Bee Movie

Post by **Daniel** » October 12th, 2007, 6:05 pm

Nope, I'll have to keep an eye out for them. Thanks for the notice, though.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 14th, 2007, 10:28 pm

Has anyone seen this poster:

http://www.impawards.com/2007/bee_movie_ver4_xlg.html

Post by **Daniel** » October 15th, 2007, 1:25 am

Not to repeat myself, but no. Cute poster, and I laughed at the tag;

"Honey Just Got Funny".

Post by **EricJ** » October 15th, 2007, 2:03 am

I dunno, I see the animation in the ads and think, "...Shouldn't he have a French accent and be talking about allergy spray?"

Post by **Ben** » October 15th, 2007, 8:23 am

Wow, November 2! That came quick!

I preferred an older logo, with the hexagonal "bee" shape in the "O" of Movie. Looks like they're going the old heavy bold font look again for the tag lines.

There is something about the DWs eyes that work better than the Pixar ones. Pixar's eyes look like flat discs, whereas DWs eyes always have a bit more going on with them.

Post by **Meg** » October 15th, 2007, 4:03 pm

Really? I've always preferred Pixar eyes m'self, at least human-wise.

Post by **Ben** » October 16th, 2007, 7:12 am

Pixar eyes, to me, are all the same. There are no nuances between McQueen's eyes and, say Sully's.

They got it in Toy Story, and with Mike in Monsters, but otherwise they're always too clean, polished looking, too bright and vibrant. They stick out like they're on an upper layer instead of within the eyeball.

The eyes in Cars really got to me actually. Instead of like Polar Express where they were bland, the Cars eyes were just flat discs. The <I>expressions</I> and what was going on around them were great, but those pupils, without hair or anything to connect them to the face, just showed how flat they seem, especially as they were stuck in those huge areas of white.

I can't say I've ever even thought of DreamWorks' eyes until now, which goes to show how more naturalistic they are, at least to me.

On the other hand, Beowulf still looks dead. They need <I>more</I> Pixar life in them!

Post by **Vernadyn** » October 17th, 2007, 3:29 pm

I never noticed that. Is it possible that DreamWorks actually does something important better than Pixar?

As far as the human characters in the Brad Bird films, however, I think their eyes are waaay deeper than human eyes in DreamWorks films. It's not so much that the Pixar human eyes are so amazing--certainly the character animation is peerless in the industry, but the eyes themselves aren't too special--it's just that the DreamWorks human eyes put me off so much. In fact, everything about their human characters puts me off.

But as for other characters, you may well be right. One of Pixar's many strengths seems to be the character animation, so maybe they don't pay as much attention to the eyes themselves.

Post by **Meg** » October 17th, 2007, 4:24 pm

The eyes in Cars really got to me actually. Instead of like Polar Express where they were bland, the Cars eyes were just flat discs. The expressions and what was going on around them were great, but those pupils, without hair or anything to connect them to the face, just showed how flat they seem, especially as they were stuck in those huge areas of white.

Ah, Cars - yes, I can see it in Cars.

You still haven't seen Ratatouille yet, right?

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 17th, 2007, 9:23 pm

Well about the eyes thing....Pixar's characters have a great innocence about them, (especially in Finding Nemo) but the creators use that vulnerable/wide-eyed thing way too much. I thought Linguini in Rat was a step in the right direction, but all the stuff with Remy was more of the same. (And WALL-E doesn't look all that different either, at least where eyes are concerned.)

Linguini was a step in the right direction. (visually, his character seemed a big more complex than most Pixar humans or anthropomorphics)

I also wonder if maybe that's part of the reason whey they don't like having villains. The eyes would need much more development there.

EDIT: Actually, I'd have to add that Anton Ego definitely had more going on with his eyes than previous Pixar characters.

On the other hand, Beowulf still looks dead.

As did Polar Express and Monster House.....

Post by **droosan** » October 18th, 2007, 2:32 am

Eh .. I've always thought of Pixar's clean, pure-white eyeballs as a 'John Lasseter signature/house-style' thing .. kind of like the beady-eyes touching in the middle/four teeth on top/eight teeth on bottom 'design aesthetic' of Nick Park and Aardman Animation.

Post by **Ben** » October 18th, 2007, 5:38 am

Vi, I think you're confusing design and expression with the actual pupil eyes we're looking at.

Yeah, droo, I agree it's a Lasseter signature look, but that doesn't help me get over the fact that their eyes do look like discs on a lot of their characters - not all, but a lot.

Even Meg can see what I'm saying with Cars.

Post by **ShyViolet** » October 20th, 2007, 4:47 pm

Vi, I think you're confusing design and expression with the actual pupil eyes we're looking at. Smile

I saw Ratatouille again last night!

Yes, the movements of the main characters are astounding, but yeah--the eyes have no variety to them at all.

Skinner's eyes were actually not that different from Linguini's other than the whole "angry/unhappy" look that's grafted onto "mean" (as opposed to evil) Pixar characters.

I think it's partly because the Lassetter eyes were started when they were still doing the shorts. They need to move beyond that.

Post by **Meg** » October 20th, 2007, 9:25 pm

I disagree. I think the eyes in Rat (on the humans, anyway) were some of the best I've ever seen in a CG film. A lot of depth in there.

Post by **Daniel** » October 22nd, 2007, 4:11 am

From what I've seen, I concur.

I've been seeing some new Bee Movie commercials, and one in particular, shows Barry escaping being flushed down a toilet and while doing so, (surfing) he says 'surfs up'. Surfers do say that, so its not that much of a spoof/parody of Surf's Up, but I guess its how you interpret it... Or it could be an add libbed line that won't even be in the movie.