Kathleen Kennedy on Tintin sequel

Posted in Uncategorized

45 Responses to “Kathleen Kennedy on Tintin sequel”

1. thierry Says:
   
   

   About a month and 1/2 ago I almost predicted right: http://tintinology.poosk.com/2011/10/24/review-tintin-secret-of-the-unicorn/#comment-2966

   I did not know the shooting might happen in the summer but the release date is right.

   Will see how it pan out, I guess we will have to wait even longer for the third one.

   But eh we will have the Hobbit to watch first and who knows we may even be able to finally get the Lord Of The Rings Ultimate Collection out to watch too…

   Thierry

   December 5th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
2. Thierry Says:
   
   

   A little poll in The One Ring.net http://www.theonering.net/torwp/ the place to go if you are fan of the Hobbit and Lord Of the Ring movies.

   It’s asking if you are willing to go see Tintin because the Hobbit movie may have a preview before.

   Go ahead a vote if you want.
   Thierry

   December 5th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
3. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
   
   

   http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/tintin-gets-the-hollywood-treatment-20111031-1mrvy.html

   Just thought I should link you to this because this is EXACTLY how i feel about the movie.

   December 5th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
4. Mike Dutton Says:
   
   

   How many times must it be repeated that the Hollywood touch was what Hergé wanted?

   How can one justify their belief that the film is bad because it’s not the same as the book? It CAN’T be! A book is a book, and a film is a film. A book cannot be a film, nor can a film be a book. It has to be different, otherwise it won’t work.

   When reading a book, you’re reading it at your own leisure, and can come back to it whenever you want, and people can use their imagination to visualise the book in their own way. With a film, you’re watching it at 24 frames per second, and the music and acting work drives a film in a way that a book can’t. That’s the whole point of having a movie: to be able to WATCH it.

   What were people expecting? A film that you can read? It can’t be the book word for word.

   And before anyone says that “was the film even necessary”, or anything like that, that’s just a typical criticism that people just don’t get, even if they swear by the fact that they do; the film was to introduce more people to the character of Tintin, because Moulinsart have driven him underground. Why shouldn’t we get a chance to see Tintin on the big screen? In what way does an hour and a half movie cause Tintin any serious harm?

   People seem to get some bizarre thrill out of beating the film down just because it’s a film, criticising it for “poor plot”, “forgettable music”, “bad acting”, and all that. These people have no sense of fun and open mindedness. The music was great, the acting was good, and as far as I can recall, there were no plot holes, or nonsensical plots. I’ve seen the film three times now, I should know!

   All these complaints that the film runs too quickly, and that the chase scene was too over the top… Have any of these people actually READ the early Tintin books? That’s what they were all about! Fast paced storylines, ridiculous escapes and crazy obstacles. The directors were being faithful to every aspect of Tintin, including those.

   Stop treating the film like it’s some kind of historical art form, because it’s not. These people get so annoyingly butt-hurt because “They’re ruining Tintin”, and all that rubbish: Tintin is a book, this film, is a film, completely different! It’s not Tintin, it’s based on Tintin. Hergé knew this! He knew this for years. Spielberg knows how to give a film that intense Hollywood style, which is why Hergé wanted HIM to make the movie.

   I’m sorry, but this is getting stupid. Hergé wanting Tintin in a Hollywood style is a true fact, and anyone who denies, or flat out refuses to accept that are basically saying Hergé himself was lying. It’s like they think they know more about Tintin just because they’re fans, and that the creator himself is wrong. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

   December 6th, 2011 at 12:40 am
5. Augwich Says:
   
   

   Mike, as much as I may agree with you that people need to be open-minded and that this movie is in fact what Herge would have wanted, we must remember that not everyone agrees. We can’t shoot down everyone who disagrees with us. Everyone has their opinions, and just as we are entitled to disagree with them, they’re entitled to have them.

   Yes, debate/disagreement is good, but please, let’s try and keep these debates as healthy as possible for all sides.

   I would challenge both of you to try and explain why you like or dislike the movie SPECIFICALLY. Instead of saying why the other side is wrong, say why you think you might be right, and see if you can’t also understand where those who might say otherwise are coming from.

   –Augwich

   December 6th, 2011 at 4:35 am
6. Trix Says:
   
   

   The good news: There is DEFINITELY a second Tintin movie.
   The bad news: It’s probably going to be released at christmas. Again. WHY???

   I’m with Augwich, I don’t like the negativity and people arguing against other people cos the other person’s opinion is wrong. I don’t like it. What about pointing out the GOOD parts of the movie? Also, it really puts down the other people who haven’t seen it (example, myself). Negativity really spoils things for others.

   December 6th, 2011 at 8:17 am
7. Mike Dutton Says:
   
   

   I want to talk about bits I like, but I can’t, because not everyone has seen it yet. I’ll only have people angry with me for “spoiling” the film.

   The point I was trying to emphasize was that just because Hollywood have made a Tintin film, it doesn’t mean it should be bad. People are going to see it and are freaking out simply because it’s a product of Hollywood, and every other criticism is thrown in just to make it look like they really mean it. I’ve honestly never seen anyone criticise the film for anything different. It’s either the Hollywood touch, or the Motion Capture. Nothing different. That’s what bugs me.

   It’s like they say it just to get more people to ignore the film. That link that Peter sent: the comments there are nearly all saying that they’re now going to ignore the film and never see it.

   These days, the big picture, and all the other elements that make a film no longer get a look in. All that matters today is who’s making it, and what medium the film is made in. Should we really start judging films for all the minor details and ignore the big picture?

   December 6th, 2011 at 10:18 am
8. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
   
   

   Sorry for the long text but you seem not to get it.

   @Mike:
   Do me a favor and stop saying this is the movie Herge had approved. Hergé didnt see it. Hergé saw Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is a better movie than Tintin.
   We don’t know what Hergé would have said about THIS movie. I for one would argue that Hergé could have expected something by far better from Spielberg. It doesn’t make any of the arguments why this movie is bad less valid.
   The text I linked listed some obvious reasons and I’m going to repeat some of them here I suppose. Please stop idealizing the movie and find real arguments against this. I’m getting tired of sentences along the lines of “Stop treating the film like it’s some kind of historical art form, because it’s not” because they’re ignorant as hell and just show an opinion that is, pardon me, very popular in certain areas of the US. If you really think it’s a great argument that Hergé supposedly liked the movie, I recommend this site:
   http://theoohtray.com/2011/10/film-review-the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-unicorn/
   Yes, there’s an entire text about it. Note that this critic doesn’t find the movie as bad as I do. Spielberg, often considered to be a part of the New Hollywood generation, simply made a blockbuster and didn’t want to risk anything. So he made an easily calculable blockbuster exploiting a brand like Tintin that has no negative history in the US, and many fans in the EU, me included.

   “How can one justify their belief that the film is bad because it’s not the same as the book? It CAN’T be! A book is a book, and a film is a film. A book cannot be a film, nor can a film be a book. It has to be different, otherwise it won’t work.[...]That’s the whole point of having a movie: to be able to WATCH it.”

   That’s not the whole point, it’s just one aspect. When you have an “ounce of intelligence or imagination” (as Tom McCarthy put it) you ask yourselves questions and want to find out more, and don’t take movie figures as a role model when their only message is “stay true to yourself (hence McCarthy compares the movie to a self-empowerment seminar)”.
   When you watch The Godfather for example, I’m not just baffled because of the great screenplay, but because I care for the characters although they’re evil. I’d care for any random mafia family if they’d be portrayed like the Corleones were portayed. When you watched Easy Rider, you usually forget what the beautiful landscapes looked like. You just remember they were there. They’re not important for the message of the movie.
   The Tintin movie is so perverse because its message is somehow the exact opposite of the books. Instead of giving the viewer room for imagination, identification and making him curious to learn it just states “stay true to yourself and everything will be fine.” Spielberg/Jackson even found it important to let us know Haddocks first name (and as Mr McCarthy’s article states, the explanation for his last name is wrong…)! Didn’t you post an article some time ago where someone described how Tintin made him want to discover the world? I think I’ve read it some time ago in The Figaro (yes, I’m German and read French art magazines):
   http://www.cntraveler.com/arts/2011/12/the-world-according-to-tintin

   “What were people expecting? A film that you can read? It can’t be the book word for word.”
   Well, the irony is I expected the movie to be as superficial as it is, maybe less.
   It didn’t have to be the book word for word, or 2d. Just not as dumb as it now is. Yes, there were a few ‘action scenes’ in the books but they didn’t happen THE WHOLE TIME. Have you ever watched one of the old Mission Impossible episodes from the 60s, and then taken a look at the Tom Cruise franchise?
   The cold war bits, the investigation (even if it’s full of McGuffs), basically everything that would require a steady camera and time on the screen is left out.

   (to quote McCarthy: “This is important: like so many children, I spent hours staring, captivated, at the single frame from The Broken Ear that shows Tintin trying to fire his speeding car over a level crossing just before a hurtling locomotive cuts off his path. (Will he make it? Look at the angles of approach, the lines showing the relative speeds of his car and the train. Might he just? Great snakes: he’s pulled it off!)”)
   My sister (10 years old) watched the movie and said it was too fast and the stunts looked too artificial) and Tintin came across like an asshat, the way he moved was unnatural. She’s not stupid and haven’t had the prejudices I probably have had.

   “Why shouldn’t we get a chance to see Tintin on the big screen? In what way does an hour and a half movie cause Tintin any serious harm?”
   Well, nobody said that. It’s only THIS specific movie. Kids who watch this movie and are impressed by the effects won’t read the books anymore because they think they don’t have the same special effects. And it’s not worth to read something that tells you to stay true to yourself unless you’re an extremely shy person, is it? I don’t care if Spielberg didn’t copy the books word by word I bemoan the fact that he also didn’t do anything to actually ‘stay true’ to Tintin’s/Haddock’s characters that offered so much room for interpretation, and even more, challenged people to interprete them. This movie has no such challenge. It’s over and after 2 days you’ve forgotten half of it. Needless to say I didn’t even ask myself a question like “what does the movie want to tell us?” because it was so blatantly answered by the movie itself the whole time.

   “These people have no sense of fun and open mindedness. The music was great, the acting was good, and as far as I can recall, there were no plot holes, or nonsensical plots. I’ve seen the film three times now, I should know!”
   Turns out you don’t… The whole action sequence with the bazooka and the trained eagle, the sword fight spectacle – all these unbelievable coincidences? Yes, the books had some of them but again, not the whole time.

   “All these complaints that the film runs too quickly, and that the chase scene was too over the top… Have any of these people actually READ the early Tintin books? That’s what they were all about! Fast paced storylines, ridiculous escapes and crazy obstacles. The directors were being faithful to every aspect of Tintin, including those.”

   No, they weren’t. Another excerpt from McCarthy because I’m too lazy to write it all myself, but there are a lot more examples for this if you dig a bit:
   But worst of all is the violence perpetrated against the core impulses of Herge’s work. The deep and disturbing power of the Tintin books lies in the way that they immerse the reader in an inauthentic universe, a world whose veneers are constantly being peeled back to reveal inner emptiness. This begins right back in 1929 with the very first adventure, Tintin in the Land of the Soviets, in which the commie-bashing hero, noticing visiting English Marxists gushing over Soviet factories, sneaks behind the buildings (and, by extension, the belief system they underpin) to discover that they’re wooden facades: the smoke is made by burning hay; the clangs by a single man banging a piece of metal.

   @Trix:
   “What about pointing out the GOOD parts of the movie? Also, it really puts down the other people who haven’t seen it (example, myself). Negativity really spoils things for others.”
   I and others have pointed out that we liked the beginning and the little Hergé cameo. But that’s really all. Understand that not everyone liked the movie, and my post’s purpose isn’t to spoil the movie but express my disappointment. If the movie was really good in my opinion I would have said that I liked it. Be happy that someone tells you his opinion so you can get your own image. If you don’t like that, don’t read it.

   December 6th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
9. Mike Dutton Says:
   
   

   Right, well, I’ve been told to talk about good aspects of the film, so this is pretty much a SPOILER ALERT (Just capitalizing that so that people will notice that, and not beat me up afterwards)… Well, okay, here we go:

   I like the setting and colourful atmosphere of Tintin’s home city. The colours of the houses, the caricatures of the other citizens, the real-life, stylised look of Tintin’s universe. I like all that. If feels new, yet familiar.

   The decision to turn Ivan Sakharine into the main villain was a good one. The bird brothers were hardly in the book, and weren’t really all that interesting as characters. Sakharine looks more of the part of a villain. After all, though the character is not a villain in the original book, his appearance isn’t all that welcoming. Besides, his updated look in the film give him a more suave, sophisticated character, with determination to get what he wants. True, in many movies, it is considered a cliché, but I personally feel that in the case of Tintin, it feels like something new. A powerful villain that isn’t Rastapopoulos? Interesting, indeed.

   The rushing of the film gives one the sense of unapologetic thrill for action and adventure, something that works very well for a Tintin film. It is true, that a lot of people thought the pacing to be a bit much, I went along with it, because there were aspects of the books which made me feel that there was great pacing very quickly, particularly The Broken Ear. It must be agreed that nobody will agree with each other on how they see Tintin in their eyes, whether it be reading the books, or watching the film. The fast-paced nature of Tintin is how I’ve always seen it, from the day I read my first Tintin book. It’s just the way I see it, and I’m content with it in the movie.

   But while it can be said that the style comes directly from Spielberg’s desire to do adventure films again, and perhaps getting carried away with it, with Tintin, it gives the viewer a new sense of fun that they didn’t see in the books: all the more reason to see it. The motorcycle chase is indeed over the top, but it plays for fun, not logic. Some have complained that too many things are happening at once, and that Tintin seems too invincible when he’s zip-wiring down the Bagghar telephone cables on the remains of a bike, but let us remember the over the top ways that Tintin used to escape from the Japanese soldiers in the Shanghai Intenational Settlement, or when he survives being drowned twice in Chicago, thanks to the uses of fake dumbbells, or wrong gasses used to knock him out. Luck and chance is how he makes it out alive. The same goes for the film.

   The whole idea is not to understand the reasoning behind it all, but rather to enjoy the ride. I certainly did.

   Let us not forget though, I have given one particular scene criticism, when I said Tintin goes out of character. I haven’t mentioned what the scene is, nor what happens, but I shall now explain it here, since there is a spoiler warning: Tintin needs pep-talking from the Captain after Sakharine gets away. It is indeed out of character for Tintin to give up on a case, when he is indeed the most motivated and determined. In most cases, it is the other way around in the books, particularly when Tintin assures the Captain that they won’t be burned alive by the Incas… Okay, not exactly a pep-talk, but still, the Captain takes those days of his life with sorrow and no chance of escape, while Tintin insists they will be alright.

   There were other things, as the story went on, which I enjoyed also. The new ending, which had a very amusing crane fight.
   Actually, that reminds me of a criticism one of my friends gave when we saw the film: He said it could have been renamed “The Adventures of Captain Haddock”, as he does do a lot of the work. Many have indeed found Tintin to be a boring hero, for lack of a backstory, and what-have-you, but that’s simply how Tintin was, and any attempt to improve on that would have Spielberg and Jackson shot! Which reminds me, Nick Frost himself once said that they weren’t allowed to say anything about the film, jokingly explaining that Hergé’s estate had rifles pointing at them. Case in point, I think? XD

   Other things I found to be wonderful to see were the nods to the books. Of course, we all know about the newspaper reports on Tintin’s wall, detailing adventures Tintin in the Congo, Cigars of the Pharaoh, The Broken Ear and King Ottokar’s Sceptre, but there are also nods to Explorers on the Moon, as well as the tank chase from The Calculus Affair, albiet a very loose one.

   With these nods, it’s clear that those involved have worked very hard to impress their audiences, by not only giving us a fresh new story based on an existing thread, but by also proving they know the books, and show it throughout.

   Now, the action elements. Okay, I mentioned the adventure elements being unapologetic, but people seem to have a great dislike for the fight scenes, that they’re too violent and such, but as far as I’m aware, they’re not all that different to the books. The books had linework and stars to show if somebody’s been punched, or if they fall down stairs, but it’s different in a film. If something’s happening, you can’t use lines to indicate it’s happened, you have to show it. Otherwise it doesn’t flow, and audiences will either be confused, or fans will be frustrated that it’s toned down. I don’t know how to feel myself. I suppose I enjoyed it, because I like seeing villains get beat up, but there’s no real way to agree on this subject, so we’ll let that one by.

   Now, action over story. A common criticism for the film is that unlike the books, it seems to rely on action more than it does its story. Well, yes, it does.

   But what is the story? It’s about the search for buried treasure. What is Tintin’s threat in the book, concerning the treasure? Two middle aged antique dealers. In the film, we have Sakharine, who’s so rich, he buys off Haddock’s crew who aid him like an army of henchmen. Far more threatening.

   But that doesn’t answer the question. Yes, the story is about buried treasure, but that’s become something a lot of critics don’t like these days. The National Treasure films, while I love them and admire their crazy concepts, they were hated by the critics.

   Many critics, even those who have given the film positive reviews, have stated their dislike for the story of treasure hunting, but the reason they love the film are for the same reasons I do: They enjoyed the ride.

   Okay, this might have been very long, but at least I’ve given my reasons for why the film has worked out for me. They may not be very good reasons, but hey, at least I actually made an effort to explain it.

   December 6th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
10. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    thanks for that effort.

    I’m not going to reply to every point here. Most things you described were indeed enjoyable but you know, only one of them would have been enough for the whole movie. I don’t know why you even wrote about the “violence” because I didn’t complain about that either. The nods to the albums, the search for the treasure for example – they’re all just the bonus part, and they’re not even done well, excuse me (see the Haddock example). To me and most disappointed fans, the album was much more than just that. And again, maybe you’re unable to see this but you still say:

    “The whole idea is not to understand the reasoning behind it all, but rather to enjoy the ride. I certainly did.”
    “But what is the story? It’s about the search for buried treasure.”

    (and lots of pathos, i might add). That’s what you think.
    People like McCarthy and I completely disagree here. This movie is a spectacle, but it’s empty and lifeless beyong that. McCarthy summed it up perfectly in his text’s 2nd paragraph. This movie makes all possible efforts to be politically correct and not boring at any moment, but it fails to actually cause suspense. If you take a look at the old animation movies from the 70s (Hergé didn’t like them, but he was involved in the production), you’ll see that their characters’ dialogues seem to follow their own logic, not the scriptwriter’s. They aren’t good movies, but they’re better attempts than Spielberg’s (and I’m not even going to say that’s because it’s hand-drawn). I wonder if Spielberg ever took the time to watch them.

    (can’t find the Lake Of Sharks sadly:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PbmyYIuYDQ )

    December 6th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
11. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    What is the point of me giving an opinion if I’m gonna be criticised for it.

    Why do you say that the film IS empty and lifeless, like it’s a fact. You know it’s your own opinion, so don’t write it as a fact.

    I want no more to do with this discussion, so I’ll end it with this: You want Lake of Sharks? Here: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=F1W6NIY0

    Get it now, before Moulinsart sues me.

    December 6th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
12. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    You should be able to take some criticism, especially if you have good arguments against my opinion. You could also say in your opinion the moon is made out of cheese and you’d still be wrong.
    Did you even read McCarthy’s article? As I said (for the third time) he sums up why it’s empty and lifeless, and his reasons aren’t few. Need more? Spielbergs approach could have worked for Asterix, maybe.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/oct/27/tintin-uncanny-valley-computer-graphics
    http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/medium-term/2011/11/19/spielberg-fails-tintin/

    http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/entertainment/tintin-has-looks-but-what-about-soul/478653
    (very recommended)

    December 6th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
13. Trix Says:
    
    

    Hmmm…Your (long) comments are turning into a persuasive essay! Next time when I come here, you would have added in some quotes, and a bibliography too!
    I don’t mind spoilers too much, cos they’re only a tiny bit of a long movie. And there’s no visuals. I don’t know what other people think.
    And we can’t say whether it’s approved or not, cos Herge has never seen it. So perhaps, don’t go saying whether it’s approved by Herge or not approved by Herge, cos it’s neither, technically.
    Perhaps if the good bits aren’t coming out, then let’s start putting on some good links instead.

    December 6th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
14. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    @Trix

    I apologise. I just wanted to justify my reasons for liking the film. It isn’t easy when I’m always being told my opinion is wrong.

    Well, I’m not saying anymore on the matter.

    December 6th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
15. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    Just found some interesting news. According to a report on contactmusic, Spielberg himself is writing the script for Tintin 2:
    http://www.contactmusic.com/news/steven-spielberg-writing-second-tintin-movie_1271302

    December 6th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
16. Steven (NL) Says:
    
    

    @Peter,

    Thank you for your lengthy explanations. I tried some times myself, but gave up. Yet, I couldn’t agree more!

    December 7th, 2011 at 12:08 am
17. Tintinrulz Says:
    
    

    This article suggests Steven Spielberg is writing the second Tintin movie. Is this true? If so, what are his skills as a writer? Will he have any help in writing the script? Thanks

    December 7th, 2011 at 1:14 am
18. lalunafelis Says:
    
    

    http://chainsawsuit.com/comics/20111205.png

    Just thought I’d share this.

    December 7th, 2011 at 3:59 am
19. thierry Says:
    
    

    @ Tintinrulz

    As a Writer he is less known but he wrote some screenplay like “Poltergeist”, “Encounter of the Third Kind”, “The Goonies” and “A.I.”. Here is his profile on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/

    Thierry

    December 7th, 2011 at 5:25 am
20. Trix Says:
    
    

    If Speilberg writes the next script for Tintin 2, it could end up being the Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun books that are made into the movie. But who knows?
    It’ll be good to see a Tintin 4. Normally by the 3rd movie, everyone’s had enough, but I guess it would work better, being based on a book and the fact that there would be a new adventure and storyline each time you go back. That is what makes Herge’s series of books so popular, is that you could have read so many but the endings, plots and characters never get old.

    Good find, Mike!

    December 7th, 2011 at 5:26 am
21. Tintinrulz Says:
    
    

    Trix, it’s been said numerous times that The Seven Crystal Balls/Prisoners of the Sun will probably be the third movie, not the second.

    Thierry, thanks, mate. It looks as if Anthony Horowitz is doing the main bulk of the writing for the second movie.

    December 7th, 2011 at 8:01 am
22. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    I’m thinking of leaving this site.

    The overall build up to the Tintin movie was fun, but now that it’s out, this place seems to be coming a battlefield between those who liked it and those who hated it.

    How can one justify ruining people’s hopes by repeating that the movie was bad, saying people’s positive opinions are wrong, all because somebody wrote one article saying why they hated it. Anybody can write an article with an opinion of the film, it doesn’t mean their word is law.

    But this guy doesn’t seem to get freedom of speech, considering his opinion and the article’s to be fact, and nothing more.

    He’s ruining the film for those who haven’t had the chance to see it yet, and that’s wrong, but he’s gonna end up bringing more of them in. People boycotting the film, and claiming their opinions as facts, just because someone wrote an article about why they didn’t like it. This place isn’t the fun community it used to be.

    If this guy doesn’t realise soon that he’s ruining the fun for everyone else, then I’m off, because it’s people like him, stating their opinions as facts, that are ruining Tintin. Not just the movie, but everything about it.

    Before you say anything, Peter. Yes, I’ve read that article. But that’s no excuse to come here and claim them to be facts, when the majority loved the film. Your word isn’t law, and don’t deny that you’ve acted like that.

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:16 am
23. Tintinrulz Says:
    
    

    Mike, head over to the Tintinologist forum. You’re welcome there. It’s a friendly community. http://www.tintinologist.org/forums/

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:30 am
24. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    @Tintinrulz

    I’m already a member. My name there is VGRetro. But I suppose that’ll be my new location for talking about Tintin.

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:57 am
25. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    We are all Tintin fans who love and admire Hergé’s work. The movie got already buttered up by lots of critics, especially Americans, and it already made enough profit in the rest of the world. Does this commercial success mean that we have a good film? And does it mean we mustn’t have expected something better with a deeper meaning just like the books and mustn’t “ruin someone else’s fun” (which is questionable if the movie wasn’t fun for many people)?

    “If this guy doesn’t realise soon that he’s ruining the fun for everyone else, then I’m off[...]Before you say anything, Peter. Yes, I’ve read that article. But that’s no excuse to come here and claim them to be facts, when the majority loved the film. Your word isn’t law, and don’t deny that you’ve acted like that.”

    That’s ridiculous. You’re seriously saying I don’t get ‘freedom of speech’? I BASE my opinion on facts. Oh great, now you victimize yourself. If the movie was so good, why can’t you reply and tell me what of my points were wrong? That’s not how debates work. And that’s the opportunity of freedom of speech. You can say what you want (as long as you don’t insult someone) but you have to back it up and to expect that someone can present better arguments. Why, oh why don’t you people get that.

    Hergé went to a therapist when he had nightmares of empty sheets of paper and later told him that he regards Tintin as his son (in a more or less spiritual way of course). In Greek art, you’d call it ‘horror vacui…Spielberg’s movie is opulent on its surface, but there’s not the slightest of understanding for Hergé’s wit beyond that. This is a fact. Hence, the movie is a travesty. Most (American) critics were enthusiastic about it, but nearly all of them don’t seem to have read the actual comic books.

    December 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
26. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    And pardon me again, I have the feeling you have a taboo here to criticize the film. Was the only purpose of the blog to worship that golden calf? i tried to see things from a more enthusiastic perspective but I’m really disappointed how dumb the movie was. This does not mean that you can make a different experience. But if someone happens to read this and finds that my reasoning is close to his or her own, perhaps that’ll help wasting money for something you later regret. I’m not even saying you should boycot the film – it reminded me how good the albums where…but as the article stated, you better don’t watch it with children that aren’t skeptical about the ‘message’ of this work and haven’t read the original books because they’ll miss something.

    December 7th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
27. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    er, help NOT wasting money. Sorry for the triple post ><

    December 7th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
28. Mike Dutton Says:
    
    

    That’s enough, Peter. The film being bad is not a fact, it’s just your opinion. People are allowed to like the film. Stop going on about your opinion being facts. The points you made do not come from fact, but opinion. People like the film, and it did make me go back to read the books, as it has for many people. Because it didn’t work for you, it doesn’t make the film horrible.

    You truly are going over the top with your hatred for an hour and a half film. Let people have a chance to get their own perspective instead of filling this place with comments about why you hate it.

    We get it, you don’t like it. But other people do, so stop bullying them over it.

    December 7th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
29. Augwich Says:
    
    

    Guys PLEASE stop this nonsense! It’s clear that you don’t agree, and that neither is changing their opinion on the matter. This is getting ridiculous. The phrase “Agree to disagree” comes to mind.

    December 7th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
30. Peter (the 2d fan) Says:
    
    

    “That’s enough, Peter. The film being bad is not a fact, it’s just your opinion. People are allowed to like the film. Stop going on about your opinion being facts. The points you made do not come from fact, but opinion. People like the film, and it did make me go back to read the books, as it has for many people. Because it didn’t work for you, it doesn’t make the film horrible.”

    Look, you have serious comprehension problems. I said nowhere that people arent allowed to like the film. I didn’t like it, and I wrote almost all reasons I could think of. Of course that is my opinion. But if I say, for example, that I don’t like the movie’s use of hyperrealism I base that on the fact that the movie simply IS hyperrealistic. I do know the difference between opinion and facts, that’s why I try to find reasons. You already knew the books, children don’t.

    In contrast you just wrote you like the film and everyone who disagrees is dumb, simple-minded or ruins your fun. Please note that until now I avoided to mention the Guardian article that called it a ‘Tintin for morons’ film.*
    You do not get it, cause you believe i’m here to bully people. I’m not. I admire Tintin, I simply hate how Spielberg has treated him, and I honestly don’t understand how you can defend something that does so much harm to something so iconic, for all the reasons stated here. find a real counter argument to convince me or prove me wrong or leave it like that, cause it won’t get anywhere if you feel attacked whenever there’s someone who didn’t like the film.

    *http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/oct/18/how-could-do-this-tintin

    December 7th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
31. Caleb Says:
    
    

    You guys made your points, however most of the people in Europe have enjoyed the film including Belgium who would of let us know If Spielberg ruined Tintin. The Belgians loved it and I know I’ll agree with them in two or three weeks.

    December 7th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
32. Thierry Says:
    
    

    Tintin reach $221,600,000 in foreign box office (sorry foreign for the USA) based on Box Office Mojo: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=tintin.htm

    I’m proud (because I’m French) that France is pulling the highest gross so far with more than $52M (41%) of the total.

    I assume it will bitten when the movie comes to the US.

    Go Tintin
    Thierry

    December 7th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
33. Tintinrulz Says:
    
    

    Thierry, that’s pretty good! I wish Box Office Mojo included profits from all countries, I believe many of the Asian countries are excluded. It’ll be interesting to see how it performs in America. I expect Tintin to do well here in Australia.

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
34. Thierry Says:
    
    

    @ Tintinrulz,

    I did not know about the Asian countries being included. Let’s hope it does well so we can get a second movie, and a third and a fourth…

    Thierry

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
35. Thierry Says:
    
    

    Sorry not rereading myself. I meant “not included”

    Thierry

    December 7th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
36. Augwich Says:
    
    

    Does anyone mind explaining to me how the percentages work in that list? It’s obviously not “percent of total profits” because they add up to way more than 100…

    December 8th, 2011 at 1:45 am
37. Augwich Says:
    
    

    Sorry for the double post, but after taking a second look, I believe the percentage is how much of the money was earned on opening night for each country. So yes, it is “percent of total profits”, but for each country separately, not the income as a whole.

    December 8th, 2011 at 1:46 am
38. Augwich Says:
    
    

    So sorry Thierry, but France is only providing about 23.5% of the total. Still though, that’s quite a bit!

    …I have a sudden urge to make a pie chart of all these numbers…

    December 8th, 2011 at 1:49 am
39. thierry Says:
    
    

    @ Augwich

    Darn, I though it was more, oh well…

    On another subject, I was watching animal planet and saw this TV commercial featuring Snowy: http://www.longliveyourdog.com/tintin/

    Select the Commercial on the right of the “TV screen”. Also do not forget to watch the Exclusive Clip, I do not remember seeing it anywhere else. I know we saw that dog on some trailers but not to that extend.

    Enjoy
    Thierry

    December 8th, 2011 at 3:30 am
40. thierry Says:
    
    

    Sorry one more thing, do not forget to look at the “Gallery” there is some pictures we have not seen either, I think.

    Notice that they almost all feature Snowy (or another dog), quiet normal for Purina website.

    I specially like the one with the boat on the floor, and the one with the cows.

    Thierry

    http://www.longliveyourdog.com/tintin/

    December 8th, 2011 at 3:35 am
41. Trix Says:
    
    

    Great images, and the advertisement is quite…good!

    December 8th, 2011 at 5:42 am
42. thierry Says:
    
    

    @ Trix,

    Yes it still a commercial but what ever can make Tintin know here is good for us. Also just learned that Purina was owned by Nestlé that could explain it.

    Thierry

    December 8th, 2011 at 6:18 am
43. Augwich Says:
    
    

    I saw that commercial on CNN (here in the US) last night, actually.

    December 8th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
44. Trix Says:
    
    

    Yeah, you’re right Thierry, as much good publicity in the US would be good. Obviously not as much needed here in Australia, but they are still advertising him here quite a lot. Tintin has even made it on a billboard!

    December 8th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
45. J Wagg Says:
    
    

    I think whether or not you enjoyed the Tintin film comes down to 3 key issues:

    1. Do you prefer CGI images or hand-drawn styles?

    2. Even in ‘action’ films, do you like your films to be more based on effective characterisation and plot than on action itself?

    3. Do you like the modern breed of action film that has been enabled by CGI, in which the director makes use of the ability to portray more and more spectacular action that is several steps higher into the realms of impossibility than action films of previous generations that still relied on physical props and actors?

    My answers to these questions are:

    1. Hand-drawn

    2. Yes.

    3. No

    I personally find these films extremely boring because you cannot escape from the fact that the action is so absolutely non-credible – because of both the nature of the action and how much the screen time is completely dominated by it. I’m no more likely to change my mind just because they made a Tintin one, as I am to go and see the next Transformers film or Fast and Furious 6.

    I would ask Mike Dutton if he enjoys films such as Transformers and Fast and Furious and, if not, why? What’s the difference between them and Tintin? Would he suggest that the Tintin film had more character and plot?

    I also think that one of the biggest problems that bringing Tintin to the screen has is that it is just too difficult to effectively translate the humour, and 60% of Tintin’s appeal is its humour. I saw the movie in a cinema packed with both adults and children and didn’t hear a single laugh.

    In this debate I think Mike Dutton’s attempts to bring Peter into line are a very common form of cultural fascism. I hear the same ‘it’s only your opinion’ line being used to try and prevent people from saying that they don’t like the X-Factor because they think the music is soulless and the acts are crude attention-seekers.

    The ‘it’s only your opinion’ argument just isn’t really valid. I could say that I don’t like the sound of somebody hitting a rock with a stick because it has no melodic variation and it’s repetitive, and somebody could say ‘well, that’s just your opinion’.

    Real debate should always be about specifics.

    December 20th, 2011 at 8:12 pm

• Name (required)
• Mail (will not be published) (required)
• Website