|
dirksteadfast posted:Honestly, does Richard Williams gain much of anything from animating on 1s instead of 2s? I know it does make the movement more fluid, but as long as the key frames are good does it make enough of a difference to justify doubling the amount of effort involved? No
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/METlCHE/status/1007547677603594241 My Mom has epilepsy so I noticed this might be a problem in the trailer. Very lovely of Pixar to not realize this was a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
this broken hill posted:my emotional engagement was mostly because i'm in a slightly time-distorted relationship with several dead people. the art direction was weird, it was like... both technically excellent and completely unimaginative at the same time? like it was all completely photorealistic and there were no stylistic or artistic flourishes whatsoever. like it was more like watching a frame-by-frame perfect animated reproduction of a pre-existing actual film (with film's artistic limitations) than a cartoon and it was like, knowing the labour intensity of anime, why not just make an actual film? Photorealistic? Did you look at how Shinkai uses color? These kinds of BG are not photorealistic. http://anime-backgrounds.tumblr.com/post/56152168139/the-garden-of-words-%E8%A8%80%E3%81%AE%E8%91%89%E3%81%AE%E5%BA%AD-kotonoha-no-niwa-is-a dirksteadfast posted:Honestly, does Richard Williams gain much of anything from animating on 1s instead of 2s? I know it does make the movement more fluid, but as long as the key frames are good does it make enough of a difference to justify doubling the amount of effort involved? An animation purist will say yes. There's certain things you can pull off in the timing and spacing when you're dealing with more frames that subtly informs acting. Mentors of mine from Disney/Dreamworks say "spacing is acting". So doubling the possibilities of what you can do with the spacing opens a huge range of acting choices. People animating on 2s will limit their acting to what will clearly read on 2s. That said, I love a lot of anime movies that are animated on 3s. So I don't think it justifies doubling the amount of effort unless you've got the money to spend and really want to show up the competition. Ccs fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:
Now pixar can never show Porygon ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Incredibles 2 won't reach Sweden till late summer as usual with these Pixar films, but the soundtrack is on Spotify and goddamn I love myself some Giacchino horns. I'm so happy Pixar keeps him around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
dirksteadfast posted:Honestly, does Richard Williams gain much of anything from animating on 1s instead of 2s? I know it does make the movement more fluid, but as long as the key frames are good does it make enough of a difference to justify doubling the amount of effort involved? I don't think it's as much using ones, but the trademark of Williams' animation style is having so much detailed movement. One of his walk cycles has a hundred things going on. It's like trying to apply CGI simulations to hand drawn animation. That sort of fluidity doesn't work as well on twos, though some animators really got the most out of that like Rod Scribner (who worked on a lot of Bob Clampett's 40s work) and early 30s Fleischer. Some of the other tricks were using way larger animation sheets and cels (especially on Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure and The Thief and the Cobbler since they were shot in Panavision). Pretty much anything with the Mockingbird in Paul Grimault's Le Roi et L'oiseau is animated this way and I've seen a lot of Russian animation done on ones with high fluidity. Though, I think even the 30s Fleischer stuff was usually done on twos. Obviously, it looks fantastic, but like almost all golden age animation... they had schedules to meet. Egbert Souse fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jun 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:23
|
|
|
Sinners Sandwich posted:https://twitter.com/METlCHE/status/1007547677603594241 Normally I'd say "people complaining" but yeah, they really should have had like a warning (just like some POV movies have about motion sickness). I'm not saying to change or censor the movie but I can totally see why this would be a legitimate issue in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 09:44
|
|
|
SolarFire2 posted:Yeah, but surely there has to be a limit to patience. The Thief and the Cobbler took thirty years to never be completed, and even in it's 'definitive' cut it's not a very good movie. It plays like an animation test reel. There's no excusing John Kricfalusi taking six years and counting to release a 5 minute short. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhpbXQDl6g&t=15s
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 09:48
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Normally I'd say "people complaining" but yeah, they really should have had like a warning (just like some POV movies have about motion sickness). I'm not saying to change or censor the movie but I can totally see why this would be a legitimate issue in the film. With the reaction to the Porygon episode of Pokemon, this will probably lead to it being censored somehow more likely than a warning. They should've had something, yes, but the studio will just knee-jerk reaction it instead of "hey, let's just add a warning".
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
ThermoPhysical posted:With the reaction to the Porygon episode of Pokemon, this will probably lead to it being censored somehow more likely than a warning. People actually had seizures from the Porygon episode of Pokemon. This is just somebody tweeting a screenshot of text on a phone. Unless it comes out that it's actually triggering epileptics I severely doubt some internet rando playing armchair neurologist is going to have that level of impact if the internet mob couldn't even get Lasseter fired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Erotic Wakes posted:People actually had seizures from the Porygon episode of Pokemon. This is just somebody tweeting a screenshot of text on a phone. Unless it comes out that it's actually triggering epileptics I severely doubt some internet rando playing armchair neurologist is going to have that level of impact if the internet mob couldn't even get Lasseter fired. I've seen a lot of messages on the internet claiming either first-hand or second-hand that it induced seizures or even sent people to the hospital. I'm currently in a superposition of "holy poo poo, who is devoting this much effort to running a hoax that Incredibles 2 gives epileptic people seizures" and "holy poo poo, how does Disney of all companies gently caress up so badly as to release an epileptogenic movie projected to make well over a hundred million in the first weekend", awaiting further information to determine which thing I should be confused about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:01
|
|
|
Erotic Wakes posted:People actually had seizures from the Porygon episode of Pokemon. This is just somebody tweeting a screenshot of text on a phone. Unless it comes out that it's actually triggering epileptics I severely doubt some internet rando playing armchair neurologist is going to have that level of impact if the internet mob couldn't even get Lasseter fired. I thought this too before Sony edited out a joke in Transylvania 2 because of two whiny soccer moms and the (admittedly terrible) dog balls hole that got Show Dogs (also terrible) edited before it even left theaters thanks to a conservative group. It's much more likely to be edited or changed in some way now than before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
I didn't see the Incredibles 1 before 2 and I kind of wish I had since it's been years now and nostalgia might be tinting it for me, but I did think this was markedly weaker (it felt a lot less coherent) so I'm interested that other people thought differently, I'll definitely have to rewatch the first soon. In general I felt the villain felt incredibly telegraphed, so I wasn't sure if the twist was actually supposed to be a twist? Especially since it's basically retreading the whole "employer turns out to be villain" thing from the first one. Pretty much everything with the company lady and dude and the supers thing felt weaker to me than that side of the first movie. And then wrapping it all up like "no she was a bad guy nm supers are legal now whoo" despite the fact that the world did seem to have been running just fine in those 15 years without them and her extremely valid point about her dad dying needlessly and that the Incredibles did cause avoidable destruction in the beginning; it felt like it didn't actually address any of that despite frequently bringing it all up. On the other hand, absolutely everything else in the movie was golden. Bob doing domestic stuff, Violet's issues with her crush, Jack Jack being a baby, it was superb and perfect. And it's not like I thought the other stuff was bad by any means, just not as good. Also the short before was predictably fantastic. 21 Muns posted:I've seen a lot of messages on the internet claiming either first-hand or second-hand that it induced seizures or even sent people to the hospital. I'm currently in a superposition of "holy poo poo, who is devoting this much effort to running a hoax that Incredibles 2 gives epileptic people seizures" and "holy poo poo, how does Disney of all companies gently caress up so badly as to release an epileptogenic movie projected to make well over a hundred million in the first weekend", awaiting further information to determine which thing I should be confused about. There were definitely some strong strobes, stronger than in plenty of games I've played that flashed the warning before them. No clue if people are actually getting seizures from it but I think it is a genuine oversight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Incredibles 2: I saw the villain coming a mile away, (I mean, her name is Evelyn Devor. Evil Endeavor.) but I don't really think it was supposed to be a shocking twist, necessarily? The bigger question is whether or not her brother was in on it at all, and what the motives were. Like from the moment Screenslaver types 'welcome back, Elastigirl' you can go 'yeah okay this is obviously staged' so it's just a question of how many layers of deception we have going on. Anyway I liked it because I just really like Evelyn's character, her design, and her dynamic with Helen. Just really good subtle character animation. Also Voyd and the guy Who Crushes Things were great Not loving kidding about those epilepsy warnings, holy poo poo. My theatre had big signs on the front door after the first showing. Hell, I nearly got a headache from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Yeah I guess that's true, the brother turning out to not be evil was kind of a twist in itself. I just felt like they didn't telegraph the reveal it quite enough for it to feel like they weren't trying to surprise us still, but then there's not really any way to get away with having a sincere reveal like that in this day and age either. Also I felt the other supers were a mixed bag, design wise. I liked those two you mention, but some of the others like the frog dude and giant guy felt kind of at odds with the sleek retro style they have going on. Incredibles 1 supers were all these suave heroes and heroines in capes and poo poo with classical heroic figures and all that, whereas these new ones felt a lot more all over the place. I wonder how much of this is just me attributing to Incredibles 1 what I think I remember it being rather than what it actually was though. I loved the design of the villain and her brother though, Incredibles does my favorite humans of any 3d animated movie by far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
But was there more Bob Odenkirk than the trailer? This is important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Robindaybird posted:And honestly, the longer something takes in animation/film, the higher the chances of it either just being shelved, or end up like Pluto Nash Plus whenever any sort of project takes several times longer than anyone could reasonably expect, there's a good chance that it's not about people taking their time to do a good job so much as not having their poo poo together.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Incredibles 2 I really thought Violet was getting over Tony by hitting on Voyd there at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
Things I liked about Incredibles 2: 1. Excellent action sequences 2. The villain does not get killed, and in fact there's a big effort made to ensure she doesn't get killed 3. The Underminer is still out there (there's even a reminder at the end of the credits, not a stinger, but part of the background animation).
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 03:00
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Plus whenever any sort of project takes several times longer than anyone could reasonably expect, there's a good chance that it's not about people taking their time to do a good job so much as not having their poo poo together. pretty much - outside of purely gimmick things like Boyhood (and good or not, Boyhood is a gimmick), it's just a sign of bad management for things to constantly get delayed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
NOW THAT I'M A WOMAAAAAAAAN
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
EEEVERYTHING IS STRAAANGE
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Just got back from Incredibles 2. Short answer; not worth 15 years of waiting, but it's definitely a worthwhile sequel. The thing I noticed was that most of the problems were... well there's a lot of retreaded ground from the first movie, like Bob keeping secrets from Helen so she thinks everything is fine, Helen being super smart and piecing things together based on subtle clues and intuition and just in general having her story be the best part of the movie, Violet having boy troubles, Dash having problems at school, and Jack Jack going nuts with all his super powers (though that one was cut from the first movie and made into it's own short instead). I do like how all these issues mesh together better, so Violet's issues get mixed in with Bob's parenting which is mixed in with Dash's schoolwork and then Jack Jack makes more problems so the household stuff is more dynamic than before. And having a complete reversal on Bob's secretly stealth hero work with Helen's purposefully public hero work (that still has some sneaking in it thankfully) is a great switch up that I feel like was paced perfectly. Oh and the action scenes are fantastic. But really I just wish they pushed the new stuff further. There's a bunch of new supers introduced but they aren't really developed all that much beyond Void, and even she's kinda just a step above being introduced. They work great in the action scenes though. Also having Helen working as a vigilante hero with some public approval, I dunno maybe a sizzle reel of her accomplishments or something, it feels like she's back in action for maybe a week before everything goes to poo poo, and a lot of her scenes have her being waited on instead of on the move stopping crime, which I get is part of the setup and is intentionally detracting from her accomplishments by making it more of a show on the part of the villain... but it still would have been cool to see her break away from that and do her thing on her own without being manipulated the whole time. I guess I feel like they could have had more villains, like maybe having the Underminer strike again and Helen is able to capture him or I dunno a bank robbery would be fine. Having it be all Screenslaver all the time was boring, though that's probably more because trying to follow up the charismatic as hell Syndrome as the lead villain is being setup for failure, particularly when they follow in his footsteps so closely (being a normal human using advanced tech, employing the hero to gain their trust before revealing their plan and betraying them, having a backstory where superheroes failed them somehow) yet aren't as successful and don't push their plans as far as he did. (Syndrome was killing supers for years and developing his plans years in advance, long before he made his move and far into the future, while Screenslaver seems be more reactive and only really has planned the next step and not much further than that) I do wonder at why this movie feels like it's all been made just to clean up the hanging plot threads from the first movie. Like, the first movie ends with the family being happy, but Bob's also unemployed, their house was destroyed, and supers are still illegal. So, the sequel is all about getting a new house, Helen getting a new job, and supers getting legalized again. So every problem that was fixed in the first movie is still fixed, every problem that wasn't fixed is now fixed in the sequel, and most of the new problems introduced in the sequel are fixed as well. (Dash is caught up with homework, Violet gets her crush on a date, Jack Jack is... still a superpowered baby but they have the tools and technology to take care of him) Okay wow that's mostly just random thoughts I had on the movie and nothing coherent. I'll just say I loved it. Easily the best super hero movie I've seen this year. Also yeah they aren't joking about the epilepsy warnings, my theatre didn't have them so don't be afraid to get the word out. It's actually a part of a really good fight scene but wow, bright flashing lights after a prolonged sneaking scene in the dark should at least warrant a warning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:12
|
|
|
I totally agree with your other thoughts, but I really never felt that Incredibles 1 had these hanging plot threads at all, so I'm curious if other people did. Until this movie said otherwise, I always just assumed that defeating Syndrome and saving the city and so on meant that supers would become totally legal again, and presumably the family would have more than enough money to afford a new house because of that. It's never something I really thought about, and honestly thinking about it, Incredibles 2 going "no the government's been manipulating everyone to think you guys suck despite you very, very publically saving the city from Syndrome's robot" annoyed me a little bit. I do wanna restate again, 'cause I've been criticizing it a lot, I did absolutely love it too. Like SatansBestBuddy said, I think the issue is mostly just that after so many years my expectations were literally perfect in every single way, so I'm being a bit overly harsh on it, but I think after Incredibles 1 and Wall-e, this is probably my third favorite Pixar movie now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 03:41
|
|
|
I thought Incredibles 2 was good, but not as good as the first. Didn't really feel as serious, a whole lot of extended baby slapstick sequences. Not to mention obviously the whole idea is better the first time around when it's more original.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
IronicDongz posted:I thought Incredibles 2 was good, but not as good as the first. Didn't really feel as serious, a whole lot of extended baby slapstick sequences. Not to mention obviously the whole idea is better the first time around when it's more original. yeah, basically The stakes felt a lot higher when you learned dozens of heroes had died during the development of Syndrome's robot, compared to when Helen learned she caught the wrong guy and was being manipulated by her employer the whole time, which was good but definitely not as good. Like I said, any villain following up from Syndrome is being setup for failure, and while I definitely think he can be topped, Screenslaver is not quite that tier of super villain. But I liked when they went in different directions from the original. The super family bonding moments were all gold and even better than the first movie, and the action scenes are some of the best I've seen in an animated movie since Kung Fu Panda 2. Hopefully we don't have another decade and change wait for Incredibles 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
All the action was shot super violently and made me flinch, but in a good way. I guess the opposite of The Croods wherein I just kept thinking, "they're being treated like cartoons, they can't die" as opposed to "motherfucker got shot in the back and sucked out the windshield of a jet, I think I just watched her die."
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:All the action was shot super violently and made me flinch, but in a good way. I guess the opposite of The Croods wherein I just kept thinking, "they're being treated like cartoons, they can't die" as opposed to "motherfucker got shot in the back and sucked out the windshield of a jet, I think I just watched her die." Yeah, I was honestly assuming she was just straight-up goddamn dead to the point I was genuinely surprised when Elastigirl was going after her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:All the action was shot super violently and made me flinch, but in a good way. I guess the opposite of The Croods wherein I just kept thinking, "they're being treated like cartoons, they can't die" as opposed to "motherfucker got shot in the back and sucked out the windshield of a jet, I think I just watched her die." Yeah, while Incredibles 2 doesn't quite rank up the body count like the original did, there are definitely more broken bones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 08:39
|
|
|
I saw Incredibles 2. It was really good. Saw the trailer for Teen Titans Go! before it. Never had much interest in that show, but now I want to see the movie because the villain is Bojack Horseman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
I liked Incredibles 2 but I hated Winston so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
I'm hoping somebody does an analysis of why some of the new supers they show off in 2 look like they were designed for a completely different movie, because plenty of new characters fit right in with the other ones while others don't at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
Whoo, a movie I can actually comment on while it’s still new, for once! I think my biggest criticism for Incredibles 2 is that... Well, it was basically just telling the same story again with a few different tweaks. “The movie starts with a prologue where superheroes are shown saving the day, but causing untold property damage, and the resulting public backlash criminalizes their abilities and forces them to go into hiding. The story splits it’s focus between scenes of domestic life for a family of supers, and one of the parents working for a mysterious benefactor who claims that they want to re-legalize superheroism... only for them to be revealed to actually be the technologically savvy supervillain who has a massive chip on their shoulder about superheroes. Working together, the family defeats the threat, and in the aftermath rekindles the public’s support for superheroes.” That’s the very basic synopsis of both movies. They both do what they do pretty well overall, don’t get me wrong, but 2 does feel just a tad lackluster compared to the original with that realization.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
I was thinking earlier about the similarities between the villain's final scenes in both movies. In Incredibles, Syndrone does something which makes him clearly unredeemable(steals baby), in order to make his punishment afterwards(death) not weird tone wise. In Incredibles 2, the villain also does something which makes her clearly unredeemable(tries to kill Ms. Incredible in a slow and sadistic way while making fun of her situation), right before getting shot in the back bursting her oxygen tank sending her flying out through the cockpit into the open air, but she gets rescued and survives anyways. It's not surprising because Incredibles 2 has had basically no deaths onscreen(one exception being a flashback to corp guy's dad dying which is just a closeup of the gun that shot him) up to that point. It just really put in perspective for me-the reason Syndrone dies in a way as violent as "gets sucked into plane turbine" is because it's a callback to the "no capes" bit from earlier in the film. Which, besides being the most memorable and probably funniest bit in the film, is also probably a scene which they could never have included in the 1st if they were under the same sort of restraints as the 2nd movie while filming in terms of making the film kid friendly, because it's just too morbid of a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
There's an Incredibles 2 thread if you'd like to talk about it more in-depth in its own area.IronicDongz posted:I was thinking earlier about the similarities between the villain's final scenes in both movies. In Incredibles, Syndrone does something which makes him clearly unredeemable(steals baby), in order to make his punishment afterwards(death) not weird tone wise. One of the biggest complaints about contemporary live-action superhero movies (which were only just starting to become a thing when the first movie came out) is the huge amount of collateral damage shown on-screen with zero concern for anyone caught in the crossfire, to the point where we're several years past the point where movies like Age of Ultron and Civil War used them as major plot points and even Batman V Superman and Suicide Squad had clumsy ADR about areas being evacuated before the superheroes roll in to kick rear end. Incredibles 2 seems to go out of its way to dedicate a lot of screentime during its action scenes to the supers saving people and preventing collateral damage, and Helen trying to save Evelyn Deavor seemed more to be about that than any pulling of the punches when it comes to violence or on-screen death. Evelyn's being knocked out of the plane reminded me a lot of Charles Muntz's abrupt death in Up and it would have been really easy to just let her go that way, I appreciated that they went to the trouble of saving her to show that the supers really area about helping people rather than being judge jury and executioner to evildoers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 01:26
|
|
|
The Incredibles 2 was really boring for me. The screenplay so clunky and expositional, the twists so telegraphed, and the characters so one-dimensional. Also the film says superheroes ate good, but it really shows that the opposite argument is correct. They’re walking weapons of mass destruction. Some may be well-meaning, but if even a normal person can find a way to control and manipulate them, how can it be reasonable to let them just wander around?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
Yes, please discuss Incredibles 2 somewhere else, it doesn't come out in the UK for another month. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 08:48
|
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Yes, please discuss Incredibles 2 somewhere else, it doesn't come out in the UK for another month. They're using spoiler tags, I don't see the problem. I just got out of Incredibles 2. The fight scenes are better than any other superhero movies right now. It was incredibly easy to track the action, every punch or slam had weight behind it and was satisfying and/or appropriately threatening, and there were easy to follow ebbs and flows. The helicopter scene towards the beginning actually got me to sit forward and pay attention. Before that, I was leaning back trying to ignore the crying children that had to suffer through a midnight showing on a Monday. It actually pulled me in and was surprising. No joke, it kind of sets a bar for fight choreography. My only real complaint was the deus ex machina at the end. You think that the public would be sssuuupppeeeerrr (  ) skeeved out by seeing the superheroes that were just on TV threatening the general non-super populace popping out of a boat slid up to the side of a skyscraper. Instead, they seemed to be met with open arms? That part of the plot just kind of...resolved itself with triumphant music and stood out as the only real badly paced part of the movie.The animation was leaps and bounds above the first film, though I did feel old when they pointed out multiple times that it had been 14 years since the first one. I saw it right before graduating high school! gently caress! Edna was great and that poor fukken raccoon 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
The_Doctor posted:Yes, please discuss Incredibles 2 somewhere else, it doesn't come out in the UK for another month. Lucky bastard. We don't get it till September. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2018 10:34
|
|
