I have just seen this movie and I am absolutely blown away at how horrible it was. I really did try to go into this movie with an open mind and try to look past the fact that it was mo-cap'd, but I couldn't. It stuck out like a sore thumb much like the rotoscopeing did in Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the rings movie. Not only that, but it totally made the characters extremely uninteresting and flat. I felt no life, or personality from them, they became completely two dimensional. I do give them credit for the technical aspect of the animation, such as the eye muscles moving on the face mesh and the rendering of the ice and snow in the speed scenes. However too much focus was placed on these, almost to the point where it felt like a lot of shots and scenes from the movie were just put in to show off the technique they used.
Also going back to the motion capture, I really think that the movie would have been so much better had they actually animated the characters manually and not rely on the actors. I can understand the reasoning behind the approach, but It really did not work in my opinion. The movements were so natural that they felt unnatural when being applied to 3D models. The lip sync was completely off, and seemed almost out of place in a lot of scenes. For example, when the children start singing at the rear of the train. I could not believe how difficult that scene was to watch. It was so awkward and the expressions seemed so fake, especially on the young girl with that weird grin that he had.
Anyway, just so I don't completely trash talk this movie, I would like to say that the thing that I really liked from the movie was the environments. They were very well done, and extremely stunning. Definitely the best thing that came out of it.
So, please tell me what you thought of the movie. I would like to hear what your opinions were. Especially on weather you found the mo-cap to be distracting or not.
Lindsey Keess
Animator
Polar Express global box office: [i]$283,145,358.00
[/i]Polar Express: currently the top selling (#1) DVD on Amazon.com
The animation felt a little stiff, but it's basically an okay movie.
You have to understand that this is a movie primarily for children.
Hell, I could sit here and obsess about the stiff animation in kids' shows like Kimba and the Rankin-Bass holiday specials, but I'd look like an idiot. ("Those reindeer puppets don't move in a believable manner! WAAAAAH!")
They're popular because children love the stories and aren't snobs about the animation. In fact, children are often the purest and most valuable of critics. They warm to story first, and consider the accoutrements much later, if ever.
the total cost for the film was about $215million all inclusive. which is HUGE. fortunately it did ok enough that the costs will be recovered and might lead to a minute profit.
the film itself. i agree with that it could have been much better had they done this in proper 3d. would have been cheaper as well and it would not have lost out in any way in tersm of its entertainment value.
however it was a push for technology. so in that sense its a positive thing that they didnt get burnt.
"Proper 3d" is there such a thing?
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
The mo-capped characters straight up creeped me out... I couldnt even get past the trailers.
True, it's an obscene amount of money to spend on a children's movie. Still, this movie - like the Wizard of Oz - will be selling DVDs (or whatever) for decades to come.
I simply don't see why they had this thing animated in the first place. Animation is the imitation of life, not its cloning. Did they do the maths and figured it'd be cheaper to just have Hanks record the dialog instead of paying him several millions more to have him appear on a set every morning after the extensive make-up multiple roles require?
Here ya go!
How do you imagine Linklater would answer the same question regarding his upcoming movie, A Scanner Darkly (which looks like a 2D version of Polar Express)? I only found this little bit:
Has everyone seen The Snowman (1982)?
That, to me, stands out as an animated movie that represents the book illustration style well.
Of course, Raymond Briggs' illustration style is much simpler than Van Allsburg's.
I love that book, but have to be honest never saw the film, but hey everyone realize the market for these things are kids that know the books but are too young to read. Like Harvey said they are into it for the stories they aren't animation snobs and to be true to their favorite books maybe it's a good thing they aren't.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Animation is the stylization of life ;).
We all hashed this out last year when it was first released. I still say the film was pretty true to the book image. So frag on it all you want the kids and parents that know the book will buy it. And it's kind of magical in it's way.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
actually, animation is the 'Illusion of Life'
I beg to disagree.
Actually, animation is all three, imitation, stylisation and illusion. However, as Larry Lauria pointed out not too long ago, all art is somehow based on real life. If we didn't perceive, we couldn't produce. Therefore all animation is rooted in real life, and is always an imitation thereof, albeit to different degrees of realism. "Life creates it, makes it grow. Energy surrounds us and binds us...Luminous
beings are we...not this crude matter."
FEEL THE FORCE OF ANIMATION!
i can gurantee that one Roberto Rodriguez could have done this film under $50-$60million
the circle of life?
The only kids that would like, or love, this movie are under the age of six. There are a lot of kids under the age of six and more on the way. "Chicken Little" targets kids too, but they did ok as for appealling to people out side their age target range.
Maybe true, but I saw the trailers for Chicken Little, and it looked like a bunch of putzes trying to make the most of some broad gags with the usual plastic looking 3d fare. And maybe you better visit a local library at Christmas time and see how many kids love Midnight Express, it's a classic. And I'd say most are six or over. Chicken Little is a very young child's fairy story. People know it, but they aren't invested in the story.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
It's heartwarming to watch children's faces light up during the prison guard rape scene. (no gagging smiley: smileys done let me down again :( )
One word from me to sum up what I think of the characters and their animation - HORRIBLE!
Other one-word statements can be used to describe it as well... UGLY, SCARY, LIFELESS, SPOOKY....
Horrible sums it up best for me. I could give a rat's ass how much money it grossed... McDonald's is the highest grossing burger joint world-wide, but does that make their burgers GOOD? Nope.
"Don't want to end up a cartoon in a cartoon graveyard" - Paul Simon
I just want to emphasize that I didn't mean to imply that people should like this movie because it's making money, but that it's making money because people like it.
The main reasons Polar Express is such a popular movie are, not because the customer is in too much of a hurry to see a different movie, or too poor to afford a different movie (the McDonald's reasons), but, first, because the book is so popular (many of the adults, who are watching the movie with their kids, grew up with the book themselves) and, second, because there is very rarely a G-rated animated Christmas movie that parents can take their 6-year-olds to.
The previous one was Rudolph in 1998.
Before that, it was The Nutcracker Prince in 1990.
A parent only has one chance in a lifetime to see this kind of movie in the theater with their Santa-loving children. If you parents reading this missed your opportunity last year, my heart goes out to you. :o
[i]NOTE: The ideal response to this post would be
"My family is Jewish. :p "[/i]
Just because they were aiming the movie at kids doesn’t give it an excuse for poor animation. The fact the people don’t seem quite alive is just a bit creepy, even for adults. Yeah, simple puppet shows have limited animation, but the art is on an equivalent level. When you get to the level of detail in Polar express, the animation has to match. (search for uncanny valley theories)
I’d say the lack of life doesn’t do the book justice. Sure single rendered images of it look like a picture, but you’re missing the strengths of animation if you’re just talking about it as a series of moving pictures. They missed out on the magic of life while striving for realism.
(P.S. Don't mean to be mean on my first post, just study animation and discussed this film a lot with friends. At least it opens up a lot of questions over animation that are interesting, and I though I am critical, I also enjoyed the movie too as never read the book. :) )
For some reason, the only animation that bothered me was that of the kids. The hobo was fine. The elves were fine. Santa was fine.
Maybe this is what you get when you have adults stand in for kids in the mo-cap process, assuming that's how they did it.
You have a point there actually. Personally I found the little girl most strange, I kept expecting her to have more facial reaction then she did. Also I thought the body movements were good, it was mostly the facial animation that let the side down for mo-cap.
A complete load of unadulterated tosh.
The Brothers McLeod
[SIZE=2]brothersmcleod.co.uk[/SIZE]
I'll probably still buy this movie just to have in my collection.
There is better juvenile literature that will never see the light of day. Urrrr...
I mean screen. :o