|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 18, 2005 18:56:34 GMT
I've seen a few people on here saying that they would prefer this to be a live action film and I have to say - me included. Now that Pendragons film has turned out to be a huge disappointment, wouldn't it be great if Jeff Wayne decided to do this instead.
Don't get me wrong - a cgi film could be great but even though I'm aware not all animated films are for kids, there's always the cartoon - video game comparisons by some people and I think cgi is still quite a distance from creating satisfying people and animals. I also think a totally cgi film will date a lot quicker because of the advances in animation technology.
I think a fantastic live action film of this could be made and it could be a real classic of the cinema - if it was a book to film adaptation done in a similar way to LOTRINGS.
Maybe I'm wrong but what's everyone else think.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 18, 2005 19:11:14 GMT
Im glad he's doing it as an animation and not 'live' action as it singles itself out from the other films which are all live action. Being that its animated, it ties in very nicely with the albums artwork booklet, were getting the artwork come to life.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 18, 2005 19:28:33 GMT
Im glad he's doing it as an animation and not 'live' action as it singles itself out from the other films which are all live action. Being that its animated, it ties in very nicely with the albums artwork booklet, were getting the artwork come to life. I see what you mean about the animation being similar to the booklet but I still think a live action film would bring this to life just as much as a totally cgi film - if not more. In comparison to the other films - if Pendragons film had been great and a superb adaptation of the book then I would agree but let's face it Pendragons film isn't worth talking about - let alone watching and Jeffs is the only one set in Victorian England which the overwhelming majority of people will see. Pendragons film will most probably disappear into obscurity anyway so Jeff Wayne has no competition in that respect.
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 18, 2005 19:31:53 GMT
I know where your coming from, but be them good or bad there still live action films at the end of the day.
Secretly I did hope that Jeff would have taken the live action path, but the more I look into it the more Im pleased with his final decision of a animated film.
|
|
|
Post by theredweed on Jul 18, 2005 22:07:16 GMT
I am glad its animation too! I think if it were live action it would not work cos of the voices and no actor cos out perform Richard Burton in the introduction speech
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jul 18, 2005 22:36:53 GMT
I don't care, as long as it looks good. ;D
Seriously, I'm in two minds - given the realism clearly being sought in terms of machinery (e.g Thunder Child, the Martian machines etc.) I assume they'll be going for realistic humans. Problem is, I just don't think 'realistic' CGI people, as actors, are 'real' enough. 'Final Fantasy' anyone?
Now, I know a lot of people wil now retort 'Gollum!' But Gollum was such an exaggerated character, he was really more a 'creature'; 'realistic' humans just don't seem to work in CGI, they tend to be too wooden. In a way, I'd prefer to see JW's fillum look a bit more cartoon-like if it's not going to be live action (which it ain't).
Still, it's an interesting project, and I'm not trying to throw cold water on it - I wish him the best of luck - just voicing a couple of niggles.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 19, 2005 0:57:33 GMT
I am glad its animation too! I think if it were live action it would not work cos of the voices and no actor cos out perform Richard Burton in the introduction speech Well other actors could play the characters easy enough and Burtons voice could still be used.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 19, 2005 1:08:10 GMT
I don't care, as long as it looks good. ;D Seriously, I'm in two minds - given the realism clearly being sought in terms of machinery (e.g Thunder Child, the Martian machines etc.) I assume they'll be going for realistic humans. Problem is, I just don't think 'realistic' CGI people, as actors, are 'real' enough. 'Final Fantasy' anyone? Now, I know a lot of people wil now retort 'Gollum!' But Gollum was such an exaggerated character, he was really more a 'creature'; 'realistic' humans just don't seem to work in CGI, they tend to be too wooden. In a way, I'd prefer to see JW's fillum look a bit more cartoon-like if it's not going to be live action (which it ain't). Still, it's an interesting project, and I'm not trying to throw cold water on it - I wish him the best of luck - just voicing a couple of niggles. Yes Gollum looked fantastic but as you say it's one thing to create a fantasy creature and another thing totally to create realistic humans. I strongly disagree when you say that you'd prefer to see J.Waynes film look a bit more cartoonlike though. I really hope it's nothing like a cartoon. I hope it has a gritty horrific realism about it and is aimed mainly at adults - and is scary as hell.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jul 19, 2005 1:22:11 GMT
You can do so much more with animation at such a lower cost... I think if the CG is done well, it will be fantastic. I mean, you never have to worry about getting a scene and location that looks like victorian England, or pay for historically accurate costumes
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 19, 2005 1:47:08 GMT
You can do so much more with animation at such a lower cost... I think if the CG is done well, it will be fantastic. I mean, you never have to worry about getting a scene and location that looks like victorian England, or pay for historically accurate costumes That is true I suppose and I'm certainly no expert at cost etc when it comes to films but would it necessarily be more expensive. The BBC can knock up expensive looking costume dramas for around the million pound mark so would it not be feasible for someone such as Jeff Wayne to do this but then add all the spectacular special effects on top. I mean look at something like Doctor Who recently or Walking with Dinosaurs. Doctor Who cost around 13 million pounds for 13 episodes and some of the British effects houses are a lot cheaper than their American counterparts. I know they aren't yet up to the standards of ILM or perhaps Weta Digital yet but they're closing fast. Envious Eyes certainly look like a talented bunch.
|
|
|
Post by Spirit of Man on Jul 19, 2005 3:05:25 GMT
Im rather pleased its going to be animation as I do love watching good CGI, the intro sequence to Onimusha 3 is amazing. With regards to the level of realism on the human characters, I think it has to be weighed up what this film is trying to acheive. Does it want to try and emulate realism or does it want to have a (slightly) cartoony look to it (and dont take this too literally, I dont mean turn it into the new Toy Story). With it being CGI, they have a wide scope for how they can present this & making it look completely real might not be the best way to do it. I also have nightmares about the people from the intro to the PC game, but I have faith that we arent going to be trated to that with this version
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jul 19, 2005 4:14:38 GMT
Ahh yes the infamous block people of Woking how can one forget...
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on Jul 19, 2005 12:09:00 GMT
You can do so much more with animation at such a lower cost... I think if the CG is done well, it will be fantastic. I mean, you never have to worry about getting a scene and location that looks like victorian England, or pay for historically accurate costumes That is true I suppose and I'm certainly no expert at cost etc when it comes to films but would it necessarily be more expensive. The BBC can knock up expensive looking costume dramas for around the million pound mark so would it not be feasible for someone such as Jeff Wayne to do this but then add all the spectacular special effects on top. I mean look at something like Doctor Who recently or Walking with Dinosaurs. Doctor Who cost around 13 million pounds for 13 episodes and some of the British effects houses are a lot cheaper than their American counterparts. I know they aren't yet up to the standards of ILM or perhaps Weta Digital yet but they're closing fast. Envious Eyes certainly look like a talented bunch. And the beauty of this is thats its Bristish made . . . . woo hoo
|
|
|
Post by mctoddridesagain on Jul 19, 2005 12:44:23 GMT
I strongly disagree when you say that you'd prefer to see J.Waynes film look a bit more cartoonlike though. I really hope it's nothing like a cartoon. I hope it has a gritty horrific realism about it and is aimed mainly at adults - and is scary as hell. But look at Anime films, such as the most famous, 'Akira'. Clearly animation, but very gritty, richly textured and sometimes horrific. I say go for a slightly more cartoonish feel because I don't think 'synthetic humans' (which is what we're really talking about if we mean photo-realistic artificial actors) work, and I don't think they will work for many years. Anything else, such as machines, fantasy creatures, etc., can (and often does these days) work as CGI. But anything humanoid that is even only 1% off sticks out like a sore thumb.
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Jul 19, 2005 13:30:40 GMT
I think it could work out well, after all the work that companies like Pixar have done to make CGI more impressive and less expencive is certainly worth looking forward to. I will certainly wish the best of luck to the project
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 19, 2005 16:10:08 GMT
I strongly disagree when you say that you'd prefer to see J.Waynes film look a bit more cartoonlike though. I really hope it's nothing like a cartoon. I hope it has a gritty horrific realism about it and is aimed mainly at adults - and is scary as hell. But look at Anime films, such as the most famous, 'Akira'. Clearly animation, but very gritty, richly textured and sometimes horrific. I say go for a slightly more cartoonish feel because I don't think 'synthetic humans' (which is what we're really talking about if we mean photo-realistic artificial actors) work, and I don't think they will work for many years. Anything else, such as machines, fantasy creatures, etc., can (and often does these days) work as CGI. But anything humanoid that is even only 1% off sticks out like a sore thumb. Well Final Fantasy had some quite convincing cgi humans and if I was making this I would try to get to the next level of photo realism beyond that. I see what you mean about Akira but that's more conventional animation isn't it and I certainly wouldn't want to see that in Jeffs film.
|
|
Ulaaaa!
Full Member
Ulaaaaa!
Posts: 102
|
Post by Ulaaaa! on Jul 19, 2005 16:40:19 GMT
There are convincing humans done in CGI. Final Fantasy: Spirits Within Starship Troopers the Series
and er, well thats it. It's been done really well in some game demos as well but I'm guessing there are few gamers here.
Anyway the point is it's highly possible.
|
|
|
Post by Stuuullaaa on Jul 19, 2005 18:13:56 GMT
Im glad he's doing it as an animation and not 'live' action as it singles itself out from the other films which are all live action. Being that its animated, it ties in very nicely with the albums artwork booklet, were getting the artwork come to life. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jul 19, 2005 18:22:39 GMT
There are convincing humans done in CGI. Final Fantasy: Spirits Within Starship Troopers the Series and er, well thats it. It's been done really well in some game demos as well but I'm guessing there are few gamers here. Anyway the point is it's highly possible. And not forgetting the New Captain Scarlet. The thing is though they're all kids shows [ as much as I like the new Captain Scarlet ] and Final Fantasy is based on a video game and I might be wrong but isn't that also really more of a kids film. Again I'm not for one moment saying a totally cgi film isn't going to be good and Jeff Wayne and co certainly have my support but I'm still convinced a live action epic is possible and would be the better option.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 19, 2005 19:16:55 GMT
I think that while CGI animation is just as good as live actions for some, for more is a medium that is frowned upon and dissmissed.
I think this is the main problem with doing War of the Worlds in full CGI.
That it will immediatly get labelled by the mass populous as being a cartoon, for children, a lesser form of Speilbergs.
It happens to Video Games, when their entertainment value and intellect is as good, or sometimes better than most live action ventures. It happens to Anime, a source of entertainment that in many ways is unrivaled, but is looked upon as being almost lowly by most people.
And the sad truth is that this applies to CGI aswell. By choosing to make this film fully Computer Generated, Jeff has effectivly removed half of his audience already. Add to that its based in Victorian England, and that its based on a Musical (Which, to the passing observer of WotW it will be), it all amounts to project suicide.
Personally, yes, I would prefer live action. But I also think CGI is just as worthy a substitute. And it certainly offers a more visually dynamic style - one that will be more appealing to lots... but also less appealing to lots, and lots, and lots.
The simple truth is that, wether CGI people look good or bad, or wether the film will be good or bad, by making it CGI Jeff Wayne has effectivly lost a good Three Quarters of this films potential viewers.
- Marcus
|
|