read books of Stanislaw Lem, Bradbury, PhK. Dick or so on
that “scifi” film series never originals…
And yeah, Final Fantasy: zombie actors! 
I agree entirely. I liked that film for the visuals no matter what people say about the story. It was ground breaking work. Also Aki Ross out of a swimsuit is so totally hotter. I have a picture ;).
Never heard of PhK. prick but Philip K D.ick is ok ;). If only someone would remove the annoying censor already %|.
That’s why it’s so realistic - look at the rest of Hollywood :).
Anyway, could someone explain to me the plot/meaning of the clip?
The Incredibles wasn’t overhyped. It just was extremely good. But more importantly, it showed animation was capable of more adult genres, and more complex character evolution. Of course there’s some good kiddie stuff in there, but the general story breaks ground in the world of animation. This film could’ve been great in live-action, but putting it in animation gave it that bit of extra. That’s the future.
Now about Finding Nemo, you’re wrong. Both Andrew Stanton and John Lasseter have stated that they create movies for adults, movies they would like to see, and make sure they’re available/acceptable for kids. Not the other way around. And Finding Nemo had an incredible story, that followed the line of general animation films, but which is also the line of 95% of the movies out there, only (as everything in animation) exagerated. This film had so much more depth than most animation features. There were sooo many different levels in it, I couldn’t possible get into that now.
And then the animation discussion. If you think the character animation in this film is better then Pixar films, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. You THINK it is better because it somehow looks more realistic (mocap?? -> see credits), and you could get in the story better. But the thing is Gery’s Game was amusement and not a very involving story. The thing that made you like this animation was that you were caught by the story, storytelling and music, not the animation in itself. The animation was far from captivating or communicative. There’s a simple reason for that, which is greatly explained in The Illusion Of Life: Disney Animation. It shows that animation now is still based on the same fundamentals as 80 years ago. The reason for this is COMMUNICATION. Animation is a way of communicating. You have to be able to get the character across. Not it’s dialogue, but it’s thoughts and behaviours. Problem is… drawings and models aren’t as complex as real humans. We instictively notice all kinds of subtle but important things our bodies do in reallife, and those things help getting your message across. And those are things a drawing or model can’t show. That’s why animation exagerates everything, from gestures to weight and so on and so further. And mo-cap (or the character animation applied here) can’t capture those things eather, at all. Mo-cap (or…) might SEEM realistic, but lacks weight and, more importantly, ESSENCE. Mo-cap, etc. can’t communicate.
Have you seen the oscar-winning short Ryan? The same is there. The story, storytelling might make the animation better, but the animation in itself barely communicated. Definitly if it weren’t for all of the SpecialFX (scars and colourfull things).
I hope you can understand what I’m saying here. I’ve noticed apart from some rare people like slikdigit, no-one in the Blender community has any grasp on what animation is all about and how to approach it…
On the other hand, I think this kind of animation worked fine for this short. Mostly because the pace was quite slow, and that the most important thing in this film was the mood instead of the emotions of the character. And that was achieved masterfully thanks to wonderful storytelling techniques.
Simple two-word advice: seek help. Maybe from some cute REAL girl 
- Benjamin
Bentagon, I think you can’t understand me.
No matter…
Disney and pixar will rule the world totally. Original styles will be dead and the clishe will rule all of the world with Shreks, Nemos, Final fantasies and so on…
The true styles will be die. Look CGTalk>brave new world.
The business of the commercial will rule the world.
Without feeling, real feeling…
How can you possibly call Pixar cliché? It’s not because they have a niche that’s popular, it’s cliché… Disney and them are the only companies who create such movies… Blue Sky is more for teenagers and Dreamworks more “pop”… it’s not because these type of movies have been around so long it’s cliché. Have you ever been to an animation festival with shortfilms? At least 75% of the shortfilms have an atmosphere like this one you claim to be the best ever…
But ultimately, my point is: Great short, but the actual character animation doesn’t communicate. And since “animation” comes from “animus” which means soul… and if a character doesn’t communicate enough, it doesn’t have that. The short might have, but not the character.
- Benjamin
I finally got around to seeing this. I was impressed.
The short is carried by the story, message and the lighting.
The character was excellently modelled but lacked convincing movement.
particularly facially and in the hands. The stiff walk was probably intentional as he is an old guy.
The whole point of CGI, or indeed any medium is to convey something more not just recreate reality. CG animation that has tried to do that has often failed. Final Fantasy was dull because in recreating realistic characters they were just read as wooden actors.
Quite often less can do more. For me the short to learn from was “bert”.
http://artist.cgland.com/spiff73/bert.html
Delivery was great though and thanks for sharing.
BB
Yep, Bert is a very impressive short, in both story and animation. No wonder Moonsung Lee is working at Blue Sky nowadays.
- Benjamin
I cant believe pixars animation is even under discussion…especially when compared to the character animation in the short.
The character expression and movement in the short was MEDIOCRE. The more I hear people talk this damn thing up the more I hate it.
oh YEAH
if I go to Britney Spears fans, and I talk about his/her favourite “music”, they will can’t understand me… they can’t understand, that is not music, not art, not… nothing: NOTHING
90% of pixar and disney=junkfood
I know, I can’t fight with the mass.
Mass is God.
All that popular=Godlike.
No man can fight with Godlike.
90% of pixar and disney=junkfood
True of Disney but certanly not for Pixar. As far as I know Disney currently have a lot of control over what Pixar ultimately produce. It’ll be very interesting to see what happens when the distribution divorce is finally complete.
BTW if you want to see what distributors do to movie content have a look at what Universal did to Terry Gilliam http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/brazil/
It’ll make you weep.
BB
Disney is crap. lets not talk about them anymore.
Pixar is amazing. They can actually WRITE script and ANIMATE characters. Endi, why is lifelike animation cliche? Its LIFELIKE. Thats why its good.
Unless all of your friends move like they have been mo-capped for video games 
brasil is one of the best film ever seen
I don’t know what version I have seen, but if there is a better… I will look it!
You know, the thought hadn’t occurred to me and I haven’t heard it mentioned before now. Hmmm. You’d have to think creative overflow at Pixar will have a lot of non corporate-affiliated-pabulum type concepts running around in their heads. Not to get too excited, they (Pixar) may actually lose some of their charm if they aren’t careful, but it makes you wonder. Very interesting Burritoboy.
Disney has no creative saying in Pixar whatsoever. They are the distributors of the film, and hold the rights on the characters, but everything is completely created by Pixar. The only place they MIGHT (I’m not sure about this) have some say in the creative process is when the story is pitched.
@endi: you are calling us fanboys of Pixar and the likes, so you can’t argue with us because we’d never admit it all… but I haven’t seen you trying to argue anything at all. I made a pretty long post explaining WHY Pixar’s animation is that good, and WHY the character animation in this short isn’t, and I have based it all upon facts and logical thinking. I have only seen you say “you’ll never get what I mean”, while you don’t even try to explain… I’m pretty sure I’d have at least a sense of what you feel if you’d try to explain it logically, but it seems you haven’t got that kind of attitude and, to me, it all looks like you’re going against the flow just for the sake of it. Y’know, sometimes the mass HAS a point.
- Benjamin
oh my bad english…
That’s just an excuse to me… I did not have a problem understanding you up till now. Anywho, if you don’t want to, fine by me, but you’re only hurting yourself with it…
- Benjamin
While Disney have no direct involvement in the creative process distributors do have ultimate control over what is seen in the cinema, released on DVD. If they don’t like something, content, editing, story they’ll put the pressure on studio to change it. It’ll be interesting to see how Pixar develops after the partnership.
That’s why I drew attention to Brazil and the battle between Gilliam and Universal. A more extreme situation was Fahrenheit 911 where Disney refused to distribute due to the content.
BTW a directors cut of Brazil is now available, it’s awesome. 3 DVD pack contains a couple of documentaries, Gilliams version and the " love conquers all" version with the happy ending.
BB
They’ve never done that with Pixar movies, though. The only changes that have been made were complete rewrites of Toy Story 2 and it is a rumour this also happened to Cars, but both were Pixar’s own decisions. Eisner even said he didn’t like Finding Nemo and said it would fail miserably in theaters when he first saw it, and still didn’t force Pixar to change… fortunately
- Benjamin
Consider: The genre of a Disney picture is going to be rather limited to a family type experience. Touchstone has a somewhat broader scope and seems to carry a better quality in general. The point is however, Disney isn’t going to put up a horror picture or a gruesomely horrid scene unless it’s in the context of a safely positive message of, say for instance, danger = drama = in the end it’ll be ok and the horror is properly masked from the genteel unaware minds of our kids. Horror, sexy, humorless; not what Walt Disney was about. Disney pictures are going to be patently Disney pictures.
This is the part that I find interesting. When Pixar gets away from the very limiting influence that Disney exerts over all their en devours, how will they evolve? Everyone seems to so far be thinking Pixar is Pixar and they won’t change. Burritoboy has raised a valid point when he implies they actually may change. There are broader horizons to consider.
How do I download it? I can only find the trailer.