"A Christmas Carol (Zemeckis, 2009)" Fri Nov-06-09 01:06 AM by ZooTown74
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.
2. "RE: who the fuck really wants to see a photorealistic "Yellow Submarine?..." In response to Reply # 1
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...
> 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.
Frank Longo Member since Nov 18th 2003 86673 posts
Fri Nov-06-09 07:24 AM
12. "Agreed. Ebert's review makes me optimistic though." In response to Reply # 11
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.
13. "I read Entertainment Weekly's review..." In response to Reply # 12
...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.
20. "I was making this same comparison to somebody today" In response to Reply # 16
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.
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.
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Pass The Popcorn
