Jay 37,511 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 They should have released it in the US the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, not the last week of the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,809 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I just cant fathom why people would pass a film by Spielberg and Jackson are endorsing.And it has WETA, that seems to be more trendy than other companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I just cant fathom why people would pass a film by Spielberg and Jackson are endorsing.Kingdom of the Crystal Skull....The Lovely Bones.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Except Indy IV doesn't apply. It was a smash at the BO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Exactly, that's why it applies. All those people saw Indy IV.I remember I saw it twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,809 Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 I saw it thrice.And Tintin twice.I think something is very wrong with me , i suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 When it comes to animation, American parents trust three brands: Walt Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks.It's the truth. Get it. Accept it. Move on.The real truth is - and I've said this from the beginning - is that people are just fed up with CG animated/motion captured films filled with HUMAN characters. They want to see REAL people, instead of "zombies". Tintin IS good, but it still suffers from the shortcomings spotted after the release of The Polar Express:However, many other critics said it was "a failed experiment", and some even said that it "gave them the creeps". The film was generally praised for its stunning visuals; however, it was largely criticized for its fake-looking and "mannequin-like" human characters. Some even compared them to "zombies". Peter Travers said that it was "A failed and lifeless experiment in which everything goes wrong.", and Geoff Pevere stated that "If I were a kid, I'd have nightmares. Come to think of it, I did anyway." Paul Clinton from CNN.com said "Those human characters in the film come across as downright... well, creepy. So The Polar Express is at best disconcerting, and at worst, a wee bit horrifying."I liked Tintin. But more because it REMINDED me of how fun and thrilling a real movie could be. Tintin felt like the animated storyboard for a far more interesting film featuring real actors.When it comes to animated films, stick with talking lizards or fighting panda's. They just work better than humans ever will.Finding Nemo feels like a film that could ONLY work as a CGI animated film. Tintin feels like a movie that is SUPPOSED to be a live-action film like Pirates of the Carribean or Raiders of the Lost Ark, but was made as an animated feature instead.Tintin, and the photorealistic motion capture techniques in general, remind me of the episode Virtuoso (Star Trek Voyager). Remember the 'music' the alien race eventually prefered over the doctor's...? Technically speaking unparalled, but at the same time so clinical, distant and cold. That's Tintin for me and the reason it is a monumental flop and Rango was a much larger hit.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20HDqoi7i9o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Strange, I too took issue with the porcelain doll eyes of Polar Express, and yet I had no problems at all with Tintin in that respect.The technology and expertise is at a place now where it is extremely capable of delivering, for most.I think the only 'real' issues which persist are matters of subjectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Strange, I too took issue with the porcelain doll eyes of Polar Express, and yet I had no problems at all with Tintin in that respect.Not perse the eyes. Just that creepy feeling that something is not completely right. And I'm not talking about the funny noses of course. More the clinical feel of it.The technology and expertise is at a place now where it is extremely capable of delivering, for most.Which brings up the fundamental question: what is the point? So we're trying to create CGI humans. To what end? Watching REAL persons is so much more fun. I think the only 'real' issues which persist are matters of subjectivity.Yes, but I'm trying to understand why Tintin made so little money compared to other CGI films like Kung Fu Panda, Happy Feet or Rango which delivered big grosses almost effortlessly. The main difference between successful CGI and non-succesful films seems to be 'non human main characters' vs. 'human main characters'. And I'm not counting films like UP, since their humans are as cartoony as the rat in Ratatouile. Tintin is a different story however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I guess you are really missing the point, Roald! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I guess you are really missing the point, Roald!Yeah, as are the countless people that usually turn CG flicks into resounding success-stories, an audience I'm sure Spielberg and Jackson were hoping to reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No, what Stefan means, Roald, is your apparent lack of understanding as to why Spielberg desired to go fully cg instead of shooting it for real.The technique they went with allowed for an ultra stylised aesthetic which would simply be impossible to achieve with real-world actors and elements. It'd be like trying to make Toy Story with Tom Hanks dressed up as a gay cowboy - it'd be horrible.Such an obtuse thinker...The film's underperfomance in the States has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. It's just basic cultural differences, nothing more. Pantomime wrestling is huge in America, but is nothing more than a specialist interest in Europe. Football never made the crossover to the States either. It's that simple. Don't over-think about Tintin's lack of American appeal - it's just one of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The film's underperfomance in the States has nothing to do with what you're suggesting. It's just basic cultural differences, nothing more. Pantomime wrestling is huge in America, but is nothing more than a specialist interest in Europe. Football never made the crossover to the States either. It's that simple. Don't over-think about Tintin's lack of American appeal - it's just one of those things.Yeah, like Rango had such a huge following in the US before it opened... Or Avatar... No wonder they became hits...And you somehow suggest Tintin became such a big hit worldwide...It did just fine. For comparison: Tintin made about 268 million outside of the US so far. Add what, 50 million until the end of its release? Happy Feet made 384 million outside of the US 6 years ago..! Kung Fu Panda 416 million and Kung Fu Panda 2 made 500 million! Jackson and Spielberg targetted the audience that made those films a success, not the relatively small Tintin fanbase.I would say the film's underperformance is not limited to US grounds. The lack of appeal is universal. The film didn't make any waves, not the kind you would expect from a collaboration between Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson. And I'm going to say it as I see: the main reason for it's underperformance worldwide is the technology. The film feels as a glimpse of something that could have been on par with Star Wars or Raiders Of The Lost Ark, but never escapes its artificial, clinical nature. It's the perfect animated storyboard for a fantastic film that could have been the biggest hit of the year.The technique they went with allowed for an ultra stylised aesthetic which would simply be impossible to achieve with real-world actors and elements.Disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The main reason for it's underperformance worldwide is the technology.If you truly believe that you're deluded.I would say the film's underperformance is not limited to US grounds. The lack of appeal is universal.This statement isn't even conjecture on your part. It's complete fantasy. I mean, I'm stunned that you'd say something so moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Tintin's underperfomance has nothing to do with some imaginary lack of quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,276 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The techological aproach was the right (and I dare say the only) way to go. Tintin's underpeformance says more about the audience than about the movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The techological aproach was the right (and I dare say the only) way to go.In the late 70's, one filmmaker thought that animation was the only way to do LOTR.If you truly believe that you're deluded.So what is the reason then..? The script? The direction? The characters? Why doesn't Tintin do figures like Pirates 3 or Kung Fu Panda 2?This statement isn't even conjecture on your part. It's complete fantasy. I mean, I'm stunned that you'd say something so moronic.The BIG Tintin movie. Steven Spielberg. Peter Jackson. 3D. The best motion capture in history. And yet, its figures - outside the US - are dwarved by Kung Fu Panda 2 or even Pirates 4. Where is that genuine appeal then? It's just a hit, nothing more, nothing less. The rest of the world is responding to it pretty much the same way the US audience is.The sad thing is: its fundamentals are great. An engaging adventure story, fun characters, fantastic action scenes, effective humor, etc. On paper, Tintin is resounding succes. And yet in its finished form, animated and all, it just doesn't do the magic it could have done if it had been made in a more traditional manner. Like Spielberg made Raiders and Jackson made LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Because it was the late 70's.As for Tintin in live action... well... I thought about it back then, but after seeing the film, I don't want to imagine any other way than 2-D animation or this:http://u3.thpo.net/b000000/d4/hFA/i1H4N/t3/wJG/tintin-in-the-adventures-of-tintin-2011.jpghttp://u3.thpo.net/b000000/d4/hFA/i1H41/t3/wJG/image29.jpghttp://u2.thpo.net/b000000/d4/hFA/i1H4M/t3/wJG/captain-haddock-and-tintin-in-the-adventures.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I would say the film's underperformance is not limited to US grounds. The lack of appeal is universal.This statement isn't even conjecture on your part. It's complete fantasy. I mean, I'm stunned that you'd say something so moronic. Pirates of the Caribbean 4UK: $54.2Germany: $62.4Japan: $108.9Italy: $24.5Alice in Wonderland:UK: $64.4Germany: $34.6Japan: $133.7Italy: $40.0TintinUK: $25.1Germany: $16.5Japan: $13.5Italy: $4.8No one liked Tintin as much as you want them to, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 STFU Blum, you know you took my comments out of context you complete cunt.Show me in your smartarsed post where it demonstrates how Tintin's lack of appeal in America is "universal". You horrible arrogant fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No one liked Tintin as much as you want them to, get over it. If this about likes... What a silly thing to say.Who liked Pirates 4? Who liked Alice in Wonderland? Much more people went to see Indy 4 than Tintin. Which of the two is the one that get's openly disliked?Tintin made less money, but it got a profoundly positive reception from those who did see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What a silly thing to say.Who liked Pirates 4? Who liked Alice in Wonderland?Tintin made less money, but it got a profoundly positive reception from those who did see it.Profoundly positive implies people loved it so much they ran around telling all their family about it, which got more people to go in and see Tintin making it a huge hit.What's more likely is people didn't mind sitting through it, considering it's underperforming studio expectations in every market except France and Belgium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 What a silly thing to say.Who liked Pirates 4? Who liked Alice in Wonderland?Tintin made less money, but it got a profoundly positive reception from those who did see it.Yeah, but that means shit to the people who invested MILLIONS in Tintin. Spielberg, Jackson and the studios involved never intended Tintin to become some small, critically acclaimed arthouse flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I don't care what they intended to. Nobody's going to stop a Tintin obssesed, Hobbit-making Peter Jackson of making another so I'm fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 STFU Blum, you know you took my comments out of context you complete cunt.Show me in your smartarsed post where it highlights how Tintin's lack of appeal in America is "universal". You horrible arrogant fuck.Pirates of the Caribbean 4UK: $54.2Germany: $62.4Japan: $108.9Italy: $24.5Alice in Wonderland:UK: $64.4Germany: $34.6Japan: $133.7Italy: $40.0TintinUK: $25.1Germany: $16.5Japan: $13.5Italy: $4.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Sigh, those figures do nothing more than to demonstrate the relative underperformance of the movie. Yet you and your dumbarse pal use them to make the sweeping generalisation that the figures point to a complete lack of appeal in the film universally. To be clear: that means everybody. Comprende?Ugh, you horrible ignorant moron. Don't talk at me with your noise.The Adventures of Tintin added at least $11.4 million this weekend for an overseas total of $261 million. Since opening on Monday in Australia, the movie has consistently held first place and through Sunday had earned a strong $8.6 million. Including its domestic earnings, Tintin passed $300 million worldwide this weekend.http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3336&p=.htmYeah, no appeal universally at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 So the French and Belgians like Tintin.Good for them. You should move to France, Quint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Sigh, those those figures do nothing more than to demonstrate the relative underperformance of the movie. Yet you and your dumbarse pal use it to make the sweeping generalisation that the figures point to a complete lack of appeal in the film universally. To be clear: that means everybody. Comprende?Ugh, you horrible ignorant moron. Don't talk at me with your noise.I was never talking at you. And cut the swearing man. It's annoying.Yet you and your dumbarse pal use it to make the sweeping generalisation that the figures point to a complete lack of appeal in the film universally. To be clear: that means everybody.And the one who accuses people about taking comments out of context is freely adding words to the arguments of others. How hypocritical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,511 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 STFU Blum, you know you took my comments out of context you complete cunt.Show me in your smartarsed post where it demonstrates how Tintin's lack of appeal in America is "universal". You horrible arrogant fuck.Sigh, those figures do nothing more than to demonstrate the relative underperformance of the movie. Yet you and your dumbarse pal use them to make the sweeping generalisation that the figures point to a complete lack of appeal in the film universally. To be clear: that means everybody. Comprende?Ugh, you horrible ignorant moron. Don't talk at me with your noise.Quint:01 - Personal attacks will not be allowed. Please be RESPECTFUL of one another, allow for differences in opinions, and please don't make anyone feel that they cannot post their views in this forum.05 - There is no language filter on this board but be respectful. There is no need for sexually graphic posts, and foul language directed at another member in a disparaging way will result in administrative action.This is an official warning. Knock it off or you'll get a ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yeah, and?I found Roald's ignorant bullshit which he insists on spouting from time to time to be offensive and I responded in kind. I'd say it again if need be, a potential ban is part and parcel. I don't apologise for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Profoundly positive implies people loved it so much they ran around telling all their family about it, which got more people to go in and see Tintin making it a huge hit.Not necesarily. I told my family it was very good and they didn't go see it. And they are geeky about comic books in general.What's more likely is people didn't mind sitting through it, considering it's underperforming studio expectations in every market except France and Belgium.And Spain, and... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Sigh, those figures do nothing more than to demonstrate the relative underperformance of the movie. Yet you and your dumbarse pal use them to make the sweeping generalisation that the figures point to a complete lack of appeal in the film universally. To be clear: that means everybody. Comprende?Ugh, you horrible ignorant moron. Don't talk at me with your noise.The Adventures of Tintin added at least $11.4 million this weekend for an overseas total of $261 million. Since opening on Monday in Australia, the movie has consistently held first place and through Sunday had earned a strong $8.6 million. Including its domestic earnings, Tintin passed $300 million worldwide this weekend.http://boxofficemojo...?id=3336&p=.htmYeah, no appeal universally at all.So it will make about as much as Clash Of The Titans did overseas and about half of what Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs did. Looking at the potential and the expectations of the Tintin project, I'd say we have a winner here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Wow, you're actually revelling this aren't you. What a truly cretinous cunt you are.There you go Jason. *waves bye to everyone!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodBoal 7,538 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 For the record, I don't consider any of Quint's words towards me as a personal attack on me. In fact, I see them as a sign of affection! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faleel 5,447 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Yes, he just wants a hug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay 37,511 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Quint is banned for 2 weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMENKOHL 1,070 Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. It would be foolish to penalize Quint for his style! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neimoidian 14 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I would say the film's underperformance is not limited to US grounds. The lack of appeal is universal.This statement isn't even conjecture on your part. It's complete fantasy. I mean, I'm stunned that you'd say something so moronic. Pirates of the Caribbean 4UK: $54.2Germany: $62.4Japan: $108.9Italy: $24.5Alice in Wonderland:UK: $64.4Germany: $34.6Japan: $133.7Italy: $40.0TintinUK: $25.1Germany: $16.5Japan: $13.5Italy: $4.8No one liked Tintin as much as you want them to, get over it. Tintin had practically no serious promotion whatsoever in my country, compared to all-over-the-place posters, TV spots and trailers of other major productions. I often fo to cinema, but I have never seen any trailer of it. No wonder it wasn't big seller, even though it's IMO Spielberg's best action-adventure flick since Riders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The problem with Roald's posts is that he personally did not like the animation, and is using the less then stellar box-office in the USA to justify his dislike.Yes is is through that the film did less then some expected, but there is no evidence that it is because of the quality of the animation, or even the uncanny valley. The strong response from critics and from the people who did see the film were overwhelmingly positive in this regard.Also it has been said that the films producer and director should have ensured a huge box-office. This is false.Apart from KOCS Steven Spielberg has not had a real record breaking box-office film since The Lost World.Jackson brought in HUGE dollars with LOTR, but only with LOTR. Kink Kong underperformed, The Lovely Bones did rather poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The problem with Roald's posts is that he personally did not like the animation, and is using the less then stellar box-office in the USA to justify his dislike.Yes is is through that the film did less then some expected, but there is no evidence that it is because of the quality of the animation, or even the uncanny valley. The strong response from critics and from the people who did see the film were overwhelmingly positive in this regard.First off; I never said the poor box office reception is due to the QUALITY of the animation. I always said the animation is very, very good, possibly the best I've ever seen.Second; the 'less than stellar box-office performance' is certainly not limited to the USA. It will probably make about 70 million in the US. It's worldwide gross (about 350 million) is only slightly better though still pretty much in line with that, especially taking into account that a film like Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs will make about double that figure.Everybody is coming up with theories about why the BIG Tintin movie, developed by Spielberg and Jackson, did not meet commercial expectations. Some blame the promotion of the film, some the timing, some the fact that Tintin is a 'European thing'.I have a different theory.When it comes to animated films, talking animals or more cartoonish humans (like in UP or Ratatouille) are very effective. People flock to see a talking, Kung Fu fighting Panda. They love that.However; the more realistic people try to do human-characters, the less appeal it has. I have a strong feeling this is what turned people off with a film like Beowulf, even more than the fact that it was a bad film to begin with. Transformers 2 was bad, as was Pirates 4, and those made a lot of money nonetheless. At least it had Shia, Megan Fox, Johnny Depp, ..., real people and audiences are drawn to that more than to 'artificial humans' made inside a computer.It's a theory of course, but at least debatable. After seeing Tintin, I'm just very happy no one had the strange idea back in 2001 to make LOTR or Harry Potter full CGI films. Watching REAL actors (Ian McKellen, Viggo Mortenson, Daniel Radcliffe, etc.) can not be substituted by computer counterparts. What's the point?I highly believe this is the foremost reason people skipped Tintin.Steve Rose from The Guardian wrote about one of the movie's major criticisms: that The Adventures of Tintin, much like The Polar Express, crossed into the uncanny valley, thereby rendering Tintin "too human and not human at all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Leave it for you to pick out a minority critic.General consensus is that Tintin is a huge improvement over films like Beowulf or Polar Express.I'm not even sure that the film is doing so badly. It was NEVER going to be a huge box-office smash hit in the USA, like football (soccer) is never going to be a success there. The foreign market is were the money is for this film, and I would say 356 million from a 135 million budget is a good number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TownerFan 4,991 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Foreign markets are more and more important to determine a Hollywood-made film's success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Leave it for you to pick out a minority critic.General consensus is that Tintin is a huge improvement over films like Beowulf or Polar Express.I'm not even sure that the film is doing so badly. It was NEVER going to be a huge box-office smash hit in the USA, like football (soccer) is never going to be a success there. The foreign market is were the money is for this film, and I would say 356 million from a 135 million budget is a good number.So why would Rango be a box-office hit in the US and Tintin not...? Harry Potter or LOTR were hits in the US, despite their 'European' origin.Again; I TOTALLY agree that Tintin is a HUGE improvement over any other animated film in history. Why do you think I'm disputing that...?If you would really look into the box-office gross worldwide, you would discover that Tintin is just doing fine. And you act like it's not earning anything in the US. 70 million would be a monumental achievement for lots of films. The fact remains that it is UNDERPERFORMING compared to other, big promoted CGI animated films, even on a global scale. Check the figures. Compare it to Kung Fu Panda, Ice Age or something. You'll see the rest of the world is giving it the same kind of reception as the US filmgoers.So again; could it be that people around the world - who turn movies like Shrek, Ice Age, Kung Fu Panda or Madagascar into HUGE hits - are simply not interested in seeing artificial HUMANS, no matter how realistic they can be done (like in Tintin)?I think the average filmgoer reasons: "What's the point of creating CGI humans?? In that case I would rather see REAL actors. I'll skip this movie, because it looks weird, creepy. I'd rather see a new Shrek movie or something. At least there the animation is funny and makes sense."Since Tintin is in essence a brilliant movie, I strongly believe that had it been made more traditional (with real actors and real enviroments) it would have had greater success, even in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 So why would Rango be a box-office hit in the US and Tintin not...? Harry Potter or LOTR were hits in the US, despite their 'European' origin.If Wikipedia is to be believed then Rango took a box-office of 245 million on a budget identical to Tintin's. So how can you proclaim Rango as a hit but not Tintin?Roald. Before the Potter films came out Harry Potter was already huge in the US. LOTR had been big in the USA since the 60's. Tintin had virtually none of that.So again; could it be that people around the world - who turn movies like Shrek, Ice Age, Kung Fu Panda or Madagascar into HUGE hits - are simply not interested in seeing artificial HUMANS, no matter how realistic they can be done (like in Tintin)?I think you are miscomparing films or types of films. All of these are animation. but a typical Dreamworks animation is really a very different kind of film then Tintin. It's kinda like comparing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with Als Je Begrijpt Wat Ik Bedoel.Also I really would not call the animation of the characters in Tintin realistic.Besides LOTR proved years ago that an audience is willing to invest in a CGI human looking character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If Wikipedia is to be believed then Rango took a box-office of 245 million on a budget identical to Tintin's. So how can you proclaim Rango as a hit but not Tintin?I was referring to the US gross of Rango, which is substantially larger than Tintin's. Perhaps I should have compared it something like Alice In Wonderland or Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs since their worldwide grosses simply dwarf Tintin.Roald. Before the Potter films came out Harry Potter was already huge in the US. LOTR had been big in the USA since the 60's. Tintin had virtually none of that.I know that, but my point is that films like Madagascar, Pirates, Avatar or Ice Age had NO following or popularity BEFORE they came out and YET they became big hits. Harry Potter became big in the US, despite it's UK background. To state that the Tintin movie was not going to find an audience in the US no matter what is ridiculous IMO. People could easily have DISCOVERED Tintin through the film. I mean; why would they give Avatar a chance and not Tintin..?I think you are miscomparing films or types of films. All of these are animation. but a typical Dreamworks animation is really a very different kind of film then Tintin. It's kinda like comparing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs with Als Je Begrijpt Wat Ik Bedoel.Actually I agree with you to a certain extent. Madagascar, Nemo, Shrek or Kung Fu Panda are movies that SHOULD be animated films. They would not work any other way and the medium is perfectly acceptable for talking fish, lions and goblins. Tintin is a movie that should have been a LIVE-ACTION film, but was made as an animated film instead.Also I really would not call the animation of the characters in Tintin realistic.The skin textures of the characters alone would disagree with that.Besides LOTR proved years ago that an audience is willing to invest in a CGI human looking characterFirst off; there is a huge difference since Gollum is not quite human.Secondly; you seem to have so little idea of what made Gollum work in the first place. Yes, Andy Serkis' perfomance is brilliant. Of course. But... the hobbits - Frodo and Sam - gave Gollum real life. Their interaction with him is what eventually makes him work. Without Frodo and Sam, without the real actors and real enviroments around him, Gollum would be nothing more than a boring special effect that would lose its impact after a few minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 My bad. Rango is really the wrong example. But I was referring to the US gross of Rango, which is substantially larger than Tintin's. I should have compared it something like Alice In Wonderland or Ice Age: Dawn Of The Dinosaurs.And what would that have accomplished? Alice In Wonderland...what? Why compare that to Tintin? It's not animated, it has Johnny depp in it and it came right after Avatar, and was heavily marketed as a 3D film, which was all the rage.I really don't see what mean.My point is that films like Madagascar, Pirates, Avatar or Ice Age had NO following or popularity BEFORE they came out and YET they became big hits. Harry Potter became big in the US, despite it's UK background. To state that the Tintin movie was not going to find an audience in the US no matter what is ridiculous IMO. People could easilyhave DISCOVERED Tintin through the film.So what you are basically saying is that some movies get more popular then others? Do you even think before you write this stuff? No wonder Quint got angry.Comparing Tintin to Harry Potter again does not really work very well. Harry Potter, despite being of English origin tells a very universal story of good versus evil. If you set Harry Potter in Space it could be Star Wars. If you set it inside a computer you would call it The Matrix. Tintin is a very different kind of story.Also the other animation films you mentioned are heavily marketed for children, and have a brandname that parents trust called Dreamworks Animation. Like Disney, or Pixar parents know they can safely take their young child to see a film made by that brand.There is no precedent for a Spielberg/Jackson animation.IActually I agree with you to a certain extent. Madagascar, Nemo, Shrek or Kung Fu Panda are movies that SHOULD be animated films. They would not work any other way and the medium is perfectly acceptable for talking fish, lions and goblins. Tintin is a movie that should have been a LIVE-ACTION film, but was made as an animated film instead.I certainly don't think the film, as it is now would have worked in live action. And it would not have been as successful financially and artistically. Who would have played the title role?The skin textures of the characters alone would disagree with that.The big noses would disagree.Certainly Spielberg was never going for photorealism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 So what you are basically saying is that some movies get more popular then others? Do you even think before you write this stuff? No wonder Quint got angry.The whole discussion started when people were speculating on why Tintin is underperforming. First off; there is no definite answer. Of course not. There are too many variables at play. What I did was express my opinion, a theory about why I think Tintin is underperforming. Yes some movies get more popular than others. It is ´fun´ to try to analyse why. That's what I'm doing. And you think it's normal to become 'angry' over presenting a theory...? I think that´s rather pathetic actually.So when someone claims: 'Tintin is underperforming in the US, because it's a Euro-thing' it's ok, but when I say 'Tintin is underperforming in the US (and the rest of the world), because an animated film filled with human characters doesn't appeal to a larger audience' it's something to get angry about...?You guys should really get out more.The big noses would disagree.Certainly Spielberg was never going for photorealism.Big noses... Extremely detailed and realistic textures... What WAS Spielberg going for...? Perhaps that schizophrenic aspect of the style is turning people off. It's just plain weird. Like some surrealistic world come to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Roald, it is a cultural thing. That's why soccer never took of in the US while its the most popular sport everywere else in the world.Ofcourse opening Tintin in the US during Christmas time certainly did not help.All of these are factors to be considers before even getting to the issue of human-like animation.As a matter of fact, Tintin is probably the first of these kind of film that is a genuinely box-office success. It will probably do make double what Beowulf did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 799 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Roald, it is a cultural thing. That's why soccer never took of in the US while its the most popular sport everywere else in the world.The Tintin movie is a fun, sprawling action adventure film. Yeah, US audiences really hate those. Tintin is a brilliant CGI animated film…. also something that turns US moviegoers off…Really..?Tintin ‘the Comic’ and Tintin ‘the Movie’ are two different worlds to me. The film feels as much as a re-invention as it feels like a homage to Hergé’s work.The soccer comparison really proves – after bringing in Gollum - the simplistic level of your reasoning. It’s so lame. Soccer is EXTREMELY popular. Tintin is not. It’s mostly a thing of the past and the newer generations have never heard of ‘Kuifje’. Tintin is a cultural thing, but certainly not on the same level as soccer..! For the younger generations, Tintin ‘the Movie’ is an introduction to the character and his adventures on a global scale.All of these are factors to be considers before even getting to the issue of human-like animation.Really? I think it's still the most probable reason out there.As a matter of fact, Tintin is probably the first of these kind of film that is a genuinely box-office success.I think our definitions differ on what's a 'genuine box-office success'. Tintin is merely a relative success, considering my theory that human-centered CGI films do not appeal to larger audiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now