[QUOTE]Ahead of the film’s teaser trailer premiere later today, we’ve got our first look at the bigscreen CGI adaptation of [I]Peanuts[/I] that is being produced by Blue Sky Studios.
Film producer Craig Schulz, the son of [I]Peanuts[/I] creator Charles Schulz, is trying his best to justify this crushingly artless project that will very likely contribute nothing to his father’s legacy. He [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/03/17/peanuts-snoopy-charlie-brown-first-look/6273911/"]told [I]USA Today[/I][/URL], “We’ll see that Snoopy has soft-white fur,” and explained that although, “Bill Melendez got Snoopy off the ground in the TV specials,” that Blue Sky is “going to take it a step further.” We’ll check back in with him 48 years from now, which is how many years Melendez’s [I]A Charlie Brown Christmas[/I] has aired continuously, and see if Blue Sky was indeed able to take it a step further than Melendez.
The blandification of [I]Peanuts[/I], it turns out, is a Schulz family affair. Craig’s sreenwriter son Bryan (Charles’ grandson) is writing the film with Cornelius Uliano. “With my father’s work this is three generation of Shulzes on this film,” Craig says, conveniently neglecting the fact that the original [I]Peanuts[/I] was the brilliant and anguished outpouring of one man’s heart and soul, not a group project. It stands to reason that if Charles Schulz had needed his son or grandson’s help to make [I]Peanuts[/I], he would have asked them when he was alive.
The Steve Martino-directed film is due to be released on November 6, 2015, so I’ve still got another year-and-a-half to get really angry about this film.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/first-look-at-cgi-peanuts-by-blue-sky-studios-97505.html[/url]
[IMG]http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/peanutsmovie-a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.cartoonbrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/peanutsmovie-b.jpg[/IMG]
At first I thought it was really weird it was going to be CG, and I still think it kinda is, but I really like the art style. It's a lot better than I expected.
aww they sorta look like playdooh
I'm really digging this CGI look, but painted background.
if there is no Joe Cool or Snoopy fighting the Red Baron then this movie will not be awesome
The author of this note sounds kinda...how do I put this? Elitist?
[QUOTE=T553412;44273657]The author of this note sounds kinda...how do I put this? Elitist?[/QUOTE]
No kidding.
"Film producer Craig Schulz, the son of Peanuts creator Charles Schulz, is trying his best to justify this crushingly artless project that will very likely contribute nothing to his father’s legacy"
The fuck kind of writing is this?
Why the fuck would someone write this article about The Peanuts movie if they have a strong distaste for the Peanuts?
[QUOTE=T553412;44273657]The author of this note sounds kinda...how do I put this? Elitist?[/QUOTE]
That's how people get when you mess with their childhoods.
Anyway, I actually really like the art style. Considering they could have gone the way of "The Last Airbender" with it, this is a really decent compromise.
(Yes, yes, I know. Lake Laogai. Sorry, but it happened. Get over it.)
My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.
That article is needlessly snarky. What kind of dork gets all high and mighty over motherfucking Charlie Brown?
[QUOTE=ze spy;44273606]At first I thought it was really weird it was going to be CG, and I still think it kinda is, but I really like the art style. It's a lot better than I expected.[/QUOTE]
Definitely agree there,it's a cute style.
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
yeah, on one hand I kind of agree with the article writer that it goes against the whole "humbleness" of peanuts but at the same time having it be produced by schultz' grandson makes me think that it [I]at-least[/I] has the potential to not be another shitty cash-in
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
I get the feeling 2D nowadays is seen as something exclusive to artistic, no-for-profits projects. At least when it comes to the big screen
what a shame
cgi art styles looks like such shit 99% of the time
I get a strangely "Yoshi's Island" sort of vibe from this. Not in the art style particularly, but on a more base level. It seems to be working along similar guidelines to Yoshi's Island in terms of art style interpretation, creating a very soft, friendly and yet highly-unique look out of an odd medium (pixels for Yoshi's Island, 3D CGI for this movie).
It looks like they've managed to take a style better adapted to a different medium (YI; childrens' drawings/Peanuts: comic strips), and move it to a new medium in a form that's very different but works just as well with the style.
In spite of the incessantly-nasty article for this, it looks pretty damn good from an artistic standpoint. Then again, I'm no artist, to the point of considering drawing a consistent stick figure to be an amazing accomplishment for me, so what do I know?
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
This is one of my biggest problems with Disney right now, actually. Frozen was great, but I think based on cinematography alone, The Princess and the Frog was a much better animated film. (The "I've got friends on the other side" animation was so fitting. You can't easily get that sort of stylistic cacaphony in 3D. Probably one of the best scenes in the film.) It actually reminded me a lot of the Jungle Book or Tarzan, which were some of the best of the late 20th century Disney films.
Some films have a place being 3D. However, when your ice castle looks like you threw together a material shader in five minutes in Blender, you should perhaps reconsider your medium. The snow effects were nice, though.
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
Oh no, don't even go there. You cannot compare the production process of 2D and 3D movies. Both have their own pains and problems to them, and there's no such thing as "it's easier to make" in this industry.
[QUOTE=Reds;44273697]My problem though is that it [I]should[/I] be 2D. It's just not because it's easier to shove out a CG movie and because studios don't believe that 2D can sell.[/QUOTE]
I can agree with you 100% on this one. CGI has begun to rapidly wear out its welcome, and 2D would be a refreshing change for once. Also, 2D work allows for a lot more artistic license and lends itself well to fantastic and/or "unrealistic" settings. On top of that, 2D can flow and move in ways 3D CGI just doesn't, and would probably be amazing to look at now if it boomed again, due to further advancing animation technology.
Basically, 3D is getting really old, really fast. I grew up with 2D animated movies, and they both were previously and still are to this day gorgeous to watch. They also tend to be a lot more fluid and dynamic with the movements of the characters and environment, which adds some visual charm that 3D CGI can't seem to capture unless used by the best of the best (Pixar, for example).
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;44273762]Oh no, don't even go there. You cannot compare the production process of 2D and 3D movies. Both have their own pains and problems to them, and there's no such thing as "it's easier to make" in this industry.[/QUOTE]
I think he's talking about aesthetics. 'Cause let's face it, old-school 2D has an irreplaceable charm to it.
Nostalgia can be a bitch
[QUOTE=Coyoteze;44273762]Oh no, don't even go there. You cannot compare the production process of 2D and 3D movies. Both have their own pains and problems to them, and there's no such thing as "it's easier to make" in this industry.[/QUOTE]
You can, however, compare the time it takes to make them.
Walt Disney himself was known for allotting three to five years for an animated film, and the team of animators would do absolutely nothing aside from that film. For three to five years. Technological advances, such as keyframe animation, have drastically sped up the process of 3D film creation.
Now, you see that sort of attention to detail today. Pixar still does it, and that's why they're known for their 3D films. It's why Toy Story was such a great movie. But then you look at the Walt Disney Animation Studios today, and you see they're running two or three movies at a time, and they're pushing them out once or twice a year. Doesn't lend much credence to 3D movies being more difficult if a 300 man studio can do four or five times the work of a 100 man studio drawing everything by hand. (And that's just one of the many Disney Animation Studios. There are four, I think.)
I think you've also got to look at a lot of Eastern animation. "The Wind Rises" is a fantastic example of what can be done in a relatively short time frame with traditional animation, and it's been one of the best animated films released in the last half-decade. Then again, Miyazaki is a modern day Disney in terms of vision and skill, it's almost to be expected.
The things that always amazed me about the 2D disney films was the consistency of the animation. You could literally pause the film at any point even in fast scenes and have an absolutely perfect looking shot, while most other movies have odd frames that when paused you can clearly tell are not as detailed as the slower shots
I like the look and style of the movie. Maybe it will be good.
But if it doesn't have this dance in any part of the movie though
[IMG]http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/peanut-dance.gif[/IMG]
I'm gonna be pissed
I think there's a lot of potential in combined 3D/2D animation, best shown by for instance
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAI4B_2Mfc[/media]
Of course, if you just look at a picture of bugs bunny and throw together a sloppy Maya model and fling it about, it's going to look uncanny, but converting something that started as 2D to worth with 3D animating pipeline can be done beautifully, it's a matter of talent and skill.
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
And this is how they did it in Paperman.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY[/media]
It's perfect. The guy up there seems to be going with something a bit different but I still think that he has potential to do well.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44274215]I think there's a lot of potential in combined 3D/2D animation, best shown by for instance
[img]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QAI4B_2Mfc[/img]
Of course, if you just look at a picture of bugs bunny and throw together a sloppy Maya model and fling it about, it's going to look uncanny, but converting something that started as 2D to worth with 3D animating pipeline can be done beautifully, it's a matter of talent and skill. I mean, look at that fucking thing up there, the Paperman - it's fantastic!
[editline]18th March 2014[/editline]
And this is how they did it
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZJLtujW6FY[/media][/QUOTE]
can i just say that the title of that video is complete nonsense
seriously it's cool but it isn't the future of 2D
i mean i guess you could say it's the future of Disney 2D since they axed their actual 2D department and as such this is the closest they'll ever get to doing it again
[QUOTE=barttool;44273625]aww they sorta look like playdooh[/QUOTE]
Its true, I do resemble snoopy.
Is the writer of this article really that dark and depressing? They seem like they just want to share their fathers works with a new audience in a new way.
I'm pretty surprised that they were even able to get something 3D/CG to be so faithful to the original art style. I was expecting some Alvin and the Squeakquel abomination.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44274249]can i just say that the title of that video is complete nonsense
seriously it's cool but it isn't the future of 2D
i mean i guess you could say it's the future of Disney 2D since they axed their actual 2D department and as such this is the closest they'll ever get to doing it again[/QUOTE]
It's the future of 2D films that aspire to have animation that is more than 24 FPS tops.
It's the future of 2D films that want actual camera movement on the Y axis that doesn't look awkward as shit or cost a fuckton to produce.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;44274431]It's the future of 2D films that aspire to have animation that is more than 24 FPS.
It's the future of 2D films that want actual camera movement on the Y axis that doesn't look awkward as shit or cost a fuckton to produce.[/QUOTE]
Yes I too hate all of these 24 FPS movies(IE practically every single motherfucking movie ever made)
and yeah, what movie without 360 pans is any good, NAME ONE
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;44274460]Yes I too hate all of these 24 FPS movies(IE practically every single motherfucking movie ever made)
and yeah, what movie without 360 pans is any good, NAME ONE[/QUOTE]
Ooh, ooh, I know this!
2001: A Space Odyssey
(There were no 360 pans. In fact, most of the movie was filmed with stationary cameras and moving sets!)
On the topic of 24fps nonsense, it's nonsensical. Movies can actually get away with 24fps, especially animated films. Right now, it's also easier to do 24fps than anything else, because of render times. Unless you're filming an action movie with really fast scenes, there's not a lot of point in going above 30ish. Especially with the way cameras work, where they introduce quite a bit of motion blur that you don't get with higher frame rates. That's what causes the soap opera effect in 48fps films.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
