>> Polar Express was lame. (Then again, it /is/ aimed at kids...) Final
>> Fantasy I watched all the way through at the cinema, and quite enjoyed.
>
> FF had great unmatched models and CGI for the time. But had quite poor
> plot. I'm also assuming you haven't played any FF game ever. They

> movie. I don't think most people got it.

Never played FF. But the guy next to me had. He seemed moderately impressed.

Sure, there's not much plot to it. And I never really did like films 
where absolutely everybody dies. But hey, I was just watching the 
eye-candy. ;-)

> I think the UV works worse for CGI movies who go for a complete motion
> capture approach. Polar Express had an eerie Tom Hanks mannequin and
> Beowulf had eerie (but better) mannequins of Angelina Jolie and Anthony
> Hopkins. Not to tell character models in games these days already look
> almost as good as those.

Polar Express was an unremarkable film in every respect. I don't know 
why it keeps coming up. That film had far worse problems then anything 
to do with the visual technology (which was also pretty unremarkable).

> Pixar and Disney will remain down the cartoon look, that is, cartoonish
> models with cartoony proportions filled with realistic materials and
> lights and *hand animated* for better performance than any one actor.

1. Pixar *is* Disney.

2. I see motion capture as the future. It gives you far more expression 
with far less work.

> Avatar came up with grown-up smurfed thundercats

Great visuals, a little light on story, and the pacing was really wonky. 
Still, I guess it's not like *I* could have done any better...

> http://www.zbrushcentral.com/showthread.php?t=113952

Doesn't look especially great to me, but maybe I'm analysing it too much.

Post a reply to this message