Tintin

[Ben]

...

[ELIOLI]

Can someone explain to me the difference in Chico and Rita for rotoscoping? Unless it was some entirely different process...
I am not surprised that Tintin didn't get in, maybe another category in the future. :/

[Dacey]

I figured you'd be sad, Ben.

From the trailer at least, the rotoscoping in the "Chico and Rita" looked a little bit...off to my eyes. Almost like they were computer-generated characters in 2D backgrounds.

Maybe the academy just wanted to animated a "serious" film over Tintin, one that didn't try to force tears out of its audience, but instead just wanted them to have a lot of fun.

[Randall]

Puss in Boots? Seriously? Yech. That movie was well-done for the most part, but the plot fell apart at the end. KFP2 was pretty good, but not great. Rango is deserving for sure. Haven't seen the others, but I did just get Chico and Rita on Blu-ray (from the UK), so I'll have to watch it soon. A Cat in Paris doesn't appeal to me too much, having watched the trailer, though I'd be interested to see it sometime.

Too bad about Tintin. I certainly would have picked it over KFP2 or Puss anyhow.

At least Cars 2 didn't get a nom!

[LotsoA113]

For my money, Chico and Rita and Puss in Boots should have fell in favor of Tonyin and either Arthur Christmas or Winnie The Pooh. just my 2 cents though

[hcjehg]

Can someone explain to me the difference in Chico and Rita for rotoscoping? Unless it was some entirely different process...
:/

Hi ELIOLI

Well I guess it depends of your definition of rotoscoping...

WikiPedia says:

"Rotoscoping is an animation technique in which animators trace over live-action film movement, frame by frame, for use in animated films."

For me the important words are "frame by frame" - or almost all frames, but that is of course up for discussion.

The process:

The film was shot as live action as that is the preferred medium of the director. Later a couple of frames each second was traced over to create the animatic. If there were camera movements the film was also motion tracked for the purpose of building simple (very boxy) 3D models of background and some props, mainly cars, but also scenes with interaction between characters and background and/or props.

The "a couple of frames each second" were given to the animators as "drawn animatic", sometimes superimposed on a wire-frame of the necessary 3d elements. If I remember correctly each scene was produced according to one of 6 different work-flows depending on camera movements interactions between characters/background/props.

If rotoscoping means using many details of the objects traced then this is not really rotoscoping either... It was not always the same actor playing the same role in the live action film. I have seen at least two different women in the role of Rita in the live action version. Props were not traced precisely either. In some cases placeholder objects were used in stead of the ones they were supposed to be.

As mentioned above it is up for discussion what rotoscoping really means, but one thing is sure.

All characters were drawn on paper with pencil and then scanned into ToonBoom Harmony. Transferred, rendered and presented to the supervisors and directors by HoBSoft. Coloring was done digitally in ToonBoom harmony.

You can see technical and other stuff about it here:

http://www.hobsoft.net/cases/chico

http://www.hobsoft.net/cases/page_chico ... d_rita.pdf

http://animationmagazine.us1.list-manag ... d67a0f4d9a

http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/images/2010/1 ... Garzon.jpg

http://www.tv3.cat/videos/1075779/Maris ... -associats
This is in Spanish but shows the relaxed atmosphere in Estudio Mariscal
Also note that this shows early tracing of the live action - while they were working out how to select the "animatic" traces.

http://animatedviews.com/forum/viewtopi ... o&start=15

What is your definition of rotoscope ?

HC

[hcjehg]

Almost like they were computer-generated characters in 2D backgrounds.

It's funny you say it like that, because it is actually the backgrounds that were "kind'a computer generated" and the characters that were hand drawn

Backgrounds and props (mainly cars) for scenes with camera movement were modeled very boxy in 3d and textured with hand drawn 2D drawings.

All characters were hand drawn, Rough, Key and Cleanup - on paper - based on traces of a couple of frames each second from the "live action animatic" - the main director comes from a live action background. He, Fernando Trueba, also directed "Belle epoque - The Age of Beauty" in 1992, and he gained an Oscar at that occasion.

Rotoscope, motion capture, computer generated - or not...

...my personal opinion is that they have manged to make a film with a very special look, animated but not cartoony (as for instance Tex Avery), and for the adult public.
An aesthetic explosion in design, colors, music and Love sigh Javier Mariscal, Tono Errando and Fernando Trueba has created their own personal (yes all three) portrait of this period.

It has gained so many prizes at festivals all over that they can't all be wrong...

And it makes two nominated animated features in a row for me!

HC

[EricJ]

Think they just plain chickened out with Tintin--The Animation voters thought they'd leave it to the VFX voters because of the Mocap Rule, and the VFX voters thought they'd leave it to the Animation voters because it wasn't really straight Mocap.

And Rango's still too fringe-y to be a serious contender outside of its cult base--
I'm looking at that odd anomaly of having TWO arthouse nominees this year, which they don't usually...That could mean Chico & Rita is the "favorite" for unique style, but, y'know, didn't want to say that with the guy right here.

[Ben]

Well, I am perplexed by much of the Oscars this year. I mean, seriously, Scorsese for Hugo? Hmph.

I am very glad Cars 2 was not nom'd, which proves Pixar can't just serve up crud and have everyone bow to it.

I am knocked for six on the others though: Puss In Boots? Panda 2? Rango I'm pleased for - and I think has it in the bag - but these are just very strange noms. I'm pleased for Chico, too. Yes, the effect is rotoscoped hand-drawn characters in a CG-ish world but the styling is very unique.

The story was what slightly frustrated me, though; I didn't feel it was as cohesive or epic as the timescale might have suggested. And despite the higly stylized art, I did think it might have made for a very stunning and "worthy" live-action film. However, that said, it is something different in animation and there are several one off shots where the looseness of the roto/drawing is exceptional: some unspoken looks from characters - Rita in particular - speak volumes and are so good they're perfect.

A Cat In Paris I've yet to see much of, but A Monster In Paris has been getting a lot of trailer time here and looks fun!

[Dacey]

I mean, seriously, Scorsese for Hugo? Hmph.

That's because "Hugo" was incredible.

I do agree about "Puss," though. It was fine and dandy, but didn't really strike me as one of the year's "best."

[LotsoA113]

Dacey hit it on the nail. Puss decent, borderline great at times, but it never struck me as much more than that. Kung Fu Panda 2 is actually great and deserves the nom, though Rango should win.

I have no idea why Spielberg wasn't nominated for Best Director. War Horse was fantastic and should've go in over Tree Of Life's Terrance Malik. That just my lights though. Obviously I've had TOO much time to think abou this:

[EricJ]

Well, I am perplexed by much of the Oscars this year. I mean, seriously, Scorsese for Hugo? Hmph.

I've run into average mainstream people who literally...literally....Well, put it this way, just ran into one poster yesterday who argued about "Why the Academy shut Hugo out of Best Animated"...

I'm guessing you haven't seen it or it hasn't opened overseas yet? It's NOT a "Railroad Station Alone" movie about plucky Harry-Potter orphans and Sasha Cohen falling into a cake (he doesn't, btw), and no, Hugo doesn't have a white dog and ride a motorcycle.
If you've read the book, you already know why self-appointed TCM film historian Scorsese was so attracted to the project, and why he turned it into a allegory about how other "misunderstood" directors at the dawn of technology used "strange" new inventions (ahem3D) to make their "visionary" films. Believe me, it's the stuff the Oscar voters lap up, and even if Marty does take it farther in that direction than the original book did, the book's emotional climax is brought off well, too. It's also a darn good movie, but that's not what wins the award.
When you hear it called a "kiddy" movie, it's the red flag of who's seen the movie and who hasn't. We blame the ads/marketing, and we want restitution.

Problem is, The Artist swooped in around the same time and grabbed all of Hugo's "It's about Hollywood, and the magic of silent movies!" thunder, especially with people who hadn't seen it yet--If someone described them on paper, would you think The Artist or Hugo was a movie "about" movies?
They're neck-and-neck at the moment for Picture, but I'm sadly guessing a sweep-mentality for Artist (for reasons detailed above), and HOPING for the minimum of Scorsese taking Director on the basis of his "statement".
(It's the same directors' "Why shouldn't we take 3D seriously?" statement that voters used two years ago when they wanted to justify voting for Avatar, but now this one they don't have to be as embarrassed about.)

[estefan]

I haven't seen Chico & Rita and A Cat in Paris (though I really want to see the latter), so I can't comment on those. I have no problem with Kung Fu Panda 2 and Rango getting nominated. I thought Panda 2 topped the first one and Rango was a unique and fun homage to classic westerns. I'm disappointed Rio (my favourite animated film of the year) wasn't nominated for Animated Feature, but at least, it's up for a song as a consolation prize. Though I expect the Muppets will win in that category.*

Also would have liked to have seen Winnie the Pooh in there, but I guess they found Cat in Paris to be the more charming, small-budget hand-drawn feature. Again, can't comment, because I haven't seen Paris. And I also want to throw a bone to Arthur Christmas. Oh, well. Maybe Aardman will get in next year for the Pirates. And from the looks of things, 2012 will be especially competitive.

I also have to agree on Puss in Boots. I found it rather mediocre. Once the story started, Humpty was introduced and they left the Mexican town, I slowly began to lose interest in the whole thing. As for Tintin not getting nominated, I can understand why it wasn't, seeing as it is motion-capture. What's crazy is the visual effects branch not including it on their short-list. If Rise of the Planet of the Apes could get nominated for visual effects using the exact same technology and crew, Tintin could have gone in, too.

Overall, looking over the various categories, it's not a bad selection of nominees. The Artist, Hugo and Midnight in Paris (oddly, all three of which tackle similar themes) were three of my favourites of the year, so I'm glad they did well.

Really, the only categories that make me go "huh?" at their selections are the sound ones. War Horse uses sound excellently and Hugo and Transformers were solid, too. However, no Super 8? That train crash alone was superb. I'm shocked they actually snubbed Ben Burtt for that film. Also, however you feel about Cars 2, the sound design was fantastic especially in the racing sequences. I also felt The Adventures of Tintin and Captain America used their sound to great effect.

Listen to this clip and tell me if the sound work is under-whelming:



*Seriously, only two nominations, though? They could have thrown Star Spangled Man, So Long, Life's a Happy Song and Hello Hello into the mix, too. This wasn't a bad year for movie songs at all.

[EricJ]

Really, the only categories that make me go "huh?" at their selections are the sound ones. War Horse uses sound excellently and Hugo and Transformers were solid, too.

Not to continually gush about Hugo, but none of Scorsese's 3D was as amazingly immersive as the surround-sound ticking of clocks in the opening shot.

*Seriously, only two nominations, though? They could have thrown Star Spangled Man, So Long, Life's a Happy Song and Hello Hello into the mix, too. This wasn't a bad year for movie songs at all.

That was just embarrassing.
I expected "Happy" to be the Obligatory Muppet Fanboy entry--or at least Happy and Muppet for the annual "Oh, let's just give them the whole category this year", for the sake of multiple production numbers--Hello to be The One Everyone Remembered because it got a Golden Globe, and held out hopes for Spangled as three-nomination filler (c'mon, just ONE Alan Menken Marvel song?)
But this seems more like the overbearing "fun" nomination, like the year everyone wanted to be cute about giving "Blame Canada" from South Park a nom.

[Bill1978]

I blame the ridiculous rules surrounding the osng section for the craziness of 2 noms this year. Sure have a rule about the use of the song in the film, but why apply an arbitary scoring sysyem. It's not like other catergories use a silly average system to determine their nominees (so they). So whaty if its 5 crap songs in one year, sometimes the acting fields are very weak and 5 still get nommed. 2011 was a strong year for songs so only 2 is crazy. I think Muppets have it in the bag BUT I will admit Jason's singing makes it a difficult listen compared to the ultimate fun of the Rio song.

Back on topic: Surprised that Tintin got a snub. Happy for Kung Fu Panda 2 and Rango. WOuld have slipped Tintin in over Puss, and though I haven't seen the other 2 'artsy' one very disappointed that Rio couldn't manage a nod and that Winnie didn't sneak in. After watching it last week I would probably say it's my favourite animated film of 2011 - hell I think The Backson Song got robbed.