With crisp Up Date.
Out of the gate, it's Christmas Carol ...but not by as much as the Mouse would probably like. As the Nikkster relates:
... [A]nalysts think the Jim Carrey starrer (he plays lotsa roles, including all 3 ghosts) directed by Robert Zemeckis (who used the same motion capture technology as Polar Express and Beowulf) may only make $31M after opening with an underperforming $8.9 million Friday despite the higher ticket prices ....
It's going to come down to Saturday and Sunday ....
Update: Christmas Carol ends up at the lower range of what Diz Co. was hoping for; Men Who Stare at Goats comes in third, but second on a per-screen basis. Michael Jackson moon-walks on ...
Posts
26 comments:
What the HELL is THAT? HOpefully, Mr. Hulett will remove it.
The Christmas Carol is a complete disaster. It truly deserves to fail--BIG time. And no, I don't care if anyone thinks it's "good" for the industry, because it ISN'T good for the industry. It's a film that is bad for animation for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is that it's not "animation." If I want a zombie movie, I'll watch me some Sam Raimi.
I'm just glad I didn't have to pay to see it. Boy, is it awful.
I wasn't looking so forward to Princess and the Frog as much as I am now.
Thank you so much, Red, for your helpful links. I can't tell you the trouble I've gone through trying to find a lotion that will properly extend the length of my penis, but I now have renewed hope because of your diligent efforts. God bless you, and your erectile treatments.
On an unrelated note, hopefully 'Christmas Carol' will signal an end to Zemekis' misguided foray into uncanny valley motion capture. It needs to bomb in a major way.
Especially since he's planning Roger Rabbit 2 to be done with performance crapture.
What the HELL is wrong with him?
You know, if they would have thrown some prosthetics on Mr. Carrey, shot it, then added some animated CG ghosts and effects and whatnot, Id be excited to see this movie! As it is, I dont care, because i know Ill be too distracted.
I was while watching Beowulf, and I love sword and sorcery!
I worked in lighting/comp on Beowulf and while Im not a big fan of motion capture, there were some pretty amazing moments when the characters looked pretty real. I give the texture artists and animators credit for that. I haven't seen CC nor do I want to. What I have seen looks very unappealing. It doesn't even look up to Polar Express quality and how many years ago was that?
I think people are put off by the motion capture (gee, aren't I captain obvious?), it makes the movie far too hard to watch, I don't see this Christmas Carol making too much.
I too hope this movie fails big time. It is bad for the industry. Sorry to see laid off artists, but we don't need it that bad.
"I worked in lighting/comp on Beowulf and while Im not a big fan of motion capture, there were some pretty amazing moments when the characters looked pretty real"
Who cares if they look real? I mean, I'm sure the work you did was what was asked for--you seem like a professional. But where's the "animation" and caricature? These mo-cap films can't seem to handle that. They're so BADLY "designed."
We know it's not animation, but what IS it if it's only repulsive to look at?
Are the people complaining about mo-cap the same who complained about 3-D when it first appeared 20+ years ago? Mo-cap employs a lot of artists (many in this guild) and while it may have growing pains the technology is improving which will only lead to more jobs for artists.
And in the end, the majority of movie goers don't see (or don't care) about the "repulsive" animation you describe. Wishing for any movie to fail because of new technology, especially one that employs artists and encourages more animated movies to be made, is juvenile and makes you a luddite.
And Roger Rabbit 2 will use 2D animation for 2D characters, 3D for 3d, and mo-cap for mo-cap characters.
I'm proud to work in CG. And I started with hand drawn animation. I don't care if it gets better, it's crap now and hasn't gotten better since 12 years ago. There are fine uses of it, but full features is not one of them. It is NOT a cost saving tool. It actually costs 1/3 more than just animating it.
I reject the idea that we should "support" the movie because it employs animators.
We don't need more animated films. We need more good animated films.
That's because otherwise, it's simply a race to the bottom--a race that will end up with work outsourced to India, or simply an actor hooked up to sensors.
Quality animated films will always require the best talent pool. These are the films we should be supporting and championing. They will ensure the work stays in-house (or at least in-country).
Simply supporting a bad film for jobs' sake is foolish and ultimately self-defeating.
Quality animated films will always require the best talent pool. These are the films we should be supporting and championing. They will ensure the work stays in-house (or at least in-country).
Simply supporting a bad film for jobs' sake is foolish and ultimately self-defeating.
Quoted for agreement.
Im also a CG animator who started in 2D, and while I dont draw as much as I used to, CG animation is still very much animation, and Im happy and proud to be working in it.
Performance capture looks like crap to animators, feels like crap to audiences, and will only lead to more crap in our industry.
And in the end, the majority of movie goers don't see (or don't care) about the "repulsive" animation you describe.
This is bullcrap in my experience. I don't talk shop with my non industry friends. But they all seem to offer unprompted comments on how weird these movies look.
I too would like to see this movie fail. It isn't the technology that repulses me, it is the final look of it.
"who cares if they look real?"
I don't know if anyone does, I was merely stating that I thought it was interesting in a "hey looky what we can do" kind of way. Doesn't mean I think anyone should be making feature animations that way. I also worked on Bolt and Cloudy and even then sometimes, when a comment was made about hair or cloth or whatever, I would think "people... It's a cartoon!" so who decides when it becomes TOO real? To me, it's just clear that Christmas Carol is not the direction the industry should be going - jobs or no jobs.
Oh and sorry to "name drop" movie title-wise but honestly, I don't know how to define the genre. "traditional CG animation"? That's the only way I can think to describe it but I didn't want to get flamed.
The box office performance of this film (or lack thereof), might also be attributed to the fact that the story itself is so well known. Audience's know the ending.
After all, not only has the book been filmed numerous times, it it also re-hashed in most TV sitcoms as they sag in ratings (WKRP, Harper Valley PTA, Married With Children, etc). It's the feel-good version of jumping the shark.
I'm not trying to soft pedal the icky look of mo-cap, just pointing out that there was more than one bad decision made when this film was greenlit.
Here's a solution for all you mo-cap haters: DON'T go see a mo-cap film and REFUSE a job if offered to work on one!
Some of you fools talk about self-defeatinmg by having a mo-cap film succeed - obviously you don't understand what self defeating means. Wishing for something to fail just because of your own personal preference is self defeating.
The audience will decide if mo-cap is a viable opption not you. If it were up to the people in the industry to decide what type of films get made it would be a very sad and short career for all of us.
I can understand the anger and frustration of animators who work on mo-cap features to a thread like this. But understand--the movies you work on don't value good looking, well-animated character animation. So the end of the line will be that these productions will ultimately end up outsourcing this work to other, cheaper countries.
Why shouldn't they? If they valued quality animation, and using the artform to its potential, they wouldn't be using mo-cap in the first place.
So ultimately, while I can understand why these animators would support these movies for financial reasons, it's short-term gain, but a long-term dead end.
Mo-cap is simply a playground for live-action directors and live-action actors to pretend they are making an "animated" film. Why would any self-respecting animator want to help facilitate that?
At $31 million for the weekend, Christmas Carol is considered just more than a bomb. The public budget is $200 million, but you can bet it was considerably more.
And then the prints, advertising, and marketing.
They make their money back in 10 years or so, but for now, this film must be considered a major disappointment for all concerned. Disney Stockholders must be pissed. And rightfully so.
Too bad they don't air the Richard Williams "Christmas Carol" on TV anymore. I enjoyed it as a child and respected it as an animator. I used to think it was perhaps a bit to psychedelic in a couple sequences, perhaps straying from the book until I bothered to really read Dickens' original short story last Christmas. Though short, Williams' hand animated version kept closer to the original story than the other filmed and animated versions.
Sadly, most studios can't comprehend the average citizen enjoying a true to source rendition of a classic...
...over a Splenda coated, action-packed, schmaltz jelly filled modern adaptation.
-sigh
Polar Express opened to 23 million and went on to make about 290 million worldwide. Considering there is another 7 weeks (!) until Christmas and most Christmas-themed movies do repeat business in December and have high staying power through the holidays (no to mention annual re-releases), The Christmas Carol should do just fine. It may not have started off with blockbuster numbers but it is way too early to call it a bomb.
As for the "if you like quality animation, why work in mo-cap" questions the answer is for the challenge of improving the quality so it DOES make high quality animation. Compare the animation of Tin Toy to the animation of Up. 20 years ago during the Disney revival 2D animators said the same thing "If you want to make quality animation why would you use a computer?". Technology takes time and practice to improve. Full feature mocap films are young, but put some talent behind them (directors, artists, engineers, etc) and through trial and error and progression over time you see some phenomenal artistic works (Gollum and King Kong were just the beginning). All the doomsday scenarios being said about Mocap now sound no different than what was being said about 3D 15-25 years ago.
This dreck thankfully gets kicked out of theaters soon for Avatar. So much for repeat business.
All the doomsday scenarios being said about Mocap now sound no different than what was being said about 3D 15-25 years ago.
Its not the same thing.
I have myself avoided animated films that looked horrible. Nothing could have made me pay to see "Delgo" or "Monsters Vs. Aliens". Horrible looking pieces of crap both. CC is the same way. I get no amusement out of watching Scrooge get goosed by giant icicles. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but that just doesn't tickle my funnybone. OR inspire the ol' Christmas spirit.
This dreck thankfully gets kicked out of theaters soon for Avatar
The 3-D Avatar trailer I viewed at the AMC last night was underwhelming.
It's really too early to know if Christmas Carol succeeds or fails in the money department.
Polar Express was declared to be a huge bomb by the L.A. Times two weeks after opening.
The Times turned out to be wrong.
But th theaters for Avatar are already booked--kicking CC out. That's why Diz moved the release date up.
Post a Comment