Yeah, it was great! I went in to the moving having read nothing about it, and it took me a couple minutes to determine the movie wasn't CG (since the character designs looked a lot like the ones from the all-cg trailers that ran before it, and the lighting in the TV room scene was weird), but I couldn't figure out how they did the faces. You could see the texture changes from shape replacement, but all the squash and stretch on top of shape changes made me think they had to have made each shape out of something pliable with gears behind it to pull parts of it in different directions, probably controlled by a keyhole like the eyebrows in Corpse Bride. Finding out that they just animated it in a computer instead was disappointing.
You really don't get how that's not the same as animating it in a computer? Like, you really don't get how CGI doesn't look the same as the faces printed out in 3d forms?
You really don't get how that's not the same as animating it in a computer? Like, you really don't get how CGI doesn't look the same as the faces printed out in 3d forms?
He might be talking about how they "just" did the mouth movements digitally and printed those faces out because it's "easier"
there are programs that automatically lip-synch animations
but I doubt they were used here since the mouths also have to conform to the character's moods and facial expressions, and there is no easy way to do that.
Or he thinks digital 3D animation (which was used to create the faces which were then printed out) is somehow a lesser form of animation.
Any way you cut it, it's really, really dumb and shows a pretty severe misunderstanding of animation as a medium.
It's not a weird reaction, though. Your disappointment seems to stem from you considering a certain form of animation lesser than another, even though the result is exactly the same, if not better.
And if you don't think that, you didn't do a very good job at communicating what you do think.
0
Options
Muse Among MenSuburban Bunny Princess?Its time for a new shtick Registered Userregular
Your disappointment seems to stem from you considering a certain form of animation lesser than another
Did you read what I said about thinking it was done with gears like Corpse Bride eyebrows? When you're imagining elaborate gear systems and you find it was solid computer-printed plastic, its hard to not feel at least a little disappointed. Still an amazing film, just not one made by tiny magical steampunk fairies. I'm giving my reaction to the featurette, which has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself. Which was awesome.
But it's not just computer-printed plastic. A lot of work went into making those faces.
It's still crummy and/or dumb to be disappointed by the amazing techniques they used to create the faces because they didn't happen to literally be magic.
Wow, I'm really excited by all the positive reviews here. I'm having a hard time separating this one from "Frankenweenie" in my mind which I have very little interest in seeing. But yes, I am convinced. I will see ParaNorman ASAP.
Posts
Tim Burton movies are great.
(Except for when they are terrible.)
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09
...
Then why not just do the whole movie in CG and be done with it? :?
CG is a different medium from stop-motion and it looks and moves differently in a way that computers these days cannot yet replicate.
Also characters also have arms, legs, torsos. Not just faces.
All I'm saying is if you aren't confident in your hand-sculpting to do it the way George Pal did, then just do it in CG.
Who cares if it isn't the traditional way
this movie took 3 years to film
they weren't really cutting corners to make it faster
He might be talking about how they "just" did the mouth movements digitally and printed those faces out because it's "easier"
there are programs that automatically lip-synch animations
but I doubt they were used here since the mouths also have to conform to the character's moods and facial expressions, and there is no easy way to do that.
Or he thinks digital 3D animation (which was used to create the faces which were then printed out) is somehow a lesser form of animation.
Any way you cut it, it's really, really dumb and shows a pretty severe misunderstanding of animation as a medium.
And if you don't think that, you didn't do a very good job at communicating what you do think.
does this mean the next Laika film is 3 years away?
Did you read what I said about thinking it was done with gears like Corpse Bride eyebrows? When you're imagining elaborate gear systems and you find it was solid computer-printed plastic, its hard to not feel at least a little disappointed. Still an amazing film, just not one made by tiny magical steampunk fairies. I'm giving my reaction to the featurette, which has nothing to do with the quality of the film itself. Which was awesome.
It's still crummy and/or dumb to be disappointed by the amazing techniques they used to create the faces because they didn't happen to literally be magic.
ruled
like a lot!
I thought it was just kinda okay until the final act
Then it got awesome fast
I saw this
and loved it muchly