Go back to previous topic
Forum namePass The Popcorn
Topic subjectA Christmas Carol (Zemeckis, 2009)
Topic URLhttp://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=6&topic_id=484354
484354, A Christmas Carol (Zemeckis, 2009)
Posted by bwood, Sun Nov-01-09 09:38 AM
First and foremost I'd like to say that the 3-D and animation is getting better in Robert Zemeckis' films. Does it look life like? No. only in the close-ups. With that said Mr. Zemeckis said that the reason he wanted to tell "A Christmas Carol" through the mo-cap medium as it allowed to fully put on-screen what Charles Dickens had in mind.(Zemeckis adpated the book for the screenplay in addition to producing and directing) With all of that said I'm sick of see A Christmas Carol. It's been done 80 times before and the only thing I liked about it was how they did the 3 ghosts including a pretty awesome chase scene involving The Ghost of Christmas Future. To be honest I dozed off a couple of times but hey at least Zemeckis said that *if* Roger Rabbit 2 gets into production it'd be live action with 2-D animation again.

The producers and Zemeckis are really excited about this new technology and have 8 films in the pipline including a remake of Yellow Submarine (too which my small audience ooohed and ahhhed at. Can you imagine what a Blue Meanie would look like in photo realistic technology? Yeah I know...) using this technology, so until Roger Rabbit 2 pops up don't expect this guy to make a live action movie for a looooooong time.
484377, who the fuck really wants to see a photorealistic "Yellow Submarine?"
Posted by Nukkapedia, Sun Nov-01-09 01:33 PM
wouldn't that be counterproductive?

Animation doesn't have to look lifelike. It's a ridiculous goal in my opinion, save for effects works in live-action films.
484387, RE: who the fuck really wants to see a photorealistic "Yellow Submarine?"
Posted by bwood, Sun Nov-01-09 03:43 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. They're trying to get this out in summer 2012. The original YS was a very 60s physciadelliac (sp) film. Why in the fuck would Disney wanna endorse a mo-cop version of that world. I mean even for adults that mo-cap shit for YS is gonna us nightmares...
484410, I mean, did they not see how horribly "Across the Universe" did?
Posted by Nukkapedia, Sun Nov-01-09 07:54 PM
484424, Never seen Across The Universe. Should I? nm
Posted by bwood, Sun Nov-01-09 09:16 PM
484627, Only if you're high. Really high.
Posted by Nukkapedia, Mon Nov-02-09 10:38 PM
484630, Sounds fun...
Posted by bwood, Mon Nov-02-09 10:53 PM
Netflix it this weekend with a dutch in hand.
485235, & even then it still drags
Posted by jigga, Fri Nov-06-09 11:31 AM
484502, who the fuck wants to see Jim Carrey
Posted by Mgmt, Mon Nov-02-09 11:37 AM
484628, ....but...no one's going to _see_ him in this picture.
Posted by Nukkapedia, Mon Nov-02-09 10:38 PM
484782, stfu
Posted by Mgmt, Tue Nov-03-09 05:42 PM
484965, Real Americans, that's who.
Posted by TheWhiteMedia, Wed Nov-04-09 05:08 PM
486214, lmao
Posted by MfDash, Thu Nov-12-09 08:00 PM
I want to see this but I am a christmas carol fan..
485206, Dickens' vision?
Posted by colonelk, Fri Nov-06-09 01:35 AM
> With that said Mr. Zemeckis
>said that the reason he wanted to tell "A Christmas Carol"
>through the mo-cap medium as it allowed to fully put on-screen
>what Charles Dickens had in mind.

Really, Bob? Find me the page where the ghost turns Scrooge into a tiny version of himself, who then surfs on an icicle and bangs his head over and over again.

Seriously, half that trailer is Carey screaming/bellowing in pain or fright.
485216, Agreed. Ebert's review makes me optimistic though.
Posted by Frank Longo, Fri Nov-06-09 07:24 AM
I get the impression from him and EW's review that the horrible TV ads are merely to attract dumb impressionable kids, and that the real film is full of heart and spirit.
485224, I read Entertainment Weekly's review...
Posted by bwood, Fri Nov-06-09 10:02 AM
...and I'll agree that (what I said earlier) the animation and 3-D is getting better and the I enjoyed the unique take on the ghosts but that's it. Everything else has been done better in the other versions of this movie. And I pray to God that this is the LAST version that surfaces.
485314, then why do motion capture?
Posted by colonelk, Sat Nov-07-09 02:54 AM
This story is so simple and so character based.

I mean, kids *can* actually be captivated by storytelling and acting. They don't need envelope pushing technology to keep them from getting bored.
485357, because it's "shiny and new"
Posted by Nukkapedia, Sun Nov-08-09 02:01 AM
not that it's really shiny or new, but you get what I'm saying...

I've never found motion-captured performances to have much heart or soul. They look mechanical to me, like rotoscope.
485687, I was making this same comparison to somebody today
Posted by colonelk, Tue Nov-10-09 03:06 AM
The Zemeckis gimmick reminds of me of Ralph Bakshi. Worse than real animation in pretty much any way of looking at it I can think of.

If you want real, shoot real actors. If you want expressive, interesting, magical, animate them. Motion capture makes no sense to me.

The fact that Zemeckis is planning to do the "real" characters in motion capture 3D and the "toons" in 2D for the Roger Rabbit sequel blows my mind. He's just totally infatuated with this technology.

485562, I loved it....
Posted by noahbird, Mon Nov-09-09 12:56 PM
I have no real attachment to the story itself which I believe is one big reason why some people aren't loving the film. I also don't mind the mo-cap or representations of people, at least in 3D I think it works fine (don't know about 2D). That being said, my friend and I absolutely LOVED the movie. It wasn't the sugary, schmaltzy Disney crap I feared it could be but actually quite dark, macabre and intense. Jim Carey is very understated and does a great job and the visuals are stunning - Zemekis is really the only director so far (excluding Coraline) that really uses 3D well.
485569, I liked it
Posted by Boogiedwn, Mon Nov-09-09 01:09 PM
- my 7 year old (notsomuch)

it was too "dark, macabre and intense" for her.

This was done very well but this isn't for the young crowd.
_______________________
http://www.last.fm/user/Boogiedwn/

http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/boogiedwn43.png
485608, RE: I loved it....
Posted by ChanEpic, Mon Nov-09-09 03:15 PM
Agreed. I thought it was very well done and cannot imagine what good seeing it in 2D would do.
485845, Didn't like it.
Posted by Ryan M, Wed Nov-11-09 12:05 AM
Parts were well done. The ending was good. But I didn't like Carrey and I hate motion-capture. I also saw it in 2D, so take that for what it's worth.
486089, RE: A Christmas Carol (Zemeckis, 2009)
Posted by deacon, Thu Nov-12-09 11:37 AM
I didn't really care for it. I guess it was done well, but I'm not a big fan of the motion capture technique. It was okay,but nothing spectacular.