Cool News
Creeeeeeeeepy CGI Tom Hanks!! First POLAR EXPRESS Trailer Is Online Right Now!!
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
This just leapfrogged waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up to the top of my list of films I want to see. Robert Zemeckis, no matter what, remains one of the foremost craftsmen of his generation. Like Cameron, he’s one of those guys who loves to butt heads with the state of the art, just to see what he can pull off. Looks like he’s done it again here, and based on the little bits and pieces I’ve heard about how this was “shot,” I’m dying to see the whole film. All I know right now is that CGI Tom Hanks is one of the freakiest things I’ve seen in a long time, and it fascinates me.
CLICK HERE AND PREPARE TO GET ALL WEIRDED OUT!!
It really does look like the book brought to life. Van Allsburg fans have got to be intrigued when they see this. It’s certain more respectful than Universal’s SHITTY KITTY... er, I mean CAT IN THE HAT seems to be to its source material.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Another Tom Hanks film?
-
...don't hit me, but I want to see a version of the Lord of the Rings looking like that. Oh, and a lot of other favourite stories of mine as well. There's something about that look that immediately immerses me in the story world.
-
they should make an osama cartoon, that would own.
-
When they said it was going to be a mix of CGI and live action, I wasn't expecting THAT... Tom Hanks is looking a little scary, but it could work. It seems charming enough for a kids Xmas film. And it might benefit form a lack of the kind of hype that has set expectations too high for a number of other releases this year...
-
Too bad we have to wait a year to see how the rest pans out, but eh, what are ya gonna do?
-
Nov 12, 2003 6:38:40 AM CST
I doono..I get uneasy when i see CGI where live actors should be
by tallscott
Is CGI just a crutch for lazy direction? I mean dont get me wron Zemekis is no slouch but I kinda feel sorry for anyone who wants to be a Actor, set dresser,hand and stop motion animation, model maker, ect ect ect..those jobs may be not there 5 to 10 years from now..And anyone who wants to live the dream of being part of a film with extra crowd work, gone totally.. I personaly think it woulda looked better shot in live action it really didnt caputure what makes Hanks such a good actor..But like I said 5 to 10 years from now they just might get it where we dont need actors, prop people, make up artist ect..All the people who make films great..And im really not a CGI prude at all .The Times they are a changin..but for the better?? Im sorry but I think CGI can be just as bad for films as good.
-
Look, this whole attitude about CGI is too timid. The CGI and the animation is never going to get better with people just waiting for the next steps to be taken. It's been my experience that CGI takes experience to do well. Having movies use CGI, whatever it's deficiencies, teaches those created it how to cheaply and efficently create the illusions, so the worlds can be more complex, and more real in appearance, and so content can properly find it's place in what is rendered onscreen. There will be no magic discovery of how to make CGI perfect. There will only be hard work and the occasional advance. But it will get better every year as the processing, the storage, and the methods get better. You just have to have a little faith.
-
can anyone tell me why i always have problems downloading trailers with quicktime? i mean i always download some small 8 or 9 kb file that has the film title and nothing else happens. i never get to see these trailers and so im always left out.someone tell me whats going on!!
-
Anyone else having trouble getting the trailers to actually work?
-
Then again, I'm kinda drunk.
-
... like, now!
-
Luckily, Van Allsburg's sequel, ZATHURA, has nothing to do with Robin Williams' character. (Not that it would stop Hollywood from writing him in.) There's a good book-on-tape version of POLAR EXPRESS with William Hurt, but I can see how he's too subdued for the movie. (Great actor, but he makes Harrison Ford look like Speedy Gonzales.)
-
Man, the day they can recreate the look of a person's eyes flawlessly in CGI will be the day they've reached the pinnacle. As good as CGI is in movies and video game cutscenes, a humanoid CGI creation has the eeriest look in their eyes, regardless of their facial expressions....to quote Johnny Bravo's Mama..."they got those beady eyes, like a doll's eyes..."
-
It might have a better story line, but why the cg? It's hardly a new idea, why not use real actors and some cool make up effects mixed in with cg when needed? I really didn't see anything out of the ordinary in this trailer.
-
not to get in a strange man's train before? Especially when that strange man has a pedophile mustache?
-
Not until they change the title to simply "Polar Express." And then change it to "The Express." And then "X-press," followed by "X-prez," "X-Prz," and finally "-." Then it will be adequately X-treme to satisfy my urban cravings.
-
Nov 12, 2003 7:44:08 PM CST
CGI is so T I R E D and completely G A Y . . . (not that there's
by randfilms
Man, I am so friggin' tired of CGI and super slick. Tom Hanks and R. Zemekis are lame and tired. I actually think T. Hanks is still a pretty cool actor, but this looks like a big ol' McDonald's tie-in and pure crock of dung.
-
My first thought was "can't wait til this becomes Polar X. Which, of course, reminded me of The Onion's hilarious Extreme Saltines. I did like, however, how the sense of wonder was immediately preceeded by the "could-this-be-wish-fulfilment-or-the-start-of-a-slasher-movie?" alien-abduction-style-house-shaking. A little bit of fear is necessary to evoke "childlike wonder", and the trailer nailed that.
-
I am a third year 3D animation student at SCAD, and I must say the animation just looks awful!
1) The clothing doesn't have any texture, or move like clothing should. It just seems stuck to their bodies. Look at shrek2, how the prince cape flows in the wind, THATS how clothing should be.
2) The bodies are stiff and show no weight. Besides Tom Hanks nodding his head, (as the boy stands like a statue and stares at him) there is no other character movement. Good animation has subtle movements (even if they are standing still), successive breaking of the joints, and squash and stretch (yes good CGI has squash and stretch, take a good look a PIXAR)
3) No facial expressions! They both barley open their mouths to speak, let alone do anything with the eyes or any part of their face. And Tom Hanks is famous for being able to tug at your heart strings without having to say a word. Not to mention that their skin looks like its made of plastic. Didn't the CGI world learn not what to do with facial expressions from Final Fantasy?
There's my rant... I love the book, and I am sure they have a great story adaptation, but the CGI is lacking. I don -
It's pretty amazing that you can review a film that won't be out for another year, Matt2001. Just from that little glimpse, I have no idea how the film, or even the effects, will come out. But I can say this: sometimes you want your characters to stay still. Somehow in your three years of animation school you missed out on characterization. Not character design, but the ability to make characters that are real. And people sometimes just stand there. You know, like when they are shocked that a train stops right outside their bedroom. The animation you make must look like those old black and whites where everyone is constantly moving in that stayed motion effect. Or that episode of Futurama where Zoidberg's uncle is directing all of his actors to run the gamut of emotions in every line and wants his extras to run around in the background and throw pies at each other.
-
It looked an awful lot like GHOST TRAIN, the pilot for Amazing Story that Spielberg directed.
-
Nov 13, 2003 4:43:37 AM CST
After all this technology, there's still no "LIFE" in those CG e
by alcamaeon
-
I can't believe that some people are still going to complain that CGI humans aren't perfect yet. I've got news for you guys...realistic CGI humans ain't gonna happen!...not in our lifetime or our kid's lifetimes or grandkid's lifeimes...so deal with non-perfect CGI and enjoy it.
Anyway, the music in this trailer was a bit overly manipulative and obvious, but besides that it looks interesting. I don't know a thing about the book, but the CGI looks amazing and Zemeckis rarely disappoints. I just rewatched "Contact" the other day and enjoyed it as always.
I hate cool trailers for films that are a year away though...I want to see it now!
-
I still say the CGI in the Final Flight of the Osaris is the best ever, but I thought this stuff looked good too. They may have gone for a slightly cartoony look rather than more realistic like Final Fantasy (which rocked) or the Animatrix short.
-
Nov 13, 2003 6:12:39 AM CST
If it leapfrogged its way up to the top of your list, it must ha
by ribbons
Either that, or it jumped more than once, which is just silly of it. Trailer looked kinda nifty. It certainly is a faithful enough recreation for Van Allsburg's fans, but whether or not that will translate into actual movie magic is another story. As for 'Cat in the Hat,' well, it certainly does deviate from its source material in terms of "character" and "personality," but not in bankability, and that's aaaaalllll that matters. That's aaaaalllll that matters. Plus, when has Brain Grazer ever backed a stinker? I say never, that's what I say.
-
Nov 13, 2003 9:56:14 AM CST
The animation looks very cool, but I don't get the point of usin
by minderbinder
We'll see...I'm just waiting for Zemeckis to get back the touch he's lost since Contact.
-
Nov 13, 2003 9:57:27 AM CST
The animation looks very cool, but I don't get the point of usin
by minderbinder
We'll see...I'm just waiting for Zemeckis to get back the touch he's lost since Contact.
-
I am not trying review the film, just what I have seen in the trailer. There is a difference between still because you are stunned and still because you've been animated badly. His face doesn't match his body at all. And like I said before their mouths barely even open. Animation has to be exaggerated a little bit, its one of those things that no one has been able to figure out why, but when you don't exaggerate it looks less life like. Same reason why animators don't %100 rotoscope. Sure if you rotoscope you'll have the movements exactly the same as in life, but as soon as the animation plays it looks weightless and lifeless.
I am in fact not a modeler or rigger but a CHARACTER animator, and you talked about characterization, which you say is about the ability to make characters that are real. Well in animation (2d or 3d) that -
Apparently the book is fantastic, and from the evidence in this trailer, Zemeckis is really going to push the envolope on this one. A question, though: When does Pixar's The Incredibles open? I hope these two don't go head-to-head - one of them would have to 'lose'...
-
You need to watch that trailer again, Matt2001. Pay close attention to the shot of the kid opening his eyes. They rendered it in such a way that his eyes pull to focus. There is a split second when his eyes react to his environment. Now, pay attention to the action shot of the kid running through his bedroom door. Watch as his right arm foreshortens toward the "camera". This is an exaggerated movement by the character (no one really runs like that with their arms swinging as though airborne), but it reads as real. Now rent yourself a Tom Hanks movie (just about any will do). It's interesting that you bring up Rotoscope because a variation on that is obviously what they did here. Tom Hanks' character doesn't open his mouth wide and scream his lines because Tom Hanks as an actor loves stoic, subtle performances. This is so that his characters can have a wide range, a starting point to give the more passionate moments more weight. And this is what they have captured here. These are moments that read "real". Less cartoon-y that what you feel is necessary for an audience to buy it. Now, if you had had a problem with Tom Hanks' creepy, pasted-on mustache then I could understand.
-
You use SHREK as an example of good animation and texturing? Shuuuuddder. Shrek was waaaaaayyyy overtextured. Polar Express is far more stylized. If you are a 3rd year character animator and Shrek looks good to you I weep for the future of 3d animation. Shrek was animated from the command line.
-
Uberob, I will agree with you that the boys eyes coming into focus is a nice touch, and that his arm flying through the door is well done as well. But I still stand by that the characterization in the faces are sorely lacking. I keep coming back to the mouths not opening, and you say its just Tom Hanks style of acting ( which I very much disagree with in regards to his live action, but we can agree to disagree ). This mouth issue is a problem the entire CGI industry seems to be having, neither Square, Sony, ILM, Digital Domain, or anyone else has yet to quite get it it right yet, which I am sure they will eventually. But the polar express characters are just outright stiff and have very little appeal as characters. Now granted this is a 30 second trailer, and we will just have to wait for the release to find out for sure, but as of now I stick by opinion. However I am glad we can agree that the mustage is the scariest thing ever, almost as bad as the castaway beard. Tom Hanks and facial hair do not seem to mix well. On a side note to Autonomousgerm, I didn't use shrek and a example for texturing, I used Shrek2. Further I wasn't even talking about texturing, just the way the princes cape flowed in the air, I thought was particuly well done. Also if Harry is reading this I would love for him to chime on what he thinks of the animation.
-
Hate that Spielbergian stuff
-
I had no idea this movie was coming. I saw the link on AICN and clicked it, thinking, "Could it be?" Seriously, is was my favorite children's book of all time. I had it read to me in second or third grade by our librarian and asked my mom to buy it the next day. I read it over and over till I had it memorized. I can't really express how much I loved this book as a child. When I clicked the trailer link and started the trailer, I was still wondering if this was it. Then the train pulled up and I practically welled up with tears. I can't believe it. Zemeckis is the man. I can't wait to see this.
-
im of the mind that the good ol WB here is chiming in with their two cents on a full animation project... i mean, hell, its WB, they are the leaders in generating pap to the masses; ie. being about "if everyone is doing it why aren't we" and since they got loads of cash to dumkp on great actors, they roped in Tom to literally phone in his role...in regard to the cgi, i was a little let down by what i saw...i know this is waaay down the pike, but the trailer presentation seemed polished... it just looked, hm, flat.
-
Hoo boy, is this guy workin'. March: "The Ladykillers" (for the Coens.) Summer: "The Terminal" (for Spielberg). Xmas: "The Polar Express." That's a lotta Hanks. (Interesting: sticking with Spielberg and Zemeckis,to play it safe, and doing one "risky" one with the Coens, just so he can make sure he did one with them.)
-
I hate CGI cartoons.
-
It's an internet trailer, you can't make out much detail at all at this resolution.
-
Why nothing on here about the new Shrek2 trailer being out? Sure it looks stupid, but it seems like it would have been mentioned. Does Harry hate Shrek and blackblaled him from the site?
-
You make some good points about the shortcomings of the animation in this trailer. I see what you mean about the mouths not moving correctly when the characters talk. However, I totally stand by my statement though that totally realistic CGI humans (that could fool the viewer into thinking it was a real human) will NOT happen in the next 100 years or much longer. Regardless of how far computers progress, the people who operate them are not capable of perfectly reproducing the millions if not billions of minute details in human movement and expression. Maybe someday when AI advances, and computers can do to the thinking AND rendering, then it will happen....but that will be a new world that bears little resemblance to our present one.
-
Nov 15, 2003 10:25:53 AM CST
Don't know if there was one for the trailer, but there have been
by minderbinder
-
Nov 16, 2003 11:35:25 AM CST
A guy with a moustache who picks up children at midnight??
by harmoniumsaver
At least this time around, in this context, his name isn't WOODY.
-
so then i have to wonder why bother. pixar is popular because of their stories but also because of their style. the people in their movies don't look real but it is a cool style.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts