Andy Serkis, Steven Spielberg

Tintin wins the Golden Globe award for best animated film of 2011!!!

The Golden Globe award for best animated film first appeared at the 64th Golden Globe Awards in 2007, given to the 2006 film ”Cars”. Every year since then a Pixar film has won, with awards going to Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up and Toy Story 3. However, this year the award has gone to the controversial film that the Oscars weren’t even going to recognize as an animated film: ”The Adventures of Tintin: the Secret of the Unicorn”. I’m a huge Pixar fan, but after having followed this movie for so many years, it’s great to see it win such a great award. Spielberg, Jackson, the actors, the animators, and every single person that worked on the movie did an absolutely great job and the work paid off. Hergé would be proud that after so many low quality Tintin movies, the world has seen a Tintin movie that actually won a Golden Globe Award. Congratulations!

It’s interesting to note that every movie that has ever won this award also won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, with the exception of Cars, which of all films lost to Happy Feet, a film that, like Tintin, used motion capture. So far Tintin has received 6 nominations from the Directors Guild in the four categories devoted to animated film, with three of the five in the Outstanding Created Environment in an Animated Motion Picture category. Tintin stands a very good chance of winning an award this February.

As Spielberg took the award, he made sure to recognize all of the main actors as more than just the voices of Tintin and his friends. He finished recognizing Andy Serkis as ”the man of a thousand digital faces”.

Here’s the video of Spielberg receiving the award.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7hUpry7_YZs

 

Sources: http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/culture/6265469/Tintin-wins-Golden-Globe-for-best-animated-feature-film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Globe_Award_for_Best_Animated_Feature_Film

 

21 Comments

  1. Peter (the 2d fan)

    Don’t like to start another long debate or offend anyone so feel free to ignore this comment if it hurts you psychologically and I’m not force to repeat myself countless times because you have no rational counter-arguments.

    I’ve said all this before:

    The old Tintin movies were far better than this one (and IMO artistically more ambitious than this one simply because they were hand-drawn while this flick is computer-generated although it was far more expensive), and even though Hergé liked Spielberg it doesn’t mean he’d like what he and Jackson did with Tintin in their movie, taking away every kind of depth from the story, profaning the albums.

    sure, the average audience likes it because it’s a big compromise almost everyone is happy with. However big the revenue might be, it does not mean that it is a good movie.

  2. Stephen

    You’ve made your position quite clear in the past on how you dislike the movie. Ok, I’m sorry you feel so against it. But even if I put myself mentally in the shoes of a fan that didn’t like the movie, I still don’t believe it’s as bad as you are making it out to be. The movies I was referring to were mainly the 2 live action films Herge himself didn’t even like, which took far more liberties than Spielberg ever did and portrayed the characters in such a way that to this day even fans don’t take them seriously. If you think the movie took away ”every kind of depth to the story”, I suggest you review just how much ”depth” the original ”Secret of the Unicorn” had, because in all honesty the story is not the greatest work ever written. As Chris pointed out years ago, the book is filled with so many forced coincidences it could only seem plausible in a comic book world. The Crab with the Golden Claws is little more than one crazy thing happening to Tintin after another, and I think that came through in the movie fairly accurately. I’m not saying the movie is BETTER than the albums, but I am saying the writers did a great job of taking the stories that on their own (while wonderful comics) would make a slightly mediocre movie and making it an award worthy movie at least the level of excellence of a Pixar film.
    If you think the movie would have been better hand drawn, consider that it took years and 5 hours a FRAME to make the movie as it was, and I think the result is brilliant. I enjoyed the film very much, along with every body else I went with, and I think it deserves the Golden Globe award all the way. And apparently, so did the commitee that gave it to The Adventures of Tintin.
    Feel free to express your feelings on this site, but please do not do so at the expense of insulting the intelligence of the blog’s followers. They are not stupid nor blindly loyal because they like this movie.

  3. Proman

    Pure class. Tintin absolute is animation and much like stop motion and CGI iteself allows to do thing simply impossible in live action. There is plenty of non-motion captured animation and if live-action/animated hybrids are accepted then so should this. In fact, there are animation automation tools in CGI aplenty and very little is actually redrawn.

    Amazing!

    On a related note, Spielberg should have walked away with best directing and best picture wins for “War Horse”.

  4. Trix

    That is just brilliant! It is a very good animated film, and definitely deserved this award.
    @ Peter
    I reckon that Herge wouldv’e liked the movie. I am very sure he would’ve enjoyed it. Maybe it could’ve been better with some of Herge’s input, but they didn’t have that, so it has been done well without him. And it also a very good movie, considering it’s based on approx. 3 books. Most movies based on books, have only taken the story from 1 book. 3 books would be much harder, that’s why a lot of things changed.

  5. Peter (the 2d fan)

    Thanks Stephen – that’s the kind of reply I missed before and I’m grateful that finally someone actually replied in a less emotional way. So I hope you also don’t mind if I answer in the same way and don’t feel offended – I highly respect you for that post, and running this blog (even though you’re sometimes deleting my comments and such a Spielberg fan lol) of course .
    Again, thank you.

    Now to your arguments.
    —————

    1) The movies I was referring to were mainly the 2 live action films Herge himself didn’t even like, which took far more liberties than Spielberg ever did and portrayed the characters in such a way that to this day even fans don’t take them seriously.
    ………..
    Well, you haven’t said that in the original post, but I’m still going to disagree to some extent because I have a different understanding of Hergé’s aim – that’s all a matter of interpretation, of course.

    I’ve said this before as well…I’d be careful to say something is great because Hergé (would have) liked it but he was a child of his time. The albums were innovative, sophisticated and a great work of art, yes, but they also mirror what people wanted culture and politics to be like at that time. One of the fascinating things about the albums is that you sometimes can’t tell whether Hergé showed certain things on purpose or not, if he sympathized with some aspects of communism or not – but you can clearly say that he was extremely philantropic all along. My guess is that he simply didn’t like the movies because they were kind of anachronistic at the time they came out. He has also been described as a very possessive person and I doubt that it was easy for him that someone made a film about Tintin without his agreement (for the same reason, by the way, I doubt he would have criticized Spielberg’s film however bad it is. He’d probably have accepted it because HE made the decision to let Spielberg do it). Another example for this is that he didn’t allow anyone to draw new Tintin albums or that he told a therapist that Tintin is HIS „son“.

    I find that the live action films do many things right the Spielberg movie doesn’t. I’ll talk about the „Blue Orange“ film now because I like it more but you can easily find parallels to the first film – but it’s difficult to point this out without writing a complete review so please forgive me if it seems unsystematically. It’s more of a summary of things I liked. I know the camera perspectives and many cuts would be annoying for an audience of today, same for the music – but that was normal at the time the movies were made and you can’t really compare this to modern movies. Since the 20s Hollywood’s movie industry was already much more skilled and established technology-wise

    Some examples then….
    I liked the way the characters were staged (not necessarily portayed, that’s another story), because they had much more room to actually do something that characterizes them at the same time – think of the scene where Thomson and Thompson arrive enter their rooms and get kidnapped. The characters of the albums were never „believable“ in the sense Spielberg or you or Mike Dutton seem to think they have to be („be true to yourself“ blablabla). Tintin and Haddock are completely opposite characters. But both aren’t very complex on the surface (the term „surface“ is perhaps misleading. Haddock’s aristocratic background is part of this surface as well). Haddock had mood changes and Tintin didn’t – the reader could identify with both of them and it’s no wonder that many liked Haddock more than Tintin. The protagonists’ featurelessness, the ‘I want to become like Tintin/Haddock’ effect was one important thing that made these albums so great.
    That said, almost all of the ‘secondary roles’ can be regarded as people in whose shoes you wouldn’t want to be because all of their strange habits have been exposed by Hergé. They’re cruel, deaf, goofy, power-mad, fascists and communists, cowards, ruthless, crazy, annoying or neurotic. They’re stereotypes and as such they are the main playground to deliver the „meaning“. Some of them we today only know from TV, the Internet and history lessons. They exist in both the old films and the albums, but not in the Spielberg film. The way I understand it Hergé never wanted anyone to take Calculus or someone like Tapioca/Alcazar seriously but to understand their ridiculousness. Just take a look at how desperately the Thompon twins try to preserve their dignity, and how often they fail it (I realize some of this is in the Spielberg movie too but it further supports my thesis what these other characters were supposed to represent). It’s simply wrong to say that the films „portrayed the characters in such a way that to this day even fans don’t take them seriously“ when the main characters never really had a „character“ (the way you understand it) while the others were stereotypes that were meant to be shown as such. Then it’s surprising that some Spielberg fans even have the nerve to say his critics would take Tintin too seriously.

    Or the subtle gags that are so much different from Spielberg’s blunt, omnipresent „easter eggs“: think of the scene where one of the henchmen tied his tie, leaned over the sink and made it wet.

    —————
    2) If you think the movie took away ”every kind of depth to the story”, I suggest you review just how much ”depth” the original ”Secret of the Unicorn” had, because in all honesty the story is not the greatest work ever written. As Chris pointed out years ago, the book is filled with so many forced coincidences it could only seem plausible in a comic book world.

    A falcon with superpowers? A crane fight?
    It’s certainly not the greatest work ever written and not my favourite Tintin album, but there are quite a couple of things which have been left out and if Chris thinks the story lacks depth, perhaps Chris hasn’t understood it the way others did (lost in translation perhaps? doesn’t matter). If you want I can list these things later but now I don’t have time (I started replying to 1,3, 4 and 5 and 2 is the last one because i thought it would be the longest lol – but now it’s 1 AM soon….). As I have pointed out so many times, the really disgusting part of the movie are those things the scriptwriters added, not so much what they left out („be true to yourself“), because it completely contradicts Hergé’s attempt to encourage children to learn and CHANGE ( = explicitly NOT staying true to oneself)

    —————–

    3) If you think the movie would have been better hand drawn, consider that it took years and 5 hours a FRAME to make the movie as it was, and I think the result is brilliant.
    ………..
    I know it’s incredibly time-consuming to make such a movie but they could have dared it. We have better technology than 40 years ago when the two animated films were made yet there are no better 2d feature films today. There’s just Disney, FOX and Manga. Tintin could have been the ideal starting point of a real 2d renaissance, where people make good, discerning movies because it’s important for them, daring to create an outstanding work of art regardless of its proft. Success would come automatically, even without the “3d blockbuster”/McDonalds campaigns, because it would be something new and not an improved Polar Express.

    I realize this isn’t realistic in Hollywood and you can still love the movie and watch it until you get epileptic shocks – but remember that there ARE great shorts, handdrawn and 2d, with far lower budgets than Spielberg’s attempt.

    —————-

    4)I enjoyed the film very much, along with every body else I went with, and I think it deserves the Golden Globe award all the way. And apparently, so did the commitee that gave it to The Adventures of Tintin.
    ……….
    These juries aren’t independent. One hand washes the other. Of course they award it because it’s one of those IMAX movies that keep the industry alive.

    ————–
    5. Feel free to express your feelings on this site, but please do not do so at the expense of insulting the intelligence of the blog’s followers. They are not stupid nor blindly loyal because they like this movie.
    ……
    Sorry if I get grumpy sometimes but I’ve addressed that specific misunderstanding at least 4 times now: I have nowhere claimed that the moviegoers who like this film are stupid – I did say that Spielberg underestimates Tintin’s audience and sadly he’s successful because people expect a TINTIN movie – so it has to be great alone because there’s TINTIN/BASED ON HERGÉ/SPIELBERG/JACKSON written on it. (that guardian article explained that notion as well). if it wasn’t a Tintin movie – the books that taught me how to read and how to draw – it would probably just have bored me and I wouldn’t feel like something beautiful had been terribly abused, and I wouldn’t feel like I have to say something about it.

    @Trix: uh, take a look at my answer to 1)

    I’m honestly too tired now and don’t want to write something I didn’t correct before posting. Good night.

  6. Peter (the 2d fan)

    ok one short comment to Trix maybe:

    these books are short, and the scriptwriters even shortened them. i could have written a draft for such a story during 20 mins in the closet, and it would have been a better Tintin movie.

  7. Trix

    I think there is one clear message coming out of all these arguments; that the books will ALWAYS be better than the movie. I think we can all agree on that. Every now and then, the movie was lacking something that the books always had. So (hopefully) that’s that. And we should agree to disagree about what we think of the movie.

    PS And when I said about Herge would’ve liked the movie, perhaps I worded that badly, probably better if I had said might’ve liked it, sounds more 50/50 then.

  8. Stephen

    I’ll admit that the movie did not have as many ”subtle gags” as the books. That kind of humor is one of my favorite things about the comics (for example, the part in ”The Crab with the Golden Claws” where Tintin walks around looking for his magnifying glass and the mix up with Snowy’s bone 🙂 ) That kind of humor is difficult to show as well in a movie, but it’s far from impossible, and I think that along with making sure that Haddock gets in more of his insults, that is one of the biggest suggestions I could make as to how the the next movie could be improved. I think I’ll make a post suggesting the top ten ways Tintin 2 could be even better. Still, I do think some it it did make it in the movie. There is SO much potential for places gags in the Calculus Affair could be put in to a movie! (Haddock and Tintin walking through the pouring rain while snowy holds an umbrella…and the sun coming out as soon as they realize how dumb they had been..) And then there are other gags like the sticky piece of paper (not sure how that could be done, but I think its the most hilarious part in the whole book). And then there’s my all time favorite line in the book: ”Your name?”…”Arturo Benedetto Giovani Guiseppe Pietro Archangelo Alfredo Cartoffoli da Milano”…”Er…I…Hm…Well, don’t do it again!” All those gags could make that story a very funny movie. And then on top of it all they hitchhiked right into the car that was holding Calculus in the back!
    Peter, I will give it to you that actually, while I want to, I have not actually seen the live action films all the way through. I could never get past the costumes or the style, but recently I have become interested as I am taking French classes, among other reasons to understand original Tintin albums. Watching the movies in their original language and knowing what they are saying, not how its been translated, well make the experience much more worthwhile for me. By ”nobody takes them seriously” though, I mean in a sense that they are not ”canonical” (most fans would agree Tintin didn’t REALLY go to Turkey or Spain…The live action Tintin did). I do think that the visual gags in Morocco were, rather than disgusting, actually pretty funny in that they were so exagerrated. Everything that happened in that scene would have actually been very difficult to do in a Tintin album, but I think it is the right kind of a gag for a Tintin movie. The Crane scene is another scene like that. you can take it seriously and leave offended, or you can take as half funny half pretty cool and winds up being a good way to wrap up the conflict between Rackham and Haddock while being a bit ridiculous and using the technology at the same time. Both kinds of gags have their place in Tintin’s world.
    Line’s like ”be true to yourself” are cliche, I’ll give you that, but I think the idea in this movie was not, ”no matter what, be you”, but rather ”don’t give in and give up”, and that fits very well with Tintin’s mindset. (look at Prisoners of the Sun or Tintin in Tibet).
    It might be a bit of a stretch to say the falcon had ”superpowers”:-) I think that Herges stereotypes came through well in both movies (without going into dangerous terrain by being racist or politically correct…e.g I never felt like any of the people in Morocco were portrayed in a derogatory way). But the villain and his thugs, and the foolish scotland yard policemen are portrayed as much like stereotypes as can be. And it works within the story and is often funny at the same time.
    One MAJOR issue with the movie being hand drawn in that Steven Spielberg has the rights to Tintin, and Herge himself was OK with that. Steven doesn’t do animated movies. The Mo-cap was the only way to stay as close to Herge’s art and still let Spielberg use real actors. And it let us see Tintin and his world in a beautiful new way. I think the huge focus they put on making everything look ”real” is a tribute to Herge’s perfectionism. The easter eggs, far from simply lazy gags thrown throughout the movie, are more of a tribute as well. Rather than make up a new car, use one Herge used somewhere else.
    Another issue with making it animated is, had it been hand drawn, it doubtless still would have used computers like all modern cartoons. There is a difference between the color of a ”new” movie like ”The Frog Princess” and the color of the old fashioned classics like Peter Pan. The result more than likely would have highlighted the differences between it and the original a bit too much, similar to how a new ”Scooby doo” show doesn’t look as nice as the old fashioned ones.
    There’s no need to assume that the committee is corrupt and giving movies rewards for ulterior motives (it may be true, I don’t follow it that much, but it still can’t really be proven) Cars 2 came out in Imax as well and didn’t win.
    I’m sure you never actually came out and called anybody stupid on this site, but sometimes your comments do come across as very negative to them. Sometimes it takes more than adding the phrase ”I hope I don’t offend anyone when I say this”. Whether it be your intention or not, even your opening remarks often come across as categorizing the Tintin movie fan as naive and wimpy. (e.g…come on, that first sentence of your comment here comes across as more of a dare to disagree than an apology in advance). I realize you are hurt and offended by this movie and the fact that it won an award like this doesn’t help that. In your defense, your very long statement was very respectful, and in my opinion made an interesting case for the old classic movies, while it may still be a matter of opinion on whether or not they are ”far better” than this new movie. It was, of all you’ve written here, the most enjoyable read for me.
    I was reminded though of this cartoon when I read you were up until one am. I can relate to this as well:
    http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpg

    🙂 I love thar cartoon…

  9. adesh

    Stephen, I wish there was like button here as they have on Facebook. I would have liked your response just based on the last cartoon you linked to. It was truly hilarious and made my day. Your post shows why you are respected here not just for running this site/blog but the way you write and are respectful and open minded about everyone/everything.

  10. Peter (the 2d fan)

    Thanks for the reply. I’ll answer again by using numbers because I’m easily getting confused otherwise.

    1) By ”nobody takes them seriously” though, I mean in a sense that they are not ”canonical” (most fans would agree Tintin didn’t REALLY go to Turkey or Spain…The live action Tintin did)
    ……

    It’s totally unimportant for the ideology where Tintin travels (didn’t you or Mike D. say that in Spielberg’s movie they way was the goal?) because he’s always the same featureless person while the people around him and the (equally featureless) Captain Haddock are still constantly at each other’s throat regardless how advanced they think their society system is. That doesn’t make them uncanonical in my opinion, it’s even a pro argument. I just wouldn’t count them in because they’re so cheap, haha.
    It is true that Tintin didn’t go to Turkey or Spain in the album history but he did visit states with similar political ideologies, even if their names were invented (Syldavia/Borduria – can’t remember which but one of them was meant to be Turkey, and Hergé had to change the name because they were allied with the Nazis. And don’t all these South American/Asian communist countries, or even Tintin In The Land of the Soviets resemble Franco’s dictatorship at that time in some way? Isn’t it already hilarious how someone like Franco allowed that a movie about Tintin was shot in his state?)

    ————————
    2) The Crane scene is another scene like that. you can take it seriously and leave offended, or you can take as half funny half pretty cool and winds up being a good way to wrap up the conflict between Rackham and Haddock while being a bit ridiculous and using the technology at the same time. Both kinds of gags have their place in Tintin’s world.
    …….

    Let’s get this straight, I didn’t feel offended because there were cranes in it or because I took it seriously. Actually I would have loved to see Tintin morphing into a bottle, or even exploding a rhino (as in Tintin In Congo).
    It was just the mass of these things – the falcon, the battle onboard of the unicorn, the plane, the crane fight, the chase scene with the bazooka. That was too much. and it happened the whole time, I had to follow this dull tintin plagiarism while he told Snowy (=us) his stupid thoughts (thank you, Mr Obvious!), or Haddock with his „I can run through walls“/“Be true to yourself“ thing (for further explanation see 3) ). There wasn’t a single scene where he actually felt a little bit lost and lonely, and had time to think what he does next. I wouldn’t even have minded some kind of deus ex machina, but making him so invulnerable and letting him get out of everything so easily doesn’t appeal to me. Watching Tintin reading out aloud like first grade pupil (several times!), that was an imposition, and an insult to the audience. Well, all of that is summed up in Lezard’s rant in the Guardian and I don’t want to repeat it all again.

    ———————–
    3) Line’s like ”be true to yourself” are cliche, I’ll give you that, but I think the idea in this movie was not, ”no matter what, be you”, but rather ”don’t give in and give up”, and that fits very well with Tintin’s mindset. (look at Prisoners of the Sun or Tintin in Tibet).
    ……..
    But still, there’s big difference between letting a character say this three times and just letting him act according to these virtues he (and I guess most people in the audience) already have internalized. I mean, that’s such an obvious, empty message everyone should have grown up with and saying it ten times doesn’t really convince you more. And hey, you say I could have misunderstood it. If that was the case it would be even worse, because children perhaps misunderstand it like I did. You agree with this by default regardless if you can’t yet articulate yourself properly, because your relatives set an example for it. This message is uninteresting for a good movie.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29
    (just note how often I said this is a bad film and how people felt more offended because of that, and vice versa)
    I’m not saying that Tintin has to be some kind of environmentalist film like Koyaanisqatsi or as historically accurate as Schindler’s List, or provide sexual education. But it should at least raise questions that come close to those of Hergé and (i don’t know how often I’ve said it) makes you think, i.e. Is our society so much different from the 1920s or whatever time was shown by Hergé (we have a financial crisis now and lots of revolutions now! Okay, perhaps the revolutions happened while the movie was almost finished, but then these regimes were all still there.), how do I become like Tintin/Haddock? what does it say about Hergé, or mankind, or myself? who of those characters behaves like real people I know, and do I deal with them like Tintin/Haddock does?
    Is democracy always perfect, or are there really exceptions comparable to, say, the Emir Ben-Salaad or King Ottokar?

    Just some examples. Of course the answers vary from person to person.

    ———————–

    4) […]A: Steven Spielberg has the rights to Tintin, and Herge himself was OK with that. B: Steven doesn’t do animated movies. C: The Mo-cap was the only way to stay as close to Herge’s art and still let Spielberg use real actors. D: And it let us see Tintin and his world in a beautiful new way. I think the huge focus they put on making everything look ”real” is a tribute to Herge’s perfectionism. E: The easter eggs, far from simply lazy gags thrown throughout the movie, are more of a tribute as well. Rather than make up a new car, use one Herge used somewhere else.

    ………
    A: As I’ve explained in 1) in my previous post, that doesn’t make it a good movie. Hergé was a great artist and storyteller, but at that time he couldn’t know that the young aspiring Hollywood director would become one of those bores he despised. Hergé never saw this movie, probably not even a 3d movie (well, TRON came out one year before he died) so it’s simply not a valid argument. Even if he had liked it it doesn’t mean it’s good movie, just like some of the modern art Hergé collected is today regarded as worthless (apart from the fact that HERGÉ collected it) while some isn’t.

    B: Well, everyone knows he created such CGI milestones such as Jurassic Park or produced the Men In Black franchise which used a lot of animatronic robots as well. But if I’m correct you’re talking about 2d animation – then you should watch Roger Rabbit – okay, he was only the producer there but still….if you’re a director/producer and not some random animator it makes no real difference if you deal with actors or cartoon figures.

    (I guess 2d would even offer more freedom than ‘real’ video because you have far less limits, and unlike 3d, it allows little random ‘mistakes’ which make the process more interesting. there’s a telling anecdote about someone who visited the Disney studios and saw all the drafts for their next movie, and said it would be far more interesting to show this ‘raw’ version. It’s somewhere in ‘the illusion of life’ book, I’ll come back to that later).

    C: well, that’s like saying „bananas are yellow because they are yellow bananas“. I’d still question whether it was the right approach – they could have done a terrific 2d movie and still have good voice talents. Or a „normal“ great movie with real actors that are actually looking vulnerable because they consist of flesh and blood and thus make you care for them.

    D: I’ve said this before too. The movie is using hyperrealism. You know…that’s a touchy subject for me. I wrote a term paper about Ron Mueck (hyperrealistic sculptor), Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland), J. Swift (Gulliver’s Travels) and Slinkachu (street artist) – 12 pages! I love hyperrealism and I love the sheer fact that it’s now possible to make movies with it. But there’s a difference (and that was one of the results of my old text): Mueck/Slinkachu use it to display humans as vulnerable beings, and Spielberg does the exact opposite – Tintin playing in God-mode.
    It’s the opposite Hergé’s style, because he reduced absolutely everything on the surface, putting all in an obviously artificial and seemingly detail-free world, creating time and room for the readers to identify with Tintin. It’s not a tribute to Hergé but a sign that they can’t imitate him, or an attempt to cover up what a ridiculous collage the plot is.

    E: That’s called eclecticism, and no art historian in the world will tell you that it is a sign of great talent or originality, especially when you have the means to do something better. For example, the petit vingtieme appearing on a desk, or the fetish from The Broken Ear – „Great, I know that from somewhere. Now what?“ Yes, the cars were indeed nice, but you know…I think that’s all unimportant when the other things are so idiotic. There are lots of bad movies with a Citroen DS in it, simply because the DS is a beautiful car and I guess the directors hope that the movie will benefit from it, because then he’s showing that he’s distinguished and has taste. Does that make him a better director? Certainly not.
    ———————–

    5) Another issue with making it animated is, had it been hand drawn, it doubtless still would have used computers like all modern cartoons. There is a difference between the color of a ”new” movie like ”The Frog Princess” and the color of the old fashioned classics like Peter Pan. The result more than likely would have highlighted the differences between it and the original a bit too much, similar to how a new ”Scooby doo” show doesn’t look as nice as the old fashioned ones.

    ………
    I partly disagree, but I sympathize.
    I find as well that using computers to help coloring/drawing a 2d animation movie is less appealing to me because I think it’s like cheating. You don’t really have to be an artist to show a plausible explosion or something like that. 40 years ago, Canadian animator Ryan Larkin got an Academy Award just because he made short animation (completely alone – just like McCay – see Appendix). Imagine what someone like him could have made with more money, or more help. Or Bonzetto. These people didn’t use mocap. They just knew how living beings moved, because they spent time to carefully observe them. Hergé photographed himself or his friends, copied and stylized it and put it in his books.

    The difference between the „old“ and the „new“ Disney movies isn’t just that they use computers – they’re just too lazy and don’t want the movies to cost too much, they just use the technology for the sake of it. Nobody can really check how expensive these movies are, the only source for that is the production company. I don’t believe in a big conspiracy but I do think that they wouldn’t have to pay a lot more than they actually (claim to) pay if they’d make a classical 2d movie, and it would also be more successful if it’s well done. I firmly believe that Disney, Spielberg and all the other industry tycoons are full of shit whenever they self-complacently praise each other’s crap at some random industry event.

    There are many great 2d short films where each frame is still hand-drawn (and often hand-colored as well), and at the same time some elements of 3d are used to allow more camera freedom and help the artists to learn how they have to draw the background to make the movement more fluid (not necessarily more realistic or convincing). For me, that would be the way to go.

    I’ve also enjoyed the old Scobby Doo quite a lot, and was a bit disappointed by the remake but I never liked the series as much as Tintin. Animators simply need to be real, talented artists again and not people that only know how a 3d/2d animation program or Photoshop can be used. But these things can help them and make it a lot easier, if not overused.

    [Some years ago I often watched the Pink Elephant sequence from Dumbo to understand how they made it – now I’ve read The Illusion of Life by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston (aka the bible of animation) and I got a relatively clear understanding of their technique now but it would take too long to explain that. I can recommend that book…I own a copy, but there are also some (poorly scanned) pdf versions on a few pirate sites -you can’t get a new version anymore and it’s pretty expensive so perhaps that’s the only alternative.]

    ———————–

    6) There’s no need to assume that the committee is corrupt and giving movies rewards for ulterior motives (it may be true, I don’t follow it that much, but it still can’t really be proven) Cars 2 came out in Imax as well and didn’t win.
    …………..

    I didn’t say that they’re all corrupt – but they don’t encourage anyone to make good movies by awarding useless, meaningless blockbusters that may be an audience magnet but not really a work of art that questions common beliefs in a completely new way or have a profound concept (for example, Gattaca had – did it get an Oscar? no.), does it show something you have never seen before and does it use its idiosyncratic look to express something or just to overwhelm your senses?
    what did you think when you left the cinema? what of it will you remember in a year? what does it want to tell me and why? can it be compared to some other recent movies? would you be able to watch that film 20 times in a row and still discover something new, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, or the Godfather trilogy, or even Tim Burton’s Big Fish?

    After so many years, the Oscar jury still doesn’t ask these questions, the only question they seem to ask is „what did I feel while watching it“. Movies that make only sense if you widen their context don’t fall under this category and are simply overseen.

    I think that’s the wrong approach to rate a movie. A gross example how idiotic that point of view is: during WWII, Germans cheered when they saw an image of Hitler because they finally got work again, now they realized what price they paid for that and what terrible things they did, and nobody wants to see such a monster ever again.

    ———————–

    7) Yeah, I can relate to the guy in the cartoon. Btw, have you ever heard of Chris Ware? 😀
    He said somewhere that he was inspired by Hergé and you can really see a few similarities. I like him more than Charles Burns (who also claims that Hergé is his artistic idols) although he isn’t that bad either. Also I’ve mentioned this before, take a look at Jacobs’ Blake and Mortimer. He has absolutely the same drawing quality Hergé had, although he took his stories super-seriously. I often said that the Tintin albums are a document of their time – and this applies for Jacobs even more.
    If anyone from the ligne claire artists, he’d have been ideal for a Spielberg film.

    ———————-
    Appendix

    Chris Ware
    (very large image)
    http://www.entrecomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/061127on_ware_5.gif

    Edgar P. Jacobs (who by the way made one or two cameos in the Tintin albums):

    http://www.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/2003/geist-soz/1/bilder-1/21_autoverkehr/a_0301.jpg

    Winsor McCay (Both Hergé’s and Disney’s idol – the circle closes, haha)

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8361041/Little_Nemo_buildings.jpg

    One of the first animation films, every single frame drawn by McCay himself

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seOGEwx0NfQ

    Ryan Larkin (who later became a homeless drunkard and recently died of lung cancer iirc. watch some of the last interviews with him and you get the idea.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpE_ETl0S58

    Some Disney links:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN-eCBAOw60
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhfp6Z8z1cI

    A nice article about Tintin’s movie history I’ve come across I haven’t visited for ages, where I tried to find those Disney links again – HIGHLY recommended (I’m now going to read the related texts as well of course, but this is enough for now I guess):

    http://www.cartoonbrew.com/comics/every-tintin-adaptation%E2%80%94and-how-spielberg-matches-up.html

  11. Trix

    Wow. A full persuasive text, with an appendix too! Next time, when I visit here, there will be a whole book! LOL! (no offence or anything, I just think it’s funny).
    😉

  12. Mike Dutton

    A friend of mine has informed me earlier today, that he has heard of two actors, both of which are candidates for Calculus and are going to, or have already been, approached by the producers of the Tintin sequel at some point later in the year.

    The two actors are John Hurt, who has been in many, many films over the years, and Sylvester McCoy, who is probably most famous for his portrayal of the Seventh Doctor in Doctor Who.

    My friend gave me no links to prove this, and I have searched myself but have found no proof of his statement, so it could be his own personal speculation. That being said, I would like to consider the possibilities of what we could expect from either of these two in the role.

    As we may all know, John Hurt appeared as a scientist in Indiana Jones 4. It has been a while since I saw the film, but my friend insists that his characteristics were very close to Calculus. From what I remember of the film, I don’t personally believe that there is a connection. However, the possibilities of Hurt playing the absent-minded professor are always possible.

    As for McCoy, I have only seen two or three Doctor Who serials that he performed in, and from what I saw, I expect he is more likely to be given the part. Besides, he was cast in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit. Coincidence? Very likely, but I feel that maybe he has the bigger chance, now that he is working with Peter.

    As I said, this is all the rumour of a friend who have no proof or links to me. For all I know, he might have been having me on! Nevertheless, if anybody finds anything that might shed light on this, please let me know.

  13. Archibald

    Thanks for the huge scoop, Mike Dutton ! If it’s true that’s quite something !

    I knew John Hurt could be Calculus, he was basically Calculus in Indiana Jones 4, as you said.
    I’m not familiar with McCoy work yet, but I will try to see some of his soon 🙂

    Anyway, thanks, again !

Comments are closed.