 05:30 · Score: 1

...I can have all the PS2 Sony can pry INTO my cold dead hands.

--
So say we all

Won't someone think of the fluffers? by pla · 2006-05-19 05:34 · Score: 4, Funny

"...so please, please remember - when you make "open" movies, you don't just take profits away from some Hollywood fat-cats; You hurt the gaffers and set designers and makeup artists and fluffers and all the rest of the "little guys". Without all of them, the movies you love just couldn't exist!"

Re:Won't someone think of the fluffers? by Isotopian · 2006-05-19 06:24 · Score: 1

While individual stormtroopers may be innocent souls, they all exist as part of the same evil empire ;). Maybe we need another Timothy McVeigh to bomb some movie sets! Only the bad ones though...

--
It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.
Re:Won't someone think of the fluffers? by GrievousMistake · 2006-05-19 10:31 · Score: 1

I am totally waiting for 'open porn'. Why does this great gap in modern society remain unfilled? Is it like we've always suspected, that you simply can't combine open source and sex?

--
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
Re:Won't someone think of the fluffers? by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2006-05-19 10:45 · Score: 1

Are you kidding? I filled up a few great gaps in my day, and it *damned* sure led to a freaky combination of sex and open sores. Why there was this one girl I met in Hollywood - she was fresh off the bus from Kansas City and she wanted to be a star. Well, a few mojitos later and we were in the broom closet at the YWCA and she just couldn't get enough of my...

Wait. What?

Open *source*?

never mind...

OT link working? by LunaticTippy · 2006-05-19 05:41 · Score: 1

link works for me.

--
Man, you really need that seminar!

Here's some more information.... by spiderworm · 2006-05-19 05:41 · Score: 1

Here's a nice write-up written by somebody very much in cahoots with the Orange team and the heads of the Blender project:

http://www.blendernation.com/2006/05/18/the-worlds -first-open-movie-released/

You can get Blender here:

http://blender.org/cms/Blender.31.0.html

and learn how to use it here:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Blender_3D:_Noob_to_P ro

and get community help here:

http://blenderartists.org/forum/
IRC: irc.freenode.net/ #blender #blenderchat #blenderqa

spiderworm

Re:Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:42 · Score: 2, Informative

No Final Cut Pro, all composting and editing was done inside Blender.

Re:Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:43 · Score: 0

Here ? http://orange.blender.org/blog/seashore

It'll never work..... by wideBlueSkies · 2006-05-19 05:44 · Score: 1

...Don't the producers know that OSS is neither relieable nor dependable?

Jeez....

--
Huh?

Teasers / Trailers/ Torrents for the impatient by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:47 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.isw.uni-stuttgart.de/~xbk/Filme/Orange/ Elephants_Dream_1024-h264-st-aac.mov 19-May-2006 10:39 312M Elephants_Dream_1024-h264-st-aac.mov.torren t 18-May-2006 14:41 25k Elephants_Dream_1024.avi 19-May-2006 10:32 425M Elephants_Dream_1024.avi.torrent 18-May-2006 08:18 33k Elephants_Dream_480-h264-st-aac.mov 19-May-2006 10:29 98.8M Elephants_Dream_480-h264-st-aac.mov.torrent 18-May-2006 14:41 8k Elephants_Dream_720-h264-st-aac.mov 19-May-2006 10:25 145M Elephants_Dream_720-h264-st-aac.mov.torrent 18-May-2006 14:41 12k Elephants_Dream_HD.avi 19-May-2006 12:42 815M Elephants_Dream_HD.avi.torrent 18-May-2006 21:24 32k

Re:Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 05:48 · Score: 1, Informative

though a big hooplah is often made about "OSX workstations" only 2 out of 6 workstations were running OSX- the rest were running linux (x86 platform). All the creation tools used for the movie were open source; no final cut, no photoshop. Editing was in blender, as was compositing (the compositor was in part coded specifically for the movie). Rendering was in blender, running on donated renderfarm time (the renderfarm runs OSX). The "making of" movie on the DVD was not made by the core team, rather by a seperate group of film-makers- they used their own tools (I believe final cut) so that may be where the rumor arises.

And I thought the Elephant's Dream... by digitaldc · 2006-05-19 05:49 · Score: 3, Funny

...was to live on a muddy peanut farm in a world without circuses or pianos.

--
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson

Half Right by iamlucky13 · 2006-05-19 05:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism, emotion, or raporte that real ones do. I personally doubt (and kind of hope they don't, because it would be somewhat creepy) they never actually will. CG is a great medium for getting creating fantasy (like with Toy Story or Shrek) or for unique special effects (like the Matrix or Fight Club...but not Star Wars. ILM owned CG in the original trilogy, in my opinion).

Where you are right is that real actors aren't really worth $20 million or whatever a film. I'll bet there's thousands of aspiring actors out there with just as much talent and even as much good looks as the celebrities who roll in the dough from major productions. The reason they do get the money though is marketing. It's a familiar face and a person who's given the audience a positive experience before. How many people go watch a Tom Cruise movie just because it's Tom Cruise (although I no longer understand the appeal behind that one)? How many CG films still pay out big bucks to get major names doing the voice acting?

I'm not saying that a movie can't succeed without big name actors, but it's almost like an insurance policy. The major studios can basically rely on a certain amount of income based entirely off of who's name is with the movie.

Re:Half Right by Znork · 2006-05-19 06:20 · Score: 1

"CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism..."

Various anime come to mind for being very good at conveying a far more 'realistic' sense. CGI is an artistic medium, and as long as you treat it like 'film on a budget', you wont be any more successful than a painter using his paint as 'photographs on a budget'. Once you start using the medium for its strengths, I dont think it's inherently any less expressive than real film.

"The reason they do get the money though is marketing."

Actually, the reason they get the money is the monopoly structure of intellectual 'property'. Marketing acts as a force-multiplier when you have a monopoly, which inherently results in the non-competetive cost structure conductive to such salaries. In a competetive market, such gross abberations would be unlikely to appear; with competitors undercutting you with interchangable products, there's a limit to the ROI on marketing.
Re:Half Right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:10 · Score: 0

"Actually, the reason they get the money is the monopoly structure of intellectual 'property'. Marketing acts as a force-multiplier when you have a monopoly, which inherently results in the non-competetive cost structure conductive to such salaries. In a competetive market, such gross abberations would be unlikely to appear; with competitors undercutting you with interchangable products, there's a limit to the ROI on marketing."

What a ridiculous statement. And in unintelligible business-speak. Not to mention an abuse of the term "monopoly". If I make a movie called Slashdot Dingleberries, you're saying that I have a "monopoly" on Slashdot Dingleberries and that's what allows me to pay my actors large sums of money? And if others could copy my work there would be a competitive market in Slashdot Dingleberries, thus forcing me to lower my actors' payroll?

How about this: I think those actors will help my movie make money, so I pay them what I think they're worth. Nope, too simple.

Nor movie does by elhaf · 2006-05-19 05:51 · Score: 1

watch it. No sense does it make.

--
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.

Well... I wonder... by rcastro0 · 2006-05-19 05:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

I wonder, and I am too lazy to research, whether being open source
also means that I could download the 3d models they used and create
my own film stories, TV commercial, product endorsements, pron, etc...

Is there any "open source", copyright-free 3d model characters out there
that one could just grab and use ?

--
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.

Re:Well... I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 06:03 · Score: 0

Yup, that is exactly what it means. And that of course includes the 3d character models.
Re:Well... I wonder... by belg4mit · 2006-05-19 06:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, they released their source.

--
Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:Well... I wonder... by The_DoubleU · 2006-05-19 06:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes. If you buy the DVD version you will get all the textures, bender modules, etc used for this movie. You can copy it, modify it and release it, as long as you provide credit where credit is due.

--
What power has law where only money rules.
Re:Well... I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 15:47 · Score: 0

How can we ever have stars if anyone can just use them?
Re:Well... I wonder... by tehcyder · 2006-05-21 22:42 · Score: 1

and I am too lazy to research
Dude, you're like, talking out loud?
Keep these things to yourself.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Well... I wonder... by tehcyder · 2006-05-21 22:48 · Score: 1

If you buy the DVD version
You're new here aren't you?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

311MB by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2006-05-19 05:54 · Score: 2, Funny

311 Megabytes. This is going to be a Slashdotting to end all Slashdottings.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:311MB by k-vuohi · 2006-05-19 06:01 · Score: 1

Considering that the servers have been struggling to hold together hours before the slashdotting... Bye, movie.
Re:311MB by TeknoHog · 2006-05-19 08:08 · Score: 1

You know, they use Bittorrent, which actually benefits from /.ing.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:311MB by bbc · 2006-05-20 03:54 · Score: 1

"311 Megabytes. This is going to be a Slashdotting to end all Slashdottings."

10 minutes using BitTorrent, and it didn't even break out a sweat.

Your moderators however proved once again that those with Asperger's share the same sense of lack of humour. Really spooky, that.

Obvisously a technology demonstration by Enselic · 2006-05-19 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

I saw the whole thing, and it is obvious that this movie was made by technology geeks, and not cultural geeks. The graphics is easily in par with commercial movies, but the script sounds as if it was authored by a chatbot.

Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by brjndr · 2006-05-19 06:16 · Score: 5, Funny

...but the script sounds as if it was authored by a chatbot.

or George Lucas
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 07:59 · Score: 0

That's what I'm afraid of when I see it. (slight film buff here)

OTOH, hopefully some culture vultures will see it, and insist on doing the next version better (or even doing a "director's cut"). Plus, all the books in the world are no good without someone to invent the printing press: (free, open) technology will enable the next generation of pro-am everything.

(wow! my captcha word is "cultural")
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:02 · Score: 0

And no offence to the makers, but the animation was really shoddy in many parts. I liked the story and dialogue a lot, though, but the voice acting was also bad, unfortunately.

Thankfully, since this movie is completely open, someone can record new voices with better actors, and someone can fix up the animation where it's bad. Yay!
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by CreatorOfSmallTruths · 2006-05-19 08:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, a proffesional script writer wrote the story. I suggest you go through the movie a few times (say , 10 ) before saying it's a tech demo, because it's not. As for the technical aspects, there are always places to improve, the beauty part here is that you will be able to load the blender scene files and fix it yourself. No need to wait for anyone else.
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 04:07 · Score: 0

Shh, don't mess with grandparents steretypes.
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by tehcyder · 2006-05-21 22:58 · Score: 1

I suggest you go through the movie a few times (say , 10 )
It's a piece of entertainment, not a math problem.
I will happily re-watch a film I enjoyed the first time round, but I'm not falling for the old "if you read and re-read it a sufficient number of times and study forty foreign languages for ten years Finnegans Wake starts to make sense" argument again.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Obvisously a technology demonstration by bill_mcgonigle · 2006-05-22 06:55 · Score: 1

I will happily re-watch a film I enjoyed the first time round, but I'm not falling for the old "if you read and re-read it a sufficient number of times and study forty foreign languages for ten years Finnegans Wake starts to make sense" argument again.

An apt comparison. Fortunately I wasted much less of my precious remaining life on Elephant's Dream.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

How good is it? by hexix · 2006-05-19 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

All the comments seem to be focused on the open source aspect, which is cool and very important. However, did anyone actually watch this movie?

I watched it the other day (I think it was on digg or boing boing or something). I thought it was insanely bad. It was like I came in halfway through some crazy anime. I didn't know what the hell was going on. I couldn't even begin to figure out what the characters were suppose to be feeling or thinking.

This has a cool factor going for it, but man it was painful to watch. The 3D work was well done as far as textures and models, but the animation seemed really awkward and bad.

I don't think anyone should be patting themselves on the backs too hard yet. If this is what the open source model can produce for entertainment, then I don't think Pixar has much to fear.

However, the possibility for movie remixes should be pretty cool.

--
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space

Re:How good is it? by pjludlow · 2006-05-19 06:21 · Score: 1

Yes, let's talk plot please. For some reason since this is an open source project plot must not matter to slashdot users, although if George Lucas were to have helped out in this it would be a different story. I just watched it and while the animation and rendering were interesting the plot bored me to death. I felt like I was in an bad anime movie (I don't like those anyway), and after hearing the word emo about 10,000 times (someone might want to count the exact number) I thought I might as well turn emo and slash my wrists to save me the pain. I applaud the work that was done by the open source community in it's creation, but it really did not captivate my attention.
Re:How good is it? by commonchaos · 2006-05-19 06:22 · Score: 1

The best explanation I've seen of the movie so far is that the older guy is crazy and trying to convince the younger guy that what he is seeing is real.
Re:How good is it? by reldruH · 2006-05-19 06:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the main reason this is important is solely because it's the first open source movie. It's mainly showcasing the fact that such a thing is possible. Just like with any first, you can't really hold it to standards of greatness. Edisons light bulb was probably pretty weak and didn't last very long, but the fact that he did it set the stage for massive improvements later on. Nobody expected him to come up with flourescent lights, but without him (or somebody else doing the same thing) we would have never had flourescent lights.

Movie remixes should be awesome. Even better since anybody can make them. The possibilities are enormous.

--
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
Re:How good is it? by elhaf · 2006-05-19 06:54 · Score: 1

Yes, at one point he seems to say Emo about 12 times in a row.

--
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Re:How good is it? by WWWWolf · 2006-05-19 06:59 · Score: 1

Well, I thought the animation was... well, not really stellar, but passable. All other parts of the thing considered, the movie was definitely tolerable.

If there's anything bad to say about this thing, maybe the biggest flaw of this thing is that it tries to be all, shall we say, artful. The thing is, people don't care much about really "artful" short movies, for the reason that they're difficult to grasp - or, alternatively, they can grasp the Big Point and then think it wasn't really worth the effort. (My first thoughts about this movie: "Okay, there's two fellows who imagine things and this one doesn't like the other's ideas. Cool. Now what the heck else does this animation offer?" I liked the basic premise. It was just that there wasn't much juice besides that in this short space.) Thoughtful movies rarely work really all that well in short form.

But the movie did show me one thing: We Have the Technology. Compare this thing to @ndy's "Mindfields" (a likewise short thoughtful movie that, I think, works a bit better what comes to stretching its central idea through the whole thing) and we see that there's definite refinement. Even if the movie isn't The Greatest Short Movie Ever, it's wonderful as a tech demo!

(...and then, think again, really hard: Have you ever truly seen a 3D animation that didn't suck at some level? CGI is Stuff People Complain About. It's stuff that makes us afraid.)
Re:How good is it? by cortana · 2006-05-19 07:13 · Score: 1

Colossos of Rhodos? COLOSSOS OF RHODOS??

goddamn lameness filter shut up
Re:How good is it? by Masa · 2006-05-19 08:04 · Score: 1

I didn't know what the hell was going on.

Well, I liked it. Not because of the animation, but because this short story reminded me of the surrealistic comics made by Marc-Antoine Mathieu. But then again, I like movies, which will drop the viewer in the middle of some strange reality and doesn't explain anything. Let the viewer figure out, how the world in question works and what the hell is going on (if anything). It's intriguing and it will tickle my imagination in the right kind of way.
Re:How good is it? by Lumpy · 2006-05-19 08:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Everyone is forgetting that Open Source Motion Capture is not here yet. The hardware for motion capture is still quirky and expensive to get working with any of the very few OSS projects out there and it's in it's really early stages for Blender Motion capture.

as soon as they get motion capture working the "jerkyness" will disappear and end up 100% identical to hollywierd productions as that is all they do.

REmember, this is people doing it for fun as a hobby. Pixar programmers do it for insane salaries and with an insane budget.

They get to get there faster simply because of the bottomless Visa card they get.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:How good is it? by reldruH · 2006-05-19 09:08 · Score: 1

Agreed, and this project might provide some momentum to get things like Motion capture done. If you were a startup animation studio, or even a larger one and you saw that open source software was at the point where it was (or is close to being) a viable alternative to software that can cost you up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, wouldn't you at least investigate whether or not it was worth your while to donate some money to the software in order to bring it up to the level you need it to be, then reap the benefits of not having to buy some insanely expensive proprietary tools?

--
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
Re:How good is it? by harryman100 · 2006-05-19 10:22 · Score: 1

As a proof of concept, I thought this was great, however, I must agree I was disappointed with several aspects of the film:

- Animation, character animation seemed jerky and didn't seem to flow
- Lip Sync, seemed off - might just have been my perception of it.
- Voices - the voices were a bit to annoying and unclear, and didn't fit the characters visually (if you watch the making of, you can see why - the voice actors look nothing like the characters, look at most big productions and watch the making of, you can see the essence of the voice actor is brought to the animated character)

On the other hand, the concept seemed good and visually it was up there with some of the best animated films.

I probably won't be using this to sell the idea of open movies to my friends, but I'm glad I bought the DVD to support it, I hope it will spawn many other projects like this.

I didn't really like the film that much. but I'm glad I supported it by buying the DVD, to try and encourage more people to get involved in this sort of thing.

--
.sigs are for losers
Re:How good is it? by Eloquence · 2006-05-19 12:32 · Score: 1

The movie is a techdemo showing that it is possible to create high quality, high resolution free content 3D films using a free software toolchain. You should not compare it to Hollywood films made with 100 times the budget, but to other short films that were made with proprietary tools like Maya and similarly small teams. I watched a few 3D short movies last year at the Ars Electronica, and they had roughly the same technical quality (this project used a supercomputer farm for rendering, so some scenes have remarkably high complexity, and they can offer very high resolution for download). Virtually none of them had any dialogue, and the plot was typically similarly surreal. This is what you get when you let geeks make a film to demonstrate what they can do: some nice special effects and bizarre plots. Remember Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?
I agree with you that the animations of Proog and Emo (Emo?!) were a bit jerky. I'm not sure if it was intentional -- if it was not, they seem to have tried to compensate by making the dialogue match the hectical movements. The dialogue was also a bit too quiet, and one could tell that the voice actors aren't native English speakers. But these are relatively minor problems. As a technical demonstration of what free software packages like Blender, CinePaint, DrQueue, Python, etc. are capable of, it was very successful. Given that Hollywood already makes extensive use of Linux, perhaps it will now be easier to make a pitch for even more open technologies. As for Orange, I hope there will be many follow-up projects, perhaps some with better scripts.
Re:How good is it? by hritcu · 2006-05-19 20:40 · Score: 1

I liked it a lot.

--
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
Re:How good is it? by CRiMSON · 2006-05-20 04:01 · Score: 1

Or buy an industry standard tool (or just steal it like most startups will do). Or wait for years while a group of people try to give you the functionality you need to work.... Hmmmm....

--
oogly boogly!
Re:How good is it? by bill_mcgonigle · 2006-05-22 06:57 · Score: 1

It was like I came in halfway through some crazy anime. I didn't know what the hell was going on. I couldn't even begin to figure out what the characters were suppose to be feeling or thinking. This has a cool factor going for it, but man it was painful to watch.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out - I knew it was badly familiar but now I can point directly to Adult Swim and say, "it's bad just like that." Fantastic visuals, but otherwise, WTF? I guess you need to be stoned.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Can't see in xine? by cant_get_a_good_nick · 2006-05-19 06:07 · Score: 1

Xine on my FC4 box doesn't have a codec or something, I get "couldn't find demux for Elephants_dream_1024.avi" adn't didn't see anything on their site. Too new for Google to have info i guess.

Half Right-Supply/Demand. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 06:09 · Score: 0

"CG actors and actresses don't come close to the realism, emotion, or raporte that real ones do. I personally doubt (and kind of hope they don't, because it would be somewhat creepy) they never actually will. CG is a great medium for getting creating fantasy (like with Toy Story or Shrek) or for unique special effects (like the Matrix or Fight Club...but not Star Wars. ILM owned CG in the original trilogy, in my opinion)."

Tom Hanks in "Polar Express".

"Where you are right is that real actors aren't really worth $20 million or whatever a film. I'll bet there's thousands of aspiring actors out there with just as much talent and even as much good looks as the celebrities who roll in the dough from major productions. The reason they do get the money though is marketing. It's a familiar face and a person who's given the audience a positive experience before. How many people go watch a Tom Cruise movie just because it's Tom Cruise (although I no longer understand the appeal behind that one)? How many CG films still pay out big bucks to get major names doing the voice acting?"

So let's see if I understand you. All those people who go to a Tom Cruise movie, shouldn't be able to because some other person deserves a chance? Or Tom Cruise shouldn't be paid $20 Million even though moviegoers want to see HIM, not an unknown? What happens if the unknown makes $20 Million? Do we tell moviegoers you can't and start the cycle all over again? Do you even understand how the world works?

Re:Half Right-Supply/Demand. by LocoMan · 2006-05-19 07:05 · Score: 1

Polar Express still used the actor, just added a coat of CG over its performance. Even then, though, my main gripe about Polar Express is that the CGI characters just felt too stiff, I just couldn't get over the "talking mannequins (sp?)" vibe I got from it (kinda like Spirits Within). Most pixar/dreamworks characters, while they were far more cartoony, I just felt they were alive, I really start to "empathize" (is that a real word) with the characters. That did not happen to me with Polar Express

Now, if you want an example of a CGI character that really felt alive and real, I'd say Gollum from Lord of the Rings is the best example for the time being.

Its just like Windows then ? by unity100 · 2006-05-19 06:13 · Score: 1

Even if it is so ? For windows has been so since 1995.

--
Read radical news here

What? by Gannoc · 2006-05-19 06:14 · Score: 4, Funny

> Hello, I am Eliza.
* Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream
> Say, do you have any psychological problems?

Re:Wrong... by damg · 2006-05-19 06:15 · Score: 1

Ok, I see they used Linux and Mac OS X, but haven't seen anything about Final Cut Pro?

They do have a response about that: http://orange.blender.org/blog/equipping-the-studi o#comments

and

"We never said that wed work with exclusively open source software for every bit on the hard drive, because thats almost impossible (think closed source linux graphics drivers) and its not the point of this exercise. Apart from of course providing the final product as open content, the aim is to develop and improve open source graphics software by using it in a production environment in the real world - we arent going to be coding drivers or OSes here. We already have a bunch of Linux machines that we are using and testing in this way, maybe we will have a Sun box too. None of the things we do or the formats we use will be Mac only, (or Linux only for that matter). I personally think what were going through here is precisely part of our aims - practically testing these sort of things in the real world. People in the real world use Macs, so how can we find ways to promote and improve open source graphics software for them.
Reno, sorry I cant help you here, we arent using Windows at all. From all Ive heard GIMP pressure sensitivity works ok on there, but thats all I know.
Cheers,
Matt"

Re:Wrong... by dr_dank · 2006-05-19 06:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Sad... Cineralla could have done it couldn't it?

Nope, it turned into a pumpkin after midnight.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?

Just great... by WebCowboy · 2006-05-19 06:22 · Score: 1

Now Marcellus has to get "The Wolf" to help us scrape all those bits of Jack Valenti's brain off the floor, walls and ceiling. It won't be a pleasant day at all...

The name of the file is getting me down by mattACK · 2006-05-19 06:27 · Score: 1

Reflexively, I have difficulty downloading any movie with a "ED_" prefix. On a related note, it seems the mirrors can't get it up.

--

"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."

Re:Wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 06:31 · Score: 3, Informative

The film was edited using Blender's sequence editor. This is discussed quite a bit on the "making of" DVD documentary.

One of the biggest developments of this project (imo, as a filmmaker) is the vast improvement of Blender's sequence editor. The RAM usage has been fixed up so well that it now functions very well as a non-linear editor, and doing complex cutting is easier than any other open-source program. 2.42 will also integration with FFMpeg, so it will be able to handle a multitude of formats.

Half Right-Looking the part. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 06:39 · Score: 0

"Actually, the reason they get the money is the monopoly structure of intellectual 'property'. Marketing acts as a force-multiplier when you have a monopoly, which inherently results in the non-competetive cost structure conductive to such salaries. In a competetive market, such gross abberations would be unlikely to appear; with competitors undercutting you with interchangable products, there's a limit to the ROI on marketing."

Hey Znork! I have a monopoly on me. How unfair is that? Competitive pressure should come along and make me interchangable with you. Now do you part your hair on the left, or right?

You Tube by PXE+Geek · 2006-05-19 06:45 · Score: 1

As others have pointed out, if you just want to get a feel for what was done, there is a low resolution version on YouTube http://youtube.com/watch?v=bsGEWHNJ3s8&search=elep hants%20dream

More resources by dasdrewid · 2006-05-19 07:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you're interested in some more resources for Blender (or info on the movie), try checking these places out:

Blendernation

Blendernation article about Elephants Dream

Blender Artists Forums

Collection of WikiBooks

Elephants Dream on Wikipedia (in case you don't know anything about it, considering the main website is down and the original poster didn't say much of anything about the short itself)

Blender on Wikipedia

Seriously, though, considering how much has been happening with this project, and what a significant milestone it is for those who use OSS and/or CC, I find it almost sad that this is the first story on Slashdot in almost exactly a year. And that it took Slashdot editors well over a day since the first story submissions (some with links directly to the torrents to avoid killing the Elephants Dream homepage immediately) to get this up. Maybe I'm biased (I pre-ordered the DVD 9 months ago), but I just think that stories about people doing amazing things within and beyond the community deserves precedence over the latest reports about what the PS3 might cost. Not to anger anyone, just to toss that up for discussion.

--
No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.

Re:More resources by Yonder+Way · 2006-05-21 23:29 · Score: 1

I find it almost sad that this is the first story on Slashdot in almost exactly a year.

And if they had posted stories before now, we would all be complaining that it was vaporware.

For once the editors did the right thing and waited until there was a finished product.

Okay, the script needs some work... by cttforsale · 2006-05-19 07:13 · Score: 1

How about big freaking hedge through the middle of that world, toss in a talking Zebra and a Clown fish on some wacky adventure on a train to the north pole... Come one people! Think!!!

Re:Okay, the script needs some work... by cttforsale · 2006-05-19 07:21 · Score: 1

I forgot the Ogre.

It is Not Possible That This Movie Exists by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-05-19 07:17 · Score: 2, Funny

Without copyright protection for life + 75 years, people will not make movies. Everyone knows that.

--
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love

So where's the Rotten Tomatoes entry? by Mogomra · 2006-05-19 07:28 · Score: 1

Because I'm not downloading a 300+ MB file unless it's "fresh."

Makes perfect sense to me. by Comboman · 2006-05-19 07:30 · Score: 1

Elephants were dreaming of an open movie which got caught in a web (and then released), therefore there was a "web release of the open movie elephants dream". Makes perfect sense to me. Except I thought those things they sell at the Indian gift shop were called dream catchers not webs (though they do kinda look like webs).

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.

Huh... it must be "art". by rdmiller3 · 2006-05-19 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Elephants Dream" had wildly complex animation and sound. That much was very impressive. Aside from that though, it was an incoherent mess.

With no background, the viewer is thrown successively into four or five disjointed sequences where the same two characters move through a ludicrously-impossible "machine" which has no apparent purpose.

I thought I must surely have only seen the trailer. No, that was the whole film.

The voice for "Emo" was very wrong somehow, I can't put my finger on it. Might it have been done by several different people? No reference at all to Elephants.

The "description" in the parent to this article is bogus because half of the things it mentions aren't even in the film! There was no "quick-witted dialog" because there was hardly any dialog at all. Emo is a trumpet player? That wasn't in the film. Proog is a loner? In the film he's always with Emo. Proog doesn't "cautiously introduce" anything, but shouts "Follow me!" before dashing along narrow, railless, flipping catwalks with hostile bird-things swooping about. If Emo feels that Proog is pushing his ideas, well, I can't imagine what those ideas are since the guy doesn't say much of anything except that the machine is "beautiful". These characters don't have any conflicts to work out, except where Emo wants to go through a door with calliope music coming from behind it and begs like a three-year-old.

This film doesn't "carry" the viewer at all. It drags the viewer, kicking and screaming, through complex scenes with no coherence. One reaches the credits and says, "What was that about?"

Yah. Must be "art".

Re:Huh... it must be "art". by initialE · 2006-05-19 16:53 · Score: 1

Dude, if you feel you could do better, why not just fork off your own version of the movie?

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Re:Huh... it must be "art". by Tatarize · 2006-05-19 17:12 · Score: 1

We can animate something... look at us now...

You know why people watched Shrek? Because it had a pot and made sense! I watched that crap, what the hell! We can replace actors for sure... however, writers not so much.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Re:Huh... it must be "art". by Tatarize · 2006-05-19 17:22 · Score: 1

Oh, to have an edit commmand...

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Re:Huh... it must be "art". by lidocaineus · 2006-05-19 23:18 · Score: 1

Must be "art".

Er, are you saying "art" sarcastically? As in this thing doesn't measure up to any semblence of the definition of the word, or are you insulting conceptual art has so far beyond anything relatable that it becomes completely pointless? I'm sure you're saying one or the other but you don't seem to make it clear.
Re:Huh... it must be "art". by zippthorne · 2006-05-20 18:46 · Score: 1

Oh. I thought that was intentional.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

IMDB? by chochos · 2006-05-19 08:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is this movie ever going to have an entry in the IMDB? I'd like to see a rating before I download 450MB...

Also, it would be cool to have a downloadable ISO, to burn directly to a DVD and watch on a TV instead of in the computer. It's also an easier way to pass it around to non-tech people who would like to watch it.

--
Go hug some trees.

Re:IMDB? by chochos · 2006-05-19 08:21 · Score: 1

Ah, I finally was able to enter the site, and I see the DVD is available for sale. But come on, 35 euros? So the future of 3D open movies is no different from the future of hollywood movies? DVD's will be just as expensive, if not more?
I can foresee the onslaught of comments telling me that this price is justified because of the low expected volume of sales, etc and that I don't have to buy the DVD because I can download the movie in a variety of formats, etc. Please, I was just asking if it was available as a burnable ISO. I guess someone could do the work of putting it into an ISO and redistributing it, if the license allows it...

--
Go hug some trees.
Re:IMDB? by LetterRip · 2006-05-19 11:48 · Score: 1

That price is for the two DVDs containing all of the content used to make the movie also, not just the movie.

You can use the textures, models, rigs, etc. and use them in your own creation, use them to learn etc.

LetterRip
Re:IMDB? by ultranova · 2006-05-19 21:26 · Score: 1

Ah, I finally was able to enter the site, and I see the DVD is available for sale. But come on, 35 euros? So the future of 3D open movies is no different from the future of hollywood movies? DVD's will be just as expensive, if not more?

Grap the high-definition version, downsample to DVD quality, and burn to DVD. Then sell that for the price of blank DVDs, or simply upload a torrent for the ISO image to Pirate Bay.

Once again the day is saved thanks to a Free Open Source license :).

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:IMDB? by evilviper · 2006-05-20 04:49 · Score: 1

Also, it would be cool to have a downloadable ISO, to burn directly to a DVD and watch on a TV instead of in the computer.

Most modern videocards have a TV-out.

MPEG-2 (particularly with the DVD-standard GOP size) is extremely large. Would you rather download the 145MB h.264 version, or the 4000MB DVD version?

Programs like MPlayer and ffmpeg make it extremely easy (and fast) to re-encode any playable videos into standard DVDs/SVCDs/VCDs/etc. So I don't see the problem.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

Wow by Parham · 2006-05-19 08:13 · Score: 1

I saw it and was very impress (albeit confused at what exactly was going on in the short movie). From what I gather, it was less about the story, and more about how many cool effects they could put into it just to show the general public that it can be done with free tools. It wasn't perfect, because you could notice their movements didn't seem real, even for surreal characters. It's impressive though, not Pixar impressive, but impressive enough for an open movie.

Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:28 · Score: 0

Character animation != Cool effects.

You wouldn't get better character animation with the same team using a $$$$$ 3d-program...It's ALL about the artists experience and time!

Why Ask Why? by Ranger · 2006-05-19 08:18 · Score: 1

Does anyone remember the Why ask why? Bud Dry commercials? My favorite of all time was "Why are foreign films so...foreign?" It made more sense that Final Fantasy, but that's not saying much. The bits of FF I watched made my head implode. Elephant's Dream was more of a huh? type film.

--
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"

New area for zealots by thorsen · 2006-05-19 08:36 · Score: 1

Fantastic! Now we'll have a bunch of open movie zealots going "the only right and secure way to watch a movie is to render it yourself".

And someone can give a fantastic speech about embedding the attack into the movie "compiler".

Re:New area for zealots by CreatorOfSmallTruths · 2006-05-19 08:50 · Score: 1

It can be an offspring of "gentoo"...

"genmovoo"?
"menvoo?"
"gentivo"?

seriously though, I don't think the zealots go that way.. they are more into "this is not a good enough movie tsk tsk... they should have made it better tsk tsk.."

This is not made with all open source tools. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 08:36 · Score: 0

The music and audio was composed and arranged using propriatory software.
The composer Jan Morgenstern even blogs about using Reaktor to write the music on the film's site.
Since the soundtrack is at least half of the experience of watching a film, I'd say this was 50% open source movie at best.

It's sad as there is a lot of open source audio software and people composing using it.

Perhaps one day someone will make a movie with just open source tools, but not yet.

Re:This is not made with all open source tools. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:16 · Score: 0

Ehum. It supposed to be an open MOVIE as in that you are free to use the movie-source "as you like"...it doesn't necessaraly mean that it's made with 100% open source software.

Even though it's made with a majority of open source software...that is just a bonus and good publicity for OSS.
Re:This is not made with all open source tools. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:33 · Score: 0

How is it open if half of it's in a format (Reaktor banks, Digital performer arrangements etc) that can only be read by propriatory software?

Re:Stallman Feeds Self Whole Chicken by thc69 · 2006-05-19 08:38 · Score: 0, Offtopic

he demonstrated the features of EMACS to an audience that could only be described as disguested.

The audience had their guests removed?

If you absolutely must troll, at least don't pawn off rejected words on me...use only brand new, first quality, properly packaged words bought from a reputable retailer.

--
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.

Anyone Interested In Making a Re-Edit? by kayser_soze · 2006-05-19 08:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

I just watched the movie, and I must say I really liked the animation (sans the sometimes jerky character animation). I thought the backgrounds, and other scenic elements were pretty well done. I really dug the dark feel it has.

Then we get to the plot/story/dialog.

Being nice...it was incomprehensible. Being not so nice...poop.

Anyway, I think the thing has some great potential. Is there anyone here interested in perhaps re-writing the story and redoing character voices? I'd be more than willing to help with the writing and editing the story.

Reply under this post if you'd like to help, and I'll try and get something going.

[C]

Re:Anyone Interested In Making a Re-Edit? by Skadet · 2006-05-19 08:58 · Score: 1

I work at a radio station where I can voice things in the studio after-hours. Broadcast quality, obv.

--
Sony ha
Re:Anyone Interested In Making a Re-Edit? by CowboyRobot · 2006-05-19 20:23 · Score: 1

Agreed, there is potential to actually communicate a message/story that has meaning using what is there. It's almost like a cartoon where you have to fill in the caption yourself. A shame that with all the hype and the quality graphics that the narrative is so opaque.

--
every stain tells a story

I knew this day would come..... by nblender · 2006-05-19 08:42 · Score: 4, Funny

cd movie ; ./configure --pg13 --with-keanu=/usr/local/actors/keanu --with-lindsay=/usr/local/actors/lindsay --disable-product-placements && make && mplayer movie.out

Let's hear it for BitTorrent by kronocide · 2006-05-19 08:46 · Score: 1

Took me 14 minutes to download the 425MB version.

So your big on the reliability and dependability.. by DragonWriter · 2006-05-19 09:16 · Score: 1

...of commercial etymology, and against community-based word development!

Keanu by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 09:49 · Score: 0

Keanu would have something to say about that.

Whoah.

Also, see.... by antdude · 2006-05-19 10:01 · Score: 1

Digg and use DuggMirror's cached copy.

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

request: upload it to Google Video- by dgrati · 2006-05-19 10:02 · Score: 1

Would somebody pls upload it to Google Video?

Re:request: upload it to Google Video- by Drinking+Bleach · 2006-05-22 08:00 · Score: 1

Why? You have the ability to download the video already.

A real torrent by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:45 · Score: 0

Wow 4317 seeds, 1444 peers.

Now that's some serious activity - I should have it in about 25 minutes...

Re:So your big on the reliability and dependabilit by thc69 · 2006-05-19 10:58 · Score: 1

Community-based word development is fine, but I think that wasn't open source. Give me source or give me death!!

Er, wait, let me amend that quote. Those who would give up source for properation* deserve neither.

No, that feels wrong too. We the geeks of Slashdot, in order to form a more perfect verbiage...no...um...aw, to hell with it.

*: Source for that word -- operation (when something works as expected) + proper (not incorrect).

--
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.

Took a ton of power to render this puppy by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 10:59 · Score: 0

"Rendering such a movie on film resolution is no small task: thankfully Bowie State University donated access to XSeed, their cluster of 240 Dual-core Xserves to render the movie. XSeed took over 125 days to render the movie, using up to 2.8GB of memory to render a single frame. With each high resolution image consisting of up to 9 different layers, terabytes of data were flying across the globe and pouring into the Amsterdam studio."

- Blender website

M$ MPEG? by Cal+Paterson · 2006-05-19 11:54 · Score: 1

My mplayer reports that the HD version of the movie, at least, uses the "M$ MPEG-4 v2". I thought this slightly altered version of the MPEG standard was Microsofts own slightly altered implementation. Why is the film encoded in this way? Surely it would have been better to use the normal MPEG-4 lavc codec? Or am I confused in some way?

Re:M$ MPEG? by FunkyChild · 2006-05-19 13:40 · Score: 1

It uses MP42, which is an MPEG4 codec, compatible with MSMPEG4, encoded with ffmpeg. It's basically what was around and possible at the time, when the DVDs were hurriedly being put together.

This has nothing to do with the "free market" by John+Nowak · 2006-05-19 12:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

What we have here is a bunch of people that worked to create tools and give them away for free. Without compensation. We then have another group of people who created a movie for free. Without compensation.

What you have here is a gift economy. This has nothing to do with primitive "free market" economics.

Obvisously an open source game demo. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 15:29 · Score: 0

"The graphics is easily in par with commercial movies, but the script sounds as if it was authored by a chatbot."

Well at least it gives us hope that open source games will be technically brilliant, but have lousy gameplay.

Re:This Equates to... by Tatarize · 2006-05-19 17:08 · Score: 1

Also, a ten minute short film that makes no sense at all hardly gets a point.

--

It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.

It was a let-down for me by Skudd · 2006-05-19 17:31 · Score: 1

I have been waiting for the release of this movie for the last 6 months, and I have personally been pretty hyped up about it. Now, after seeing it in its complete form, I feel pretty underwhelmed...

I realize that Orange has done a lot for the Blender community, in terms of development of Blender itself. But I feel that with the time and effort that has been put into "Elephant's Dream", it could have been, well... better.

What was the movie about? Even after seeing it, I feel as though the story needs to be explained.
The old man's actions seem to be a bit overdone (his head jerking, looking around, etc.), while the other dude(?) appeared to be rigid as a board.
The mouths moved absolutely nowhere near how they should have. Emu(Emo? Freddie? What's his name?) screamed or something at one point, and his(from here-out I will refer to this character as a male) lips hardly moved.
The length of the movie, considering it is called a movie, and that it took so long to develop, leaves me a bit dumbfounded. I was under the impression that it was to be a full-length movie. Last I checked, nobody wants to sit down with their family on a Friday evening to watch a 10 minute movie (including credits and titles)...

I know I seem to be a bit whiny about this, but given the hype and such, I expected quite a bit more. Perhaps Orange felt that if nobody liked the movie they could modify it to fit their needs... Had I the spare time, manpower, and overall skill, I would gladly embark on such a task. However, I don't know that the 425MB over my 256Kbit DSL was worth it, not to mention the $40USD I nearly spent on the pre-order of the DVD.

I hate to give this movie negative marks, but aside from the pretty renderings, I can't justify promoting it based on anything.

Re:It was a let-down for me by Drakster · 2006-05-19 18:58 · Score: 1

I have to also agree slightly. I also preordered this movie when it was first announced and I have to say I'm kind of disappointed by the final result. I can't say it was beyond horrible in anyway. I just found that it was nothing like I had expected.

The main thing I expected was at least a decent story. When the finished watching this for the first time, I didn't find much sense in it. I've watched it over twelve times now and I now understand the story, but I would have liked something that you could have picked up within the first viewing and then other minor details in the second. It's good to see that the team will have a script before they create the next movie (according to the DVD). On the other hand, it's good that they even had a script.

I'm also a hobbyist animator and the animation in the movie was a big let down. I agree that it got better during the end of the film, I still found it far from the "Pixar quality" that many people where saying. Some shots was very well done, others looked like they had been done in a day or two. I guess for animation, I'm expecting too much. I know that most of the team haven't done a project this large before.

The setting and art in the movie was completely stunning. During the time that this movie was being created, I had watched FF7:AC, The Incredibles, and many other CG movies, so I didn't expect to be very impressed with it. There wasn't many sets in the movie, but I was still quite impressed with the effort that was put in them. It's amazing that all this was created in Blender. It's going to be a long, long time till I'll create something that's even close to that quality. I don't think I could list a con I had with the art. It looked great for Blender and much better then I had ever expected. However, I do wish that there will be some green in the next movie. We all know that creating a forest or island is a much greater feat then creating machinery.

Overall it wasn't bad, but I'm sure with a bit more planning it could have been much better. I'm a big supporter of the Blender Foundation and I'll also buy the next movie as soon as I can.
Re:It was a let-down for me by bj8rn · 2006-05-20 02:52 · Score: 1

I did not find your first comment worth reading. That is all.

--
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:It was a let-down for me by linvir · 2006-05-20 08:56 · Score: 1

I too found your first comment to be lacking. I hereby ridicule you.
Re:It was a let-down for me by Drakster · 2006-05-20 12:35 · Score: 1

Well at least somebody read it. I didn't expect them to take it so harshly, but thanks for reading it.
Re:It was a let-down for me by bj8rn · 2006-05-20 21:06 · Score: 1

Actually, I didn't read it, but then again, I haven't read the rest of this discussion, either. In fact, I don't even know what it's all about ;7 I did read your journal entry, though, and I thought I'd let you know that people do actually read what you write here.

--
Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Re:It was a let-down for me by Drakster · 2006-05-20 21:59 · Score: 1

I was talking about the journal entry in my last reply. I didn't expect anybody to read it, nor take it so seriously. Keep in mind that it's my personal opinion. I have no problem if anybody disagrees with me, or discusses it. I left the comments on for replies. Infact I can admit that I could be wrong about it.
Re:It was a let-down for me by Ash-Fox · 2006-05-21 21:57 · Score: 1

> The old man's actions seem to be a bit overdone (his head jerking, looking around, etc.), while the other dude(?) appeared to be rigid as a board.

I'd tell you to bug report it, but I can't find their bugzilla address. Guess someone will have to fork it!

> The mouths moved absolutely nowhere near how they should have. Emu(Emo? Freddie? What's his name?) screamed or something at one point, and his(from here-out I will refer to this character as a male) lips hardly moved.

See above

> The length of the movie, considering it is called a movie, and that it took so long to develop, leaves me a bit dumbfounded. I was under the impression that it was to be a full-length movie. Last I checked, nobody wants to sit down with their family on a Friday evening to watch a 10 minute movie (including credits and titles)...

Ack, another bug! So many issues, is this even version 1?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Not quite open source by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-19 17:32 · Score: 0

The Wikipedia entry claims:

Software and tools used
* Blender
* CinePaint
* GIMP
* OpenEXR
* Python
* Seashore
* Subversion
* Reaktor (Proprietary)
* Twisted
* Verse protocol

If it wasn't for Reaktor, it would truly be an open source film. A lot of movies are made using some open source software. This is just one more.

And not a very well written one, either.

Re:35 Euros by sgtron · 2006-05-19 19:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, I agree, 35 Euros is quite a bit for a damned movie. Source material included or not. I wonder if they would be open to just selling the movie for 20 bucks and keep the extras.

--
No todo lo que es oro brilla

YES!!! by Cinquero · 2006-05-19 23:31 · Score: 1

Then we use ebuild flags like "KeanuVoice SchwarzeneggerBodyModel LoveBoatTheme TitanicStory" to modify the whole thing slightly upon installation. It is everything about choice and configurability!

Let's do it the Gentoo way. Who knows better how a movie should look like than myself? *eg*

Re:So your big on the reliability and dependabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-20 00:06 · Score: 0

"So your big on the"
It's "you're", you moron.

Rich Symbolism that I saw by drDugan · 2006-05-20 04:54 · Score: 1

So lots of people are saying how bad this is.

If you're expecting another episode of desperate housewives, then yes, you would think it was awful.

I thought it was fantastic. it was rich with symbols. more than anything else, I saw the two characters as a representation of different forces both inside people's heads and in , more broadly, forces moving in the world.

Emo - a short for "emotion" represents the feeling (right brain) activities. Proog is the logical, thinking angle - his actions have (up to now) created most of the structure around them (much as the NT types have structured the real world as logical-only wins). There is distinct symbolism throughout that the two exist within a "machine" that resembles many features of what it might look like inside someone's head. Both characters create the machine around them. Proog keeps referring to left and right - the sides of the brain. Proog is desperately trying to convince the young, emerging emotional side that the world he has created is "safe" but all evidence shows us it's not at all safe. Emo seems like he's been abused, kept down by Proog.

Proog is scared of what Emo has and can do. Proog is simultaneously trying to control what Emo sees and what he believes, but also has distinct interest. Emo shows us that he has far more power than Proog to "create" the world they are in, and Proog swiftly knocks him out again.

This whole story is a reflection of what is going on in the world today. Read, for example this:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/brain.htm l

Part of the issue with the Slashdot crowd is that mostly you are "T" oriented, so you won't "get" this it at all.

This is the story of the emergence of the power of the NF, and the efforts of the NT to control and prevent it. It's a loosing battle folks.

Re:Rich Symbolism that I saw by Frogmanalien · 2006-05-20 22:05 · Score: 1

It's fine saying that you say rich symbolism, but since that symbolism is all about personal interepretation then who are you judge that other people simply saw this as confusing. If you want to add details to the story, see parallels with reality, that's fine, but the animation and story itself must be strong enough on its own for you not to have to read in to it.

That's like saying a book with twenty words with it could rival shakespeare with the right interpretation- I'm sure it could, but most people enjoy shakespeare because they can see the superficial plot as well as the deeper meaning.

I don't want to dismiss this project, the detail is amazing, the modelling is great, and the animation is better than most, but I've seen stronger animation sequences from Machimania films. In fact, machimania seems like a much better cause for OS film production.

Ten minutes isn't long enough for a "movie" - it's an animated short, and should be pitched as such. Wallace and Gromit's creators started off doing the same thing, and it's done their reputation no harm, so why over-sell what you've got.

The best thing I can end on is that the CC license means that somebody could easily rescript and rehash this into quite amazing, and for that, we can thank open source thinking and some truly excellent graphic designers.

--
The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency (Eugene McCarthy)
Re:Rich Symbolism that I saw by tehcyder · 2006-05-21 23:13 · Score: 1

This is the story of the emergence of the power of the NF, and the efforts of the NT to control and prevent it. It's a loosing battle folks
For those, like myself, not familiar with this terminology see here http://look.net/success/NFNT/. I would have said that 99% of /. readers were NT so your last sentence is fighting talk!.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Rich Symbolism that I saw by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-27 06:58 · Score: 0

Emo - a short for "emotion" represents the feeling (right brain) activities. Proog is the logical, thinking angle - his actions have (up to now) created most of the structure around them (much as the NT types have structured the real world as logical-only wins).

And yet Proog is the one who refers to the machine as "beautiful." If he's supposed to be a physical manifestation of logic, he's not doing a very good job. It's an interesting theory, but there are too many little exceptions. You could show a short film about a Unicorn standing next to a traffic light and someone would manage to find meaning in it. I suspect that's what's happening here.
Re:Rich Symbolism that I saw by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-28 00:03 · Score: 0

Proog is desperately trying to convince the young, emerging emotional side that the world he has created is "safe" but all evidence shows us it's not at all safe.

You're wrong. Proog is the one who's saying "it's not safe". He's also saying "one move out of place and you're ground to a pulp". How safe is that ?

Emo isn't scared, and the world doesn't threaten him: he walks without problems in the void; when he walk towards a wall, the wall moves back. Emo thinks the world is safe, and makes fun of Proog when he makes him believe that the Colossus is "there for him".

carefull now. by zippthorne · 2006-05-20 18:53 · Score: 1

It wasn't THAT bad...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!

Re:So your big on the reliability and dependabilit by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-21 21:59 · Score: 0

It's "'it's you're,' you moron," you moron.

iPod version?? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-05-22 06:57 · Score: 0

Am I the only one who thinks they should have released a version that's natively compatible with the iPod Video (namely a 320x240 MPEG-4 .mov file)?

Usable Format? by edward.virtually@pob · 2006-05-22 11:03 · Score: 1

Someone let me know if this film is ever available an a useful format. mplayer and media player classic only don't count. Wtf is the XVID codoc version?

Thank You! Someone sees the light! :) by Workaphobia · 2006-05-22 19:19 · Score: 1

You have no idea how relieved I am to see that I'm not the only person on the entire Internet who recognizes symbolism when he sees it - if not its exact nature in this film, then at the very least its existence. Your analysis was well thought-out; I only wish I had seen that particular connection first. This film, despite its shortcomings in voice acting and other minor details, was absolutely saturated with imagery and clever allusions. I know it's a little hard to see it when watching for the first time, and I know that this is slashdot after all, so I shouldn't expect brilliant critiques about non-technical subjects, but I was taken aback by the sheer volume of negative responses. A lot of you seem to truly believe that the script was patched together as an afterthought. Maybe this wouldn't be the case if some of the details were reworked and presented in a more confident manner (especially the voice acting). Oh well, who cares about the majority; the important thing is I'm not alone. ;)

--
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.

Slashdot Mirror

Web Release of the Open Movie Elephants Dream

290 comments