criterionforum.org

Banana #3 wrote:Just wondering here, but whatever happened to The Lovely Bones?

It's in post-production and currently has an Oscar ready release date of December 11th. There is a thread about the film here.

Spielberg and Jackson talk about the beginning of production on Unicorn while dressed as the Thompson twins.

FerdinandGriffon wrote:Spielberg and Jackson talk about the beginning of production on Unicorn while dressed as the Thompson twins.

This would have been cooler:

The North American release date has been set for December 23, 2011, two months after it opens internationally.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The North American release date has been set for December 23, 2011, two months after it opens internationally.

Which virtually guarantees a significantly depressed domestic box office thanks to piracy. Nice job, guys.

Not to open up a can of worms, but that's a very debated argument.

Well, with two years of hype before the release date, it's certainly going to make it tempting for someone involved to leak the film before it gets released stateside. It could really go two ways: DreamWorks can get a firm handle on everything and keep a lid on it like Warner did for The Dark Knight; or a finished copy of the film could end up on net like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I would imagine a film of this caliber is going to have some serious security procedures in place, particularly during post-production, but leaving such a huge gap in release dates is only going to bait those who want to make a name for their avatars on pirate sites.

Well, no doubt the film will be pirated, but the seemingly eternally debatable question is, will the people who download the movie (more than likely NOT the film's target audience) actually lead to a loss in profits?

The Wolverine was notable in that the film still did plenty of business, even with the workprint leak far in advance of the release date. Was it as profitable as Iron-Man? No. But something tells me that's more to do with the quality of the film, rather than pirates.

kaujot wrote:Well, no doubt the film will be pirated, but the seemingly eternally debatable question is, will the people who download the movie (more than likely NOT the film's target audience) actually lead to a loss in profits?

That's kind of a weird assumption, though, isn't it? The people who are downloading it don't necessarily want to see the movie? But I was just being glib and, yes, probably a bit underinformed. This film is still going to make more money than any one of us on this forum will ever see in our lifetimes, even if those of us in the US have to wait two months longer than everyone else to see it just so Dreamworks can cram it into an already overstuffed holiday movie season.

Well, perhaps I should've said that, if not available for free on the internet, the downloaders wouldn't bother spending money on it.

First pictures from the film.

And it looks kinda creepy.

Looks just as alienating as Polar Express. Beats me why Spielberg felt that it couldn't be plain live action.

Looks like the combined wet dreams of the members of Blu-ray.com.

Great looking claymation!

I'm neither appalled nor sold. Obviously, the key is how it will all look in motion. But if these Tintin films in any way resemble Zemeckis's recent motion capture abominations, then it'll be a damn shame. I figured the look would be more cartoon-like, like moving Herge on a big screen. Oh well.

Lens flare is soooo Herge.

I'm disgusted.

Is that a live-action photograph of Colin Hanks?

The desert scene and the Thompson twins look more encouraging.

first teaser

Some shots do look quite impressive but I'm still not convinced that this had to be done as motion-capture.

Wish they'd gotten some lipsync into the trailer but I think the motion in general is kept cartoonish enough that they might avoid the unreal valley this time around. And it's always enjoyable to see cartoon characters veiny, blemished and freckled. I've got a zero nostalgia factor for Tin Tin but I might check this out.

Looks like bollocky wank shite

It looks awful. I don't understand motion capture - there's not a human movement in this film that looks right at all. If you want the stylized look of animation, then do it as animation. If you want live action, do it that way. But it appears that trying to have it both ways is still folly at this point in time.

Plus it doesn't seem compelling anyway.

Brian C wrote:It looks awful. I don't understand motion capture - there's not a human movement in this film that looks right at all. If you want the stylized look of animation, then do it as animation. If you want live action, do it that way. But it appears that trying to have it both ways is still folly at this point in time.

Plus it doesn't seem compelling anyway.

In all fairness, I thought Peter Jackson's use of motion-capture in LORD OF THE RINGS and KING KONG was excellent and a perfect effects choice for what was trying to be achieved in those films. Having said that, I agree that using motion-capture to recreate realistic humans seems like the wrong path to take; a compromise to shooting with live actors.