[Uncategorized]
[movies] The Adventures of Tintin
I went to see The Adventures of Tintin [ imdb ] yesterday by myself, several successive plans to go with ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=1){kind=small}
the_child
Speaking of producers and director, I was struck by the number of Big Names associated with this film. Amblin Entertainment, WingNut FIlms, Nickelodeon, Columbia and Paramount. I pay very little attention to the business side of Hollywood, but this seems odd even to me.
The story was serviceable and entertaining, with only a few “come on, really?” moments. (The falcon chase scene was one of those for me.) I could have done with a bit less boozy bullshit from Captain Haddock, but there were plenty of clever and funny bits to offset my mild annoyances. It never really grabbed me, though, and I’m not sure what might have been changed in order to have grabbed me.
As i said, I wound up being a lot more fascinated by the production itself. There are whole stretches of this movie where it barely looks like animation at all. If not for an effort to maintain Hergé’s visual style with the characters (which was certainly the correct production decision in my opinion), the people would have been almost alarming realistic. Tintin himself, with his snub nose, is almost convincing, as are many of the background characters. I think with this movie, film animators have very nearly bridged the uncanny valley.
I’m specifically thinking back to the transitions in how the humans are rendered in the three Toy Story movies (1995, 1999, 2010). In the first movie, the human characters are cartoonish, caricatures really except for Andy himself. They don’t come anywhere near the uncanny valley. By the third movie, people look if not realistic at least convincing. They’re approaching the uncanny valley. Or compare Tintin to Polar Express [ imdb ], where I for one find the animation disturbing to the point of nightmarish, stuck deep in the shadows at the bottom of the valley. Tintin manages to gain a foothold on this side of the valley with its characters, reinforced by the nearly photorealistic animation of sets, props, vehicles, etc.
Honestly, for the story you could wait for the dollar theatre or the DVD rental. But if you’re interested in animation and the technology of cinema, The Adventures of Tintin is worth seeing on the big screen.
Related Posts
Posted: 8:19 am Sun January 08 2012 |
Where am I?
You are reading the blog of Jay Lake, speculative fiction writer and author of hundreds of short stories, many novels, and winner of the John W. Campbell Award.
Learn more here.
Comments
« [photos] Your Sunday moment of zen | [links] Link salad takes to the skies once more »
The main thing that makes Polar Express bad is that the characters’ eyes never focus on who they are talking to; we humans notice eye focus on humanoid characters, and that focus is just enough off to make us nervous, IMO.
I haven’t seen Tintin, but probably won’t in the theatre; I’m less interested in an animated version than I was in the original comic strips; what is really great draughtsmanship (again, IMO) would not impress me as CG. One hand drawing vs. many, many hands, if you know what I mean.
Regarding big names involved in The Adventures of Tintin, you forgot writer Steven Moffat who is the headwriter on both Doctor Who and the BBC Sherlock and a very big name indeed. On the UK poster for the Tintin film, Moffat’s name was bigger than Spielberg’s.
I’m still not planning to watch it, though. I grew up with the original comics and the traditionally animated adaptions. A CGI version made entirely by Brits and Americans just seems wrong to me.
“It never really grabbed me, though, and I’m not sure what might have been changed in order to have grabbed me.”
That’s pretty much my reaction to the original Tintin books. Just never enthused me.
[...] Jay Lake on The Adventures of Tintin. [...]