Flushed Away

Post by **Meg** » May 18th, 2006, 4:34 pm

Oh, then okay!

Post by **Dacey** » May 18th, 2006, 4:42 pm

Say, are we old enough to gamble?

Post by **Ben** » May 18th, 2006, 5:05 pm

Kaszubas wrote:Ben - You're a litte bit too harsh on them. Yes - some backgrounds look flat, badly lighted and shaded, and too aseptic, Yes - some effects work needs more effort to make them look good, Yes - fart jokes are annoying, but characters look quite good, and are animated quite well (nice aardman claymation lipsync stylization). I just hope they'll fine tune all flaws and make this movie look dirtier. Of course there are drawbacks of that CGI imitation of claymation style, but it's always nice to diversify stylisation in 3d animations.

Um, I'm not being harsh at all.

This is a top flight movie coming from a top flight studio, and not just one for that matter, but two leaders in the field. The main studio in question, Aardman, has an amazing track record of stylised, full quality animation. They are laying themselves open to criticism by jumping into the CGI waters. That's part and parcel of making a movie! And making a switch like this from a very established format is only going to play up the differences more.

The main question, if going for the same house style...is WHY change the way in which these films have been made so well for so long? What's the gain in quality? Answer: none.

If this is how the film will look, the no amount of "dirtying" up the backgrounds will help this dribble...if it is not how the film will look, then the studios just bring this heap of badmouthing on themselves by releasing work in progress trailers.

Personally, I think this is it, barring some tweaking. This trailer would have had all its shots rendered first. It just looks poor, and the DreamWorks thumbprints of wind gags don't do anything to help...

Post by **Kaszubas** » May 18th, 2006, 5:43 pm

Meg wrote:Ah well, I'm 100% sure it's playing with OtH so you can see it then.

hehe

It's so much connected with OtH that it has its title sticked on it

Post by **Kaszubas** » May 18th, 2006, 6:25 pm

Ben wrote: Um, I'm not being harsh at all.

Well... I don't know Ben...

We're all entitled to our opinions. But I thought that We all learned that first trailer is not enought to flush a movie down the toilet... Many ppl did so with Cars after first teaser, The Incredibles (lipsync off) after first clips, The Wild (first OpenGL screens). And many ppl didn't like Madagascar design at all, many claimed Chicken Run was not "real" plasticine Aardman (no finger prints on the surface).

I hope they (Aardman) won't give up claymation - I hope it's just trying out another graphic quality in CGI movie, and we should consider it just like another DW story with aardmanish stylisation and not core Aardman movie. It's targeted at wider international audience. Maybe we just don't know what to expect from this movie yet. We're not used to this look & feel. I bet that if the story is going to be captivating or at least funny it won't matter if they preserve aardman soul and plasticine body. I'll wait and see how this will turn up (vide "not so great" visuals of "Hoodwinked").

Post by **Meg** » May 18th, 2006, 6:29 pm

Wendy's Jane wrote:Say, are we old enough to gamble?

I'm not, but I'm not sure about you!

I hope they (Aardman) won't give up claymation

Yeah, me too! The Aardman style is justso much better in stop-motion.

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » May 20th, 2006, 12:33 am

Anyone else notice the stuffed Gromit doll at the opening of the trailer - look to the bottom left. They sure are feeding off alot of other animated movies - and this is only the trailer.

Post by **animated_guy** » May 20th, 2006, 12:35 am

yeah XP i hope this isnt a cheesy rip off of other movies all put together...
~a-G

Post by **Meg** » May 20th, 2006, 11:31 am

Brandon Neeld wrote:Anyone else notice the stuffed Gromit doll at the opening of the trailer - look to the bottom left. They sure are feeding off alot of other animated movies - and this is only the trailer.

I saw the Gromit, but I didn't mind it at all. I have no problem with studios hiding little refs to their other films - Pixar and Disney do it, too.

Post by **Dacey** » May 20th, 2006, 3:04 pm

Oh, Gromit's in the trailer! How sweet!

Post by **Brandon Neeld** » May 20th, 2006, 6:10 pm

Don't get me wrong - I love the little refferences and the Gromit was definitely subtle. It's just you usually don't see them in the trailer like that and to show two like that makes me wonder how many there are total.

Post by **Kinoo** » May 20th, 2006, 8:41 pm

Brandon Neeld wrote:Don't get me wrong - I love the little refferences and the Gromit was definitely subtle. It's just you usually don't see them in the trailer like that and to show two like that makes me wonder how many there are total.

And waht about the teaser for Lilo and Stitch (Inter-Stitch-Als) where Ariel, Aladdin, Rafiki and Belle starred? ? ?

Post by **animated_guy** » May 21st, 2006, 2:41 pm

Kinoo wrote:
And waht about the teaser for Lilo and Stitch (Inter-Stitch-Als) where Ariel, Aladdin, Rafiki and Belle starred? ? ?

i loved those! they were fun and original

~a-G

Post by **Ben** » May 21st, 2006, 3:43 pm

The Stitch teasers (and I don't even know why I am bothering to write this!) were a completely different deal since the entire campaign revolved around the fact that joining the Disney "family" was a new creation like nothing seen before, and one that didn't quite fit in.

The cameos from the other Disney stars were limited to the teasers...not to appearances in the film itself, like the Beast was in Aladdin, Scar was in Hercules, and Stitch himself was in Treasure Planet.

That's what Brandon was getting at here...that such in-jokes are never usually alluded to that strongly in the film's teaser!

Post by **Meg** » May 21st, 2006, 6:17 pm

Stitch himself was in Treasure Planet.

He was? In which scene?