The animation looks beautiful, were they really too lazy to make the whole movie that way? Or did they think it would sell better, because "animation is dead". If so, they're wrong. Anyone else with me that this should have been fully animated?
IN RAINBOW/S
I love these kind of movies.. I loved James Marsden interact with Pip in Enchanted, so I really wanna see this!
shareI agree with mau79. I loved Prince Edward's dopey way of interpreting Pip's gestures, relating it all to himself. "You'd die without having me there!" in the restaurant after Pip reenacts Nathanael's treachery, with Timothy Spall watching, afraid Edward would "get it." But of course, he didn't!
Also, is it really easier integrating live action with animation? I should enroll in a course in film making; there's so much I don't know.
Someone asked James Marsden about filming this. He said he had to interact with a piece of green tape. I forget whether he said it was difficult to interact with a piece of green tape. It was during one of those red carpet events, and the "reporter" snagged him for the interview.
shareI don't think it would have mattered much. Any kind of filmmaking takes a lot of work, whether it's fully animated or not. Not only is the filmmaking process a lot of work, but so is actually mixing animation and live-action, especially if you want it to look believable.
Think about it: After filming the live-action scenes, you have to insert the animated character and try to make it as believable as possible. You also have to make it appear as if the animated character is holding or doing something, as if a live person is looking at, holding, shaking hands with, etc., the animated character, and so on.
So it really doesn't make a difference; the film took a lot of work to make, whether it would've been fully animated or not.
You're so right about filmmaking taking a lot of work.
I sat and watched every line of the credits at the end of this film. I have no idea how many names I was looking at, but my guess there were over a thousand.
It was staggering to me. During this time, as I watched those names roll by,
I thought about all the nasty, negative people who wrote disparaging comments about the film before having seen it. I was in the theater at 11:00 a.m. on opening day. The thousand or more (however many) I am sure worked hard making this film work.
People who just sit at their computers and just easily trash films with their heedless words and thoughtless comments have no idea the potential evil they are doing. Since what they are saying is evil, maybe they, too, are evil.
James Marsden was interviewed by several people while he was promoting the film, and he described what it was like for him. He had to memorize all the dialog -- his and the rabbit's, and he had to know each move the rabbit was going to make when they animated it. He had to keep all of this in his mind while he was "interacting" with what was really nothing. He had direct his eyes to the right place, and move, himself, in the scene as well, not just stand there and move his head and eyes.
For a while, the film people had hired another comedic British actor to speak the rabbit's lines off-camera. I am imagining that this must have been during an early take in a scene, because Brand's voice had to be in the final product.
Brand was busy making Arthur, so he couldn't do it. The first British actor they hired had been in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, and he could only stay for a week of two. Then they hired another to take his place.
All Marsden could see was a piece of green tape, which he had mentioned before, suspended on a wire.
When Kelly Cuoco picked up the "rabbit," she was really picking up a small sandbag.
I'll bet James Marsden will be glad to get back to acting with human beings.
It is staggering how many people work on one film--hundreds, maybe thousands.
I thought about all the nasty, negative people who wrote disparaging comments about the film before having seen it.
People who just sit at their computers and just easily trash films with their heedless words and thoughtless comments have no idea the potential evil they are doing.
So what if thousands of people worked hard on a project, if the script was not good to begin with? Just because it was hard to animate, does that mean everyone should avoid expressing their opinion of the film as a whole?
What's the point of having all this technical talent behind you, if you're clueless as a storyteller?
Please don't equate the film's obviouis technical achievements with artistic/narrative achievements.
Did you miss something I said, aussiemiguel?
I saw the film on opening day in the morning, first showing, on the East Coast of the U.S.
I do believe that no one had seen the film before.
The self-appointed experts had not seen it.
Did any one of them read the screenplay?
Their comments and rants and other ravings meant nothing.
The only person who had a complaint which could have had a point was this gentrylinda40 person, but she/he was so abusive I blocked him/her. That one and another certain one (whom I also blocked) were so nasty that I read the IMDb rules and regs to see if they deserved to be eliminated. Cast out into the empty darkness. :-)
I didn't do anything, but I did think about it.
At least several of these individuals had no respect whatever for other people who had the courage to post their opinions.
Worthwhile, intelligent, criticism of the script, the acting, direction, editing, anything is worth reading and contemplating and learning from.
of that.
And by the way, at least one of the paid critics, who gets printed, had James Marsden's part wrong, and the name of his character wrong. That's just plain sloppy work.
Did you go the the theater or commenting on trailers?
share
Would you say that about "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" It's an artistic choice.
--------------------
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
Yeah, but it [Who Framed Roger Rabbit] is not appropriate for children. Hop is.
shareI know what the OP was getting at and agree. The animation just didn't look right mixed with the live action. It wasn't shadowed or lit right a lot of the time I thought. It was well animated, but didn't look correct with the live action behind it. ALL animation would have been a much better choice, I also don't know why they didn't go that route.
Also Roger Rabbit was hand drawn mixed with live action, and it was novel at the time. THIS is computer on top of live action, which we've seen before, and in better quality by this point...
"No it's not you, I just don't like having dinner... with people..." - Paul Rudd
We've seen many movies with animated characters superimposed into filmed footage and interacting with real people and objects etc over the years. what seemed to be problematic with this movie though, was that it was so inconsistent with the background settings changing from real to CGI on numerous occassions. At the start of the movie Easter Island footage was real with the animated characters inserted, but later the Easter island backdrop looked completely CGI created. You'd think that the indoor scenes of the Easter Egg making factory would have used the animated characters set against a natural background complete with machinery and real life props, so that it would not contrast so heavily with the scenes in which hop starts to interact with humans in the city and real world. It is slightly strange and dissorientating to jump from a complete cartoon to real film and back again.
share