Cool News
Universal Says "No" To Spielberg & Jackson's TINTIN! Paramount Responds "We've Got This!"
Beaks here...
It's always news when someone says "No" to Steven Spielberg, but it's frankly a bit of a stunner when that "No" comes from Universal Pictures. Universal has always been Spielberg's safe haven; it's where he got his start in Hollywood (under the tutelage of Sid Sheinberg), and it's probably the studio that will distribute most of DreamWorks' product now that Spielberg's company has effectively split from Paramount. And, yet, there was Universal standing athwart TINTIN's mo-capped path to production yesterday bellowing, "Halt!"
And, less than twenty-four hours after Claudia Eller's story hit the Los Angeles Times' website, there was Viacom screaming (per Nikki Finke), "We're already on the hook for $30 million in pre-production costs; Oh, hell, we'll eat this!"
I'll admit to being firmly in the "stunned" camp when this news broke yesterday, if only because a two-way split on a (proposed) $130 million picture directed by Steven Spielberg (and produced by Peter Jackson!) doesn't sound at all like a gamble. Obviously, there's the fact that TINTIN is not a hugely recognizable character in the U.S., but I've got to think that the names "Spielberg" and "Jackson" would go a long way towards generating some kind of audience interest. Still, there's this to consider (from Eller's story):
Spielberg and Jackson, who would also produce both movies, would together grab about 30% of the studio's total gross revenue from box-office, DVD, television and other sales. Under that scenario, the pair would walk away with more than $100 million before Universal and DreamWorks could make a profit.
This means, according to Eller's sources, that TINTIN would have to gross $425 million worldwide to break even. That's a lot of coin for a movie that doesn't directly appeal to teens and twentysomethings. Then again, Pixar's RATATOUILLE pulled in close to that amount in foreign $$$ alone; if TINTIN is mostly an overseas phenomenon, I don't see why Spielberg's film can't approach that number (provided it's good). And while this isn't your typical Spielberg film, I somehow can't see the rigors of mo-cap production kicking his ass; the Beard's got a fairly above-average track record when it comes to blending storytelling and nascent technology.
I should note that Finke's story has yet to be confirmed by the Times or the trades, but she was the first to the Universal half of this story, so I'll trust her sources on this. Expect Spielberg's TINTIN to start shooting this October.
-
+ Expand All
-
Dammit first.
-
Ol' Stevey would want to put the craptastic Shia in the lead... again...
-
to see this made. DAMMIT. SPIELBERG DON'T FUCK UP.
-
Was that a Bill Buckley reference there at the start, Mr. Beaks?
-
who cares? I read all the Tin Tin trades as a kid, and they were pretty good. But I don't really care about this. Gives Spielberg a chance to do something cooler, i.e. not a Lincoln film or this.
-
had it set up that the movie had to make all of its money back before they received a percentage of the gross. Of course, that was a safer bet. If I'm not mistaken, before that film saw $200 million they didn't see a dime.
-
unless one remembers how much money Warner Bros. lost on "Empire of the Sun"
-
Can someone please explain why TinTin needs a budget north of $10-$20 million, period? Shoot the thing on the cheap with no names and then pocket a percentage of profit.
-
Only a few years ago it was seen that an R-rated film couldn't make the big bucks, yet more and more dark, adult films are destroying box office records. Meanwhile, safe family films like Speed Racer (aimed at a wide audience) are tanking big time. Seriously, Spielberg and Jackson want a trilogy. The best way to have a trilogy is to have a film that makes money and warrants two sequels. Blowing your load on the first film, and possibly losing money isn't the way to go.
-
is Spielberg's been developing it since 1984. It's a project that's been floating around Hollywood for that long with Spielberg's superstar name attached to it. It's been hitting snags for 24 years. This week's snag failed to send my jaw to the floor.
-
Why is it always brought up that Tintin isn't well known in America? Does this matter at all? Are we saying that the only films that are successes in America are those that feature characters that the audience had already heard of?I think you'll find that a lot of recent hits have been original films, with characters who no audience in the world had ever heard of before.So it wouldn't matter if nobody had heard of Tintin. If it's a good film, a good Spielberg film at that, then it should be a hit.
-
Tintin will be much more attractive to the family audience, AND to all of us. Polar Express looked shit from the second I saw anything of it. Tintin won't, AND it will have a great story with screenplay penned by Steven Moffat. The studios shouldn't be worried at all.
-
is one hell of a writer. It'll sure be a treat to have a summer blockbuster with a well-written screenplay.
-
I don't know anything about TinTin really. I can't claim to be remotely interested. In fact I fully intended to pass these films over. But if Williams does the score, I'm there.
-
Sounds like a big percentage for him to take. Sure he's got to be one of the dead certs of the business but if this isn't his regular contract why start pulling this sh1t now?
-
And please, having a real fucking ending. I really respect Spielberg, and his entire fucking career, except it has been a very long time since he had a proper ending for one of his films. It is hard to believe the same man who did Jaws, Poltergeist, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc. is responsible for the endings of AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, etc. etc.
-
Since no one knows TinTin, why make it? I guess Spielberg just got lucky in the past with E.T, Poltergiest, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Close Encounters... THIS is how LAME movie studios are! And this is why the big summer movies were Dark Knight, Hulk, Iron Man, Indy IV, Get Smart (well maybe not big!)... nothing original in the lot except maybe WALL-E and even that movie is as derivative as one can get.
-
I'm not surprised to hear this hit a few snags. For anyone who lives and works out here, it's become more and more clear that Hollywood has entered into an all-new era of being gun shy about "what" to develop or spend any money on since every production company in town is sweating massive bullets (especially in these economic times) over these insane budgets. Especially now when so many summer tentpole productions, often the financial backbone for a studio, now routinely seem to hit a $150-200-250 million budget.And think it -- going by the old, basic equation that you have to make back twice your budget to break even (to cover actual production and ancillary costs such as marketing, strking prints, etc), then these $200 million movies need to make $400 million just to break even. For crying out loud, seriously think about that. First of all, think about putting 200 FUCKING MILLION DOLLARS on the line for just ONE project and the headaches that alone would bring you. Worst of all, going back to the equation, that means Hollywood has now hit a point where you need to make HALF A BILLION at the box office to post a profit on your movie.That's great if you make a DARK KNIGHT (which is at $900 million right now) -- but who even thought DK would go as high as it did? I'm happy for its success (actually surprised by it), but that $500 million in profits that Warners will make will now pay for...wow...a whopping 2 more big movies they want to make. TWO. Actually not even that since Warners has to fill in the mammoth hole equally gambling $150 million on SPEED RACER.The amount of money that these things are costing these days is just truly insane. And while I can't fault Speilberg or Jackson for being smart and shielding themselves up front, I don't care HOW big a guy ol' Stevie is: if I was in charge of running a studio and someone walked into my office and wanted a business deal that guaranteed themselves $100 million upfront BEFORE I could see a single penny returned on my investment I'd just have to say "Well, it would have been nice to work with you, but clearly YOU'RE FUCKING NUTS. So get out."
-
You said: "It is hard to believe the same man who did Jaws, Poltergeist, Raiders of the Lost Arc, etc. is responsible for the endings of AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds, etc."To be fair, I think you can blame the ending of WAR OF THE WORLDS on H.G. Welles. Of course, for producing a totally BORING alien invasion movie I am willing to blame to Speilberg...
-
He'd make this live-action rather than spooge out a CGI wankfest which is nothing more than the comic "coming to life." Really, CGI flicks are nice, but not worth $130 million. Make it live action and you can make it for 20% of that price and get the thing made!
-
Even if unfamiliar with the big portions of US audience it's still much better then the average Marvel comics and should be easy to sell with Spielberg and Jackson and Williams on board.
-
...But the fact that Steven Moffat is writing this actually has me more interested than Speilberg directing. Moffat's DR WHO work has been stellar, meanwhile Speilberg's more recent attempts at summer movies (LOST WORLD, WOTW, INDY) have been lukewarm at best. Then again, I blame all of those misfires on truly shitty scripts by David Koepp. Why the hell Speilberg keeps working with Koepp is beyond me. So here's hoping that Moffat delivers and that a solid script juices Speilberg's energy back up, which hopefully will be raised a notch or two anyway just by toying with motion capture technology for the first time.
-
This is bad news!!
-
I guess Tin Tin won't be around to shank anyone else. But then considering Spielberg's less than competant track record the last ten years or so, I'm glad someone had the balls to take a second look and say no. Otherwise he'd think it's okay to shove more crap in our faces. This way, he'll hqave to improve as a filmmaker. It's for the best.
-
Spielgreed and Jackhander should stump up the cashola betwix themselves and rake it in! Not like between them they aint got a bean or two!!!
-
Is great. I dunno why people talk about it as if it's a happy end - it's totally fucked up.
Poor robot kid gets shafted by humans, spends a millenium under water; then when the robots have taken over and are all advanced and futuristic and shit, they find him and take him in. But he's a relic, a fucked up kid still pining for his mother, so they try to help him and make up some bullshit about how he can see her but only for a day thinking this will knock some sense into him but duh, it doesn't, poor little fucker has to live forever with the loss of his mother and these robots are just as alien to him as the humans who built him
It's a totally tragic ending, how an earth can people say it's a tacked-on happy ending?
Anyway mo-cap is bollocks, why do otherwise decent directors want to use this shitty technique?
Plus why should the budget be so high? I thought that was the whole point of this technology??? -
Would be more sensible. Unless they're straying very far from the original stories there's not much in the Tintin books that require showy CGI. Ghibli nailed the "charming old fashioned Europe" look already, in films like Kiki's Delivery Service. It might even be that the facial mo-cap would stand out more than the story. It's not like it's Tarzan or The Martian Chronicles. Perhaps a deliberately leaked script review might be in order. Just to give a sense of the tone and the movies potential scale and, of course, to build interest that isn't quite there. All that being said, I'd love to see that demo reel they made.
-
Sep 20, 2008 6:04:49 PM CDT
I frankly wish it had put the kibosh on the whole project
by industrykiller!
There are several reasons why this is a gamble and why im not even interested. First of all no one can disagree that when it comes to genre fare Spielberg hasnt been at the top of his game for at least a decade. i would go as far to say that Indy 4 is the worst film he's ever made and that it feels like he's in a loveless marriage with anything non dramatic nowadays. I think Indy 4 woke a lot of people up, money maker or not, that you can no longer tie Spielbergs name to quality on light hearted action fare. His dramas are brilliant, his genres not so much.
Secondly, its gonna use that same computer mo capped crap technology that Zemeckis has failed epically with his last two projects on. No one likes hte technology. its ugly and it's pointless. Whyt he fuck would you mo cap actors, get them in a studio to do movement no less, only the make the animation to look exactly like a mannequin of that actor? Why not just use the actor? It's totally fucking pointless and it robs the piece of all emotion. Now maybe they are going with something a bit more stylistic animation wise this time round, but I havent heard anything like that yet. I would rather the guy just move forward with his Lincoln project, which has a much better chance of hitting greatness. -
not so dumb. It'll never happen but athletes, actors and other big money makers should be paid based on results and performance. A base salary or base % and then a scaled % or bonus if they hit certain milestones. Of course that extra bonus amount would be different depending on who the talent is.
-
does this have anything to do with the adventures of lil nemo in slumberland? i thought there might be a connection but i'm not sure. also i thought that slumberland has been kicking around hollywood with spielburg's name attached as well. panels from that strip i do remember seeing and i was blown away. it would make a great animated movie. in an unrelated query, when the hell is brad bird going to a sequel to iron giant or the incredibles, when i'm 90? (wishful thinking about both)
-
They're kind of shooting themselves in the foot being so hush hush with the look of this film. It's not like it's Avatar. Is it going to be like Beowulf, done in Herge's style, all cgi? Or are they going to do weird looking cartoon people walking around in King Kong style scenery? One of those is obviously cooler as an idea than the other. I sort of lean towards the second one, but who knows?
-
Those comic strips are amazing beautiful and strange. Good fodder for people like Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry if they could get the budget.
-
Yup, the A.I. ending is pretty devastating. It's John William's music that lets the side down a bit - he should have went atonal for the end sequence instead of a piano ballad.
-
Then surely Sky Captain is the model to follow, using real actors against CGI backdrops.
In fact, didn't Spy kids or something use a similar style? Maybe they should speak to Rodriguez about how to rein in their budget.
Man, imagine Danny Trejo as Captain Haddock? I would poop myself with happiness if that actually happened -
Tennant pretty much agrees to do a full season of Who if they also make a theatrical film? I'd be much more into a Moffat Who movie than a Moffat animated mannequin movie that won't make any money.
-
And this thing is gonna be a huge success. Tintin's huge in Europe and Spielberg+Jackson's names are gonna sell shitloads of tickets everywhere else.
-
Sep 20, 2008 6:28:19 PM CDT
Re: Has AICN mentioned the whole Who movie thing?
by the handsome 12th doctor
No. Of course they haven't.Herc only gives us a Who talkback after each episode because a rabid Whovian kidnaps his pet dog every year. If it wasn't for that then Doctor Who would never get mentioned on this site.
-
that is some word. my wordreference went crazy over it..
-
Where the fuck is my Saturday dose of that fucking Scriptgirl with my news... on scripts?
-
A VARIETY article noted this...Jackson's New Zealand-based WETA Digital, the f/x house behind "The Lord of the Rings" franchise, produced a 20-minute test reel bringing to life the characters created by Remi, who wrote under the pen name of Herge."Herge's characters have been reborn as living beings, expressing emotion and a soul which goes far beyond anything we've seen to date with computer animated characters," Spielberg said. "We want Tintin's adventures to have the reality of a live-action film, and yet Peter and I felt that shooting them in a traditional live-action format would simply not honor the distinctive look of the characters and world that Herge created."Jackson said WETA will stay true to Remi's original designs in bringing the cast of Tintin to life, but that the characters won't look cartoonish. "Instead," Jackson said, "we're making them look photorealistic; the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people — but real Herge people!"I don't know about the rest of you, but I usually don't walk down the street and bump into "real Herge people", whatever the fuck that means. So I'm guessing the motion capture look ultimately will have a cartoony look.
-
give me a Noddy movie.
a dark, evil, racist, police state, pedophile Noddy movie.
it isn't very good in the dark dark wood
in the middle of the night
when there isn't any light -
Sep 20, 2008 6:55:51 PM CDT
Read about this the other day through a CGI Artist website
by dracula_wants_the_amulet
Couldn't beleive what I was reading. After all Steve has done for paramount, he even sold them dreamworks, that and who he is as a filmmaker. I mean why shut down any of his films he is a Mozart or this era... Honestly even his worst films are better than most acclaimed directors bests, and this film has quite a fan base in Europe. It will make it's money! Saddened and shocked am I by this news. How Dare You Paramount! After what He did for you.
-
Sep 20, 2008 7:06:03 PM CDT
I like how everyone is assuming that only America matters here
by dogsoup
Where exactly is Tin Tin's audience? OVER FUCKING SEAS!!! This comic has a HUGE following in Europe and other points across our ponds. Universal is stupid and arrogant for thinking most of Tin Tins Box Office Draw will be in America and the International markets are just filler. It's the other fucking way around!!!
-
The demon code prevents me from giving a damn. I love the hell out of Tintin and his gang but would prefer they release 'the Adventures of Tintin' on (non- belgian)dvd than make a new movie. On the other hand a new film will probably give them the impetus and interest they need to release it.
-
because they feel the film needs a pre established audience for it to make money.
No more risks is right.
The name Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson would sell it here in the USA just fine. Steve needs to take back dreamworks and fund his own films like Lucas Does!!! -
and use a real dog thats well trained.
-
Sure...you could blame the ending of WOTW on Welles...But let's not forget...Spielberg was a smart enough man in 1974 to realize that Peter Benchley's ending to 'Jaws' was a totally boring turd. The shark just up and dies in front of Brody? Yaaaaawn.
Jaws...the movie...would not be the blockbuster it is today without that re-write. Spielberg could have taken similar liberties with H.G. Welles boring ass ending...but chose not to. That's HIS fault.
And yes...I know...shooting a scuba tank in a rampaging shark' s mouth would never cause the shark to explode into a million pieces...But...ya know what...NOBODY CARED. It was a thrilling/cathartic climax nonetheless....and a genius move on Steven's part. Plus...had he chosen to stick with Benchley's pathetic ending...we would have never heard...
"Smile you son of a bitch". That would have been a crime in itself. -
...Robert Rodriguez on how to make a film. He could make this movie for less than $15 mil, and in one month. Granted, it may not be as great as Jackson and Spielberg, but he would be super efficient. It just pisses me off how much money is thrown around in Hollywood on useless shit.
-
a Noddy movie
-
is spielberg's forte...I don't know how i feel about it being mo cap tho. And I agree about Robert Rodriguez...he should be the model on how to get movies made - in the budget efficiency sense. W/ him you see every cent on screen for half the costs.
-
Chris Cunningham's old "Mental Wealth" Advert for Playstation? http://tinyurl.com/ysrxnt And would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
-
I just checked out the Wiki entry for Tintin and all the characters look pretty fucking cartoony to me. I can't imagine what these people are going to look like "photo-realistic." If preserving the character designs is so important why not just go the cell-animated route? Why spend $130 million on something that's going to look like... a cartoon?!
No matter how good the CGI is, all it ends up being is distracting. Even if you are going "holy shit that looks amazing!" you are still being taken out of the movie and that's not where you want your audience. Beowulf looked great, but I was too busy laughing at goofy CGI Anthony Hopkins to really get invested in the characters at all. It just seems like a gimmick to me. -
The work of this guy pixeloo.blogspot.com
-
Those Herge stories are goldmines of exotic stories, Indiana jones is but a pale imitation. And if they manage to make the comic come alive, which Weta can-can, it should be pretty spectacular. As it would to make the superheroes come alive just as they are designed by the best comic artists...
As good as Nolan's Batman is, he still looks a bit silly with his cloak and pointy ears, in such a realistic setting. Having the comic come alive, like they're doing with that new Arkham asylum game, would be much more exiting. -
...Oh, no. I don't mind Beaks' fruity lyrical waxing when he's reviewing something, but next time something constitutes news could you just let us know what it is without writing a soliloquy please? k bai
-
Tintin? Who under the age of 80 would be interested in this? Perhaps Spielberg could generate interest, but why bother. Big fat meh.
-
Diablo Cody was talking in Variety about how she's writing a future film for Spielberg (as well as their new tv show) and said "I can't talk about it yet, or someone might sever my topmost finger joint, Yakuza-style". The Yakuza reference made me think of Ghost In The Shell, but I imagine it's just an offhand comment and she's really just writing an original project that's on a much smaller scale. Still, we might wonder what they're cooking up.
-
This will bomb. No one in America, outside of a very few geeks, knows the character. Also, I don't trust either director as far as I can spit. They are both hit or miss. Think Hook + King Kong.
-
Responding to someone above. Worst ending in modern cinema. Should have faded to black with the kid praying underwater forever.
-
get the point...
don't waste the money on some Belgian crap... make a Noddy film -
until Avatar comes out, no one's banking on anyone being interested in this shit. Speed Racer doesn't help anyone's confidence, either. Peter Jackson's tendency to inflate budgets doesn't help. Steven Spielberg's lack of acclaim of late doesn't help, either. The fact that Crystal Skull was like being skullfucked by bad filmmaking doesn't help. And yeah, the financial deal which makes it very very bad business doesn't help either. Most important of all though is that no one has yet to deliver an expensive ass Mocap film that was any good or had any reason to be so convolutedly expensive. Beowulf ballooned in post like you wouldn't believe - I know for a fact cause some little birdies at Sony Imageworks in the CHARACTER ANIMATION DEPT told me how much work was being done on top of the Mocap. For the record, I loved Speed Racer.
-
Damn the fucker that does.
-
MOTOKO KUSANAGI punches the terrorist cyborg across the gooch.
MOTOKO
Golly willikers big baddy you gone and got yourself clubbed in the posterior by a little chickadeedly dum!
TERRORIST
I'll cyber hack your boobs!
MOTOKO flexes her cyborg boobs
MOTOKO
Ah ah, look but don't touch, once I finish my work here stomping your stretched rectum all about this here juke joint I've got a shift at the Blade Runner strip club jingling this robot booty for simoleons!
KPOW! Motoko's arm sprouts a robotically enhanced dildo.
MOTOKO
Bend over, boyfriend! -
Few people know the character. I'm not one of the few.
-
"Herge's characters have been reborn as living beings, expressing emotion and a soul which goes far beyond anything we've seen to date with computer animated characters" says Spielberg. Yeah, fuck Pixar. Wall-E had more soul than anything in your past six movies. And the CG prairie dogs... Shudder... Look, they say 130 million but i guarantee with these new toys that shit would balloon. No one has delivered a fully CGI movie at a decent quality no matter what the source was to begin with for that much money.
-
or am i a freak?
-
That thought did cross my mind...It's probably Spielberg's latest misguided attempt at a comic drama she's working on. His next Catch Me If You Can, or The Terminal.
-
Unless they saw Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Or War of the Worlds. Or Minority Report. Or A.I.-or pretty much anything non-WWII related Speilbergs done in the last 15 years....
-
I cant wait to see Tin Tin and his magic nuke-proof fridge flying through the air over the trees with the greatest of ease,surrounded by CGI monkeys as far as the eye can see.....
-
but i sure as fuck know tintin...and known tintin very well since I was six (20yrs). And I love every fucking one...but listen, this project should not go forward. Tintin is perfect in proper Herge form, and lets keep it at that. For one I don't believe either Jackson or Spielberg have the chops to make Tintin work onscreen. Two, that deal is BULLSHIT. If thats even close to true then Universal is spot on in saying thanks but no thanks. So the problem isn't Tintin not being known to North America (he is) it's one overrated filmmaker and one once great filmmaker negotiating a bad deal and Universal not wantng any part of it. Tintin, Universal, and the fans win.
-
Just well rounded. By the way, wasn't Van Damme supposed to play Tintin at some point? Based off the virtue of them both being Belgian? I'm sure I read that on this very site not more than a decade ago.
-
Universal are fucking stupid. Simple.
-
Unless you want to start being forced to watch Bollywood movies down your throat, don't watch anything Dreamworks. And Speilberg is a hypocrite to cry about Darfur when India has 300 million people classified as slaves because of the racist caste system there.
-
Jackson and speilbergs names alone would bring the cash in. No matter what you guys say these 2 directors get bums in seats. They have big audiences in america and worldwide. Internationally it would make a ton. And it will.
-
that sucked...so Slappy, yes you're right, but can you blame Universal for not going for what is clearly a one sided deal? Universal gave Spielberg his start and over the years he delivered. He's not delivering anymore, but he's asking to see points before the studio does. Yes, this project will make its money back PLUS. Does Universal need the headache of putting up with Spielbergs power trip? They can make money elsewhere.
-
for real? i recognize that 1/3rd of you toolboxes are homos but come on.... a Noddy film brings in the dolars while tintin brings in the francs.fuck the francs you terrorist bastards!!!
-
...why don't THEY/haven't THEY made a damn "Tin Tin" movie already. The graphic novels are a snooze; the project was a waste to time for two talented directors that are needed elsewhere.
-
waste OF time ☺
-
...Hasn't made a good movie since Schindler's List and Jurassic Park. And the last truly great movie he made was Color Purple.
His best film?
A toss up between Jaws and Sugarland Express. Probably Jaws.
Thus endeth the lesson.
And another thing...
...The reason Universal isn't green lighting this?
Beowulf flopped and Spielberg's last few films haven't been very good...Period.
-
The Rhino Party of Canada (a now sadly defunct organization) once vowed to declare war on Belgium because Tin Tin had killed a rhino in one of his adventures. (Keep in mind the leader of the Rhino party is in fact a rhino, then at the Montreal zoo...Cornelius the first) They later petitioned the Belgium Embassy in Ottawa stating that they would in fact call off the war if the Belgians sent a case of Belgium beer and a crate of mussels to the Rhino party hindquarters in Montreal. To the Belgian's credit...they did. True story.
-
Then why didn't he wave the huge points factor to get this thing made? Meh... seems it was always about the dough I guess. Even if this thing made 500 mil internationally, it will be likely forever labeled a huge bomb here (it would probably make 75-150 mil, but so did Supes Return and that's considered a bomb). Stone's Alexander did boffo BO overseas but all anybody in the trades talks about was how much it didn't make here.
-
Asterix is a comic book thingie with the same popularity / "cult" (cunt?) following as Tin Tin. the film/s of that failed big time as i recall. there would be no market of substance for Tin Tin, either in the USA or the rest of the world. bravo to whoever has saved Spielberg and Jackson from the critical panning and film failure that would have come from this act of folly.
-
You know the only morons who think that way? The SUITS. And why? Because they want the first film or a standalone to be ostensibly a SEQUEL - cash in the bank.
And like others have said, if that thinking made any fucking sense at all, no original/new movie would EVER make any money. Ever.
How do you guys feel now you've been revealed to think like studio fucking executives? I bet you say the word 'franchise' without the contempt it deserves, too. -
I think they at least forgave Christian Bale this year... ;)
-
Who wants to see a Tin Tin movie? I am sure most kids couldn't even tell you what a Tin Tin was! How about directing the last Harry Potter film Spielberg, at least the kiddies know who that is. Please don't waste your time on this junk or a Lincoln movie either. How about approaching Marvel films to direct Thor instead....
-
Damn, I real would like to see George Lucas take part in these TinTin Movies. Would love to see aliens and flying saucers in these flicks.
-
TinTin did get made into some animated features.
Also the Asterix films (at least the first one) made over a hundred million in France alone. There's at least one more (don't know how many exactly) that's just making the international rounds now. They were never release in the US to my knowledge. But I don't honestly think anyone would have went to it. It stuck very much to the books, and would have been subtitled.
There's absolutely no reason a TinTin trilogy couldn't introduce the characters to a new audience. Besides, at least here in Canada I can guarantee at least half the people know TinTin and Asterix&Obelix.
As for mo-cap... they should release that test reel they did so that we can get excited about it (or berate it if you would rather). -
"Damn, I real would like to see George Lucas take part in these TinTin Movies. Would love to see aliens and flying saucers in these flicks."
Well, TinTin does go to space in some of the books, and has run-ins with meteors, Giant mushrooms, rocketships... But there's a big Indiana Jones vibe to them as well with TinTin exploring ancient pyramids and running into mummies and such... -
But I just believe that Spielberg and Jackson names together on a film will mean whoever funds it is going to make a lot of money.
and to the people who go on about tin tin being unknown - who knew who buzz lightyear was? the incredibles? they didn't exist at all before their films came out so if people go and see things that they don't know what would stop them from going to see something based on a book they haven't read?? Lets face it Jaws the book was hardly harry potter in terms of popularity and even better example would be shrek. how many people seriously went because they had read the book? I just don't buy the "no one knows who tintin is" argument at all.
If they make a good film people will go and see it. Its Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson.
and as for people already claiming it would be a critical disaster and a flop. I generally allow myself to see at least I dunno a frame of footage before I make such a statement. Ridiculous. -
Sep 21, 2008 5:30:02 AM CDT
This would have bombed harder than the Luftwaffe in 1941
by hint_of_smegma
Who the hell would have watched it? Hardly anyone and it looks like the studio's recognise that even if Spielberg doesn't.
-
Universal is run by idiots
-
I suspect that ALL the studios are run by idiots
-
the desire for this film. Someone explain it to me...
-
Great to hear the absolutely masterful and WILDLY imaginative Little Nemo comics discussed here. They actually made a horrendous looking animated film for it, that looked absolutely NOTHING like the Winsor McCay comics from 100 years (!) back. Do check out the Image DVD's that are out there with the (short) McCay drawn Nemo and other figures animation pieces, they're incredible, and they look 100% like his comics. Now that man was a true genius and also way far ahead of Disney in all regards. ANYONE with an interest in comics who doesn't know about McCay should check out his works, prepare to be baffled, amazed and no doubt even a bit scared, because Nemo had fever dreams that would have the most of us waking up in a sweat.
-
For everyone that still thinks this series is about a dog, at least try to do some truthfull research in the form of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Tintin -
Tintin has no audience in the US. None. I'm a geek, and even I had to look it up. Sure, it's big in Europe, but not here. I guarantee you if it was released in the US, and every Tintin fan here bought two tickets to double the number it would still tank.
-
I liked it when I was like 5. Now when I see it I think it sucks total balls. There isn't a market for this - parents won't enjoy taking thier kids to it. No wonder the studios are shaky on it. And the greed the berg and jackson have is unreal. Jackson in particular - rings aside he's proved fuck all to me.
-
...Haddock was kinda cool. Would like to see hiim do drugs as well as getting drunk all the time.
-
Sep 21, 2008 8:11:27 AM CDT
"Jaws THE BOOK was hardly Harry Potter in terms of popularity"
by big dumb ape
Slappy Jones, I understand the point you're trying to make, namely that not everything has to be a major property before it gets turned into film. That's all fine and good......But just for the record, JAWS the book (the original Peter Benchley novel) actually WAS a huge hit when it came out. In fact, back in 1974 when it debuted it was the most successful first novel in American publishing history. It stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for 44 weeks and it sold over 9 million copies. No shit, it WAS the Harry Potter book of it's day since everyone was reading it. I know, I'm old enough to remember plowing through it myself back then!
-
I don't know if he still has control, but Spielberg used to have the rights to do a live action JONNY QUEST movie. Personally, as a family adventure film and possible franchise, I'd rather see that get made instead.Come on, Jonny is way cooler than TinTin. And Bandit would fucking tear Snowy apart!
-
But maybe the point isn't that the property isn't a known "brand" in the US, but that it's been around for nearly 80s and hasn't had much of an effect in the US. That would suggest that the original titles don't suit mainstream American tastes. Someone mentioned Johnny Quest on the CHUD messages boards, and purely from a financial point of view that would seem like a more bankable prospect. Of course I would hate to overstate the financial aspects of it and I'm dying to see the CGI work, but as I said before, does Tintin need all that CGI work?
-
...but in all honesty I wasn't excited about the project and spielbergs recent 'blockbuster' output have ranged from okay 'wotw' to terrible 'ijatkotcs.' I still refuse to acknowledge the existence of Indy 4 and its overly cartoonish tone, plot and action. Spielberg needs to get away from his reliance on 'Koepp the workman's scripts. Drop Tintin and make Interstellar.
-
..but, if the last 9 years have taught us anything (I'm talking about you, George Lucas!) it's that none of our movie making idols are bullet proof. And while Spielberg has made a lot of great movies, he' has had the occasional miss. I was unaware of TinTin, so I checked out a few TinTin related sites and watched some video of the animated episodes, and frankly, It's probably a good thing if this doesn't get made. It was ok, and maybe because I haven't read the comic strip I'm missing something, but I don't see where this is a worthy project for 2 of the biggest hitters out there. Not to mention that kind of price tag.
-
Sep 21, 2008 10:42:07 AM CDT
It's interesting to realize, along with Hollywood studios...
by qweruiop
...how there's been this slow shift from movies being made for max $100 to $125 million, to now routinely having to cost between $150 to $200 million to make. Where did this need for extra costs come from? I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but movies now have the aid of CGI to realize worlds that would've otherwise cost a huge fortune to build in real life, supposedly a cost-saving feature yes, so where did this extra shift in budgets come from? I mean "Miama Vice" cost somewhere around $150 million to make, although I've read it was actually $180 million too. Where the hell did that money goto as it certainly didn't look like a movie that warranted that kind of budget. Also it's interesting to note the gradual shift of financial power moving towards actors now, and how their usual pay went from a flat salary to now demanding an added "gross" or "net-revenue" percentage of the movie's finances too. And this example from Spielberg and Jackson's contract demands takes the cake. As another poster nicely mentioned, if anybody came into my office to ask for complete financing of their movie, but their contract virtually locks the first $100 million to go to them exclusively, even though they're not putting up any financing of their own into this movie, I'd tell them hell no. Well it's kind of good to see Hollywood studios put a very publicly stop sign with this news, otherwise things might get so out of hand that it's very possible to hear one day a movie having to make $200 million just to break even with an actor's/director's fee. Sad really.
-
Kong doesn't get a pass cause it looked fucking shit. The 30s version was far superior. Fuck paying money to watch cartoons masquerade as real life. Fuck it.
-
I loved Tintin as a kid, but cant shake the feeling this will be horrible... The mummified inca from Seven Crystal Balls freaked the shit out of me, I hope they make that story and go DARK. The Calculus Affair & Flight 714 were my other faves... definitely the stories with sinister elements... just rambling nostalgically now...
-
...a movie industry being scared to death by the Credit Crunch (which, though awful, still sounds like a really tasty candy bar) and refusing to back anything that will have even as slight a margin for failiure as Spielberg/Jackson's 'TinTin'. IThings look grim for the immediate future of film when a studio won't take the pet project of two of the world's most successful directors. Then again not everything the beard has done has come up Roses, and Tin Tin could well turn out to be another 'Hook' or 'AI' (though I personally like both films). Also I don't think Tin Tin has been built up enough as a character in the US. He needs a new animated series and a major relaunch of the Herge books first I think.
-
on Nickelodeon? I remember watching it when I was younger. It was where I was first introduced to the character.
-
Well sure, I guess that's a valid point except that America is only half the movie equation. But whether the BOOKS hadn't had much of an effect isn't what I was taking issue with - because we know what big mainstream readers Americans are where comics are concerned anyway, not to even touch on foreign comics, so we can pretty safely say America's reading habits having a bearing on TinTin's quality is the tail wagging the dog. It was the myopic "we don't know so we don't care" and the muddled "how do we know it'll work unless it's already worked" Moebius-strip attitude where movies are concerned. And let's not forget many of the biggest hits of all time were initially turned down by every gutless studio in town. And this is exactly how these talkbackers are thinking/arguing.
BTW, "@" means "at", not "and" (that's &). Like your email address. Cheers! -
http://tinyurl.com/3j9pwp
This is Les McClaine's Johnny Crossbones (he is the artist on Middleman and plenty of other things). If you love Tin-tin like I do you'll enjoy this comic.
I have been waiting for a good Tin-Tin movie for decades now. I am an American and have been hip to Tin-Tin since I was a teen. It's plenty well seeped into pop culture here and there too,(Thompson Twins, Prof. Calculus, Sting's sweater in that one video...hmm...maybe it hasn't seeped as much as I thought. I thought I had more and better examples.) Anyways, I am not worried about other Americans thinking "Me don't know Tin-Tin. Me no go movie. Me only see movie about words and people I know. Buh!" -
On the face of it they've had a great year. But look a little deeper into how much money they've actually made themselves and the answer is 'not a whole lot'.
They seem to be happy to have their name associate with big movies - but the coin goes elsewhere. See Indiana Jones/Iron Man/Kung Fu Panda.
They've spent $150 million on Benjamin Button; $200 million plus on Transformers 2; $170 million on GI Joes for christ's sakes!! and now they're throwing a huge wad at Tintin when the beards are gonna be the ones making the dough if this thing goes huge.
Seems like crazy money they're throwing round. But me - I'm just glad Tintin is ON!!! Bring it -
except probably for the majority of US audiences. However, a good portion of this film's box office gross will come from overseas. Not just because of Tintin's appeal, but also because international territories are starting to become more important than the domestic one. Regardless, this film will do well in the US, because it's got Speilberg and Jackson and simply because of the nature of the film. Tintin is great adventure storytelling, and these films have great potential, although I am both uneasy and reluctant about the whole mo-cap stuff. Just please don't make this film suck.
-
Besides the point of no one in the USA knowing who Tintin is, it also has the misfortune of having a stupid name that people will confuse with Rin Tin Tin.
Also, keep in mind that the suits DID see this test footage and obviously weren't impressed.
I second the idea of having Studio Ghibly do this, just don't let Hayao Miyazaki (or his loser son) near it, or they'll butcher it like they did Howl and Earthsea. (ie: "My Tintin is about how America's invasion of Iraq was BAD!") -
will be the use of motion capture. Others in this forum have said it before: audiences just don't buy into it. I don't either. It isn't anything conscious; somewhere on the subconscious level your mind rejects it.
But I also don’t get it; if the goal is photorealism then why not just shoot in live action?
-
I keep hearing you Americans talking about some country called "overseas". Where is it? Is it where those terroristism guys come from? Help me out here.
-
... when I have the complete Tintin animated adventures boxset at home. Seriously, those old Tintin animated movies are awesome.
-
Refusing a gig with Spielberg is always stupid (even if you don't earn right away your money back, you have a fairly huge chance to produce something important, or even a masterpiece. Yes, Hercules, I'm talking "Empire of the Sun"), but refusing also Peter Jackson and one of the more well known franchise in the world is utterly inconsistant. For a studio who gave us this summer Rob Cohen's Mummy 3, it's kind of awkward... Or maybe logical.
-
I use the old netiquette of "at" (which I actually find quite vulgar) because it suits me more than calling you [H]alf vader. Yep, I'm super neurotic. I think we can discuss whether Tintin will be a success in many different ways. But for me it really stems from "gut instinct". I have a bad feeling about this project and I'm trying to figure out why.
-
Apparently Spielberg actually asked Pegg to do it. So...?
-
there has to be some saddo out there who wasn't allowed to see Star Wars and was locked away with Tin Tin books. the Spielberg film, whether it be a masterpiece or dogshit, would allow this saddo to write "Spielberg raped my childhood" and feel equal to all the twats who took the SW prequels a bit too seriously.
-
sorry i was unaware the Jaws was as big as harry potter is today bugt you get my point. People do go to movies of things are not based on anything other than a totally original screenplay so I just don't see why it matters whether or not anyone knows who tintin is.
-
"Everyone knows about Tintin...except probably for the majority of US audiences".
Oh...you mean all 303,824,650 of us? C'mon...NO Hollywood big budget film is EVER gonna be produced strictly with the "overseas" audience revenue in mind...Even if the director is Jesus Christ himself.
I've never heard of a "TINTIN" until this movie was annouced earlier this year. I don't even have the desire to even Google it to find out what the fuck it is. Universal is smart to back outta this deal.
If Speilberg & Jackson wanna make it so bad...I think they could find some money under the cushions of their couches and get it done. Speaking of Jackson...I'd rather Universal give Jackson Publick a ton of cash for a live action Venture Bros. movie instead!! Hell...I'd settle for an animated one!
-
Orbots Commander said: "But I also don’t get it; if the goal is photo realism then why not just shoot in live action?" Well, the truth is we have to keep in mind there are two different sides to this...First, there's the CREATIVE side represented by people such as Zemeckis and now Spielberg and Jackson, who believe they can push this technology and get it to the point that everything on screen looks SO real that we'll never be able to tell the difference.However, the second side is the BUSINESS end, where the constant selling point for motion capture has always been this idea that once you mo-cap an actor and have a digital copy of him, you can make him do anything onscreen with a few simple keystrokes, at which point you then you simply render up whatever backgrounds you need as well. Translation: ZERO costs for location shooting and all that goes with it -- no travel costs, no insurance costs, no sets, no set builders, no camera crews, no electricians, no need to physically make costumes and props, etc, etc, etc. The point being that the costs on a big scale film would now drop in truly incredible ways. So let's be honest, that was always the REAL goal behind this technology.The only problem is it still doesn't work EITHER way. On the creative end, as Orbots Commander correctly noted, people's minds still reject it because it does look like a cartoon or a video game. And a big part of that problem are the characters still always having a lifeless "dead eyes" look to them -- and when you think about it, in regards to TINTIN, what could be creepier than watching a dead kid and his dead dog running around for 2 hours? Sheesh, what is this, a Halloween film?!But worst of all, the financial end still makes absolutely no sense to this. If Spielberg and Jackson could deliver TINTIN for 30, 40 or $50 million, this would be a no brainer. Green light it on the spot and make the damn film because that really would be keeping costs down to deliver a big family adventure movie on a reasonable budget, for a reasonable financial risk. And even that would still be a lot of money. For crying out loud, I guess we really do live in a different time when we no longer even think of 50 MILLION DOLLARS as being a shitload of money anymore.But seriously, the second you say that this thing is going to cost $125 million (or even more due to unforseen things happening once you're in production, which they will) then doing it as motion capture is just fucking ridiculous. If you're telling me you can't deliver a life action TINTIN movie for $125-150 million than this thing should be aborted instantly. Personally, as I posted before, I think whoever passed on this at Universal deserves a pat on the back...hell, give that guy a raise...for having the good financial sense to say "Thanks, but no thanks." Especially when you're also presented with a TOTALLY fucked up ego-stroking deal that calls for Spielberg and Jackson to see $100 million BEFORE the studio sees ANY kind of return.Hey, say what you will about Lucas, but at least he paid out of his own pocket to make the prequels. So I don't begrudge him getting rich off of them. Least that's someone putting his money where his mouth is. Spielberg and Jackson on the other hand are clearly rich enough to mount this production on their own, so if they want to see $100 million as their own personal return then I don't think its asking too much for them to pony up some of the costs and to take some of the risk.
-
Wait, people are still writing this could't be a hit in America because the average American hasn't heard of Tintin? God you really do all sound like a bunch of studio suits.You CAN have a hit film if the audience hasn't heard of the character before. Look at 'Tropic Thunder'. It's done pretty well so far, seeing as nobody knew what a Tugg Speedman was beforehand.If Tintin is a good family-orientated adventure film directed by Spielberg then it has hit written all over it.
-
But nobody mo-capped Ben Stiller to get "Tropic Thunder" made. That's where the budget is inflated. Although, those teeth from the "Simple Jack" clips looked a lil CGI!!
-
I have no beef with the talkbackers who have problems with the idea of this film being mo-cap, and the ridiculously high budget. In fact I agree completely with those. I was just getting irked by those who were seemingly saying they wouldn't want to see a film with characters they'd never heard of before. If this is true then they deserve every shitty remake that they get.
-
with all the bullshit that floats around any production regardless of size. I really think that "Avatar" will be the last supersized budget movie for a long time especially if it tanks. Even Hollywood pinches pennies and that may result in a good thing. That being that all the cash being thrown at garbage cgi fx will go away and traditional filmmaking will return in a big way. We may get movies that revolve around a *gasp!* story!
-
Of people that give a shit about TinTin these days.
Stop me if you've seen this one before. -
Sep 21, 2008 5:45:58 PM CDT
i get sick of people saying "why don't they pay for it themselve
by slappy jones
or making similar arguments - the studios are in the business to fund movies. Not the film makers. They take the risk because that is their function. Whoever takes this on is going to make a shit load.
-
...cgi films. if you watch the cgi movies coming out of japan, like advent children, the pure cgi characters can be extremely life like, much more so than this mo cap crap. all that said, advent children was a terrible movie, but the cgi was beyond anything any cgi american movie has been able to do.
-
i fail at grammerz.
-
You could make it on a shoestring however if they wanted to, no CGI dogs and silly sets though.
-
tin tin is pronounced as tan tan. also, you are missing that whole "rin" part...I dont get how hollywood works. If they made a fucking good movie people will see it. All you need is a good story...so just find people who can fucking write a good story. Not that hard. tin tin has about 15 good stories you could use, since apparently they are too dumb to figure out their own.
-
Sep 21, 2008 7:04:33 PM CDT
Slappy, the studio is also NOT there to guarantee Spielberg/Jack
by big dumb ape
Slappy, you said (quote): "I get sick of people saying 'why don't they pay for it themselves' or making similar arguments. The studios are in the business to fund movies. Not the film makers. They take the risk because that is their function."Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. Yes, the studios are in the business of funding movies. However, as a properly run BUSINESS clearly their goal is to MAKE money -- for both the studio itself and any corporate parent shareholders -- and not to lose it. So as it should be in any proper business venture, if the studio has to front all the money and take all the risk, then it's only fair that they should take the lion's share of financial returns TOO.Look, I'm one of those that supports a proper profit sharing AND risk taking model. Given their personal wealth, if TINTIN is such a personal pet project for both Spielberg and Jackson, then they can pony up some of the production cash. That way if the movie fails, they lose some money too -- but hey, what should that matter to them since they still came out EMOTIONALLY as winners? After all, they got a dream project on the screen, right?Or they can take a modest fee upfront and back-end money that pays out if the movie succeeds. I have no problem with that since they're helping to keep costs down, and thus helping to ensure the movie will at least break even (and hopefully do more).But give me a break. When they walk in and want the studio to gamble 125 fucking million dollars on their pet project...to front the entire bill...AND they want a structured deal that through points and first dollar grosses guarantees them a cool $100 million...that's just insane. And it's a truly BAD business deal for any studio or any sensible business person to make.Far be it for me to become the defender of capitalism, but the studios are there to fund a movie and make a profit. They're not there to be Spielberg and Jackson's personal bank to guarantee that they walk off with millions of dollars no matter what the consequences, while the studio is left high and dry. As I've said before, I don't fault Spielberg and Jackson for having the brass balls to ask for the deal -- that's their business. But I certainly applaud Universal for turning to both of them and for politely saying "fuck you" to such an insane business proposition.
-
Yeah I know. Nothin to do with Tin Tin, but this is the big thread right now, and I just got back from my second viewing of Dark Knight, and I came to the realization that after a groundbreaking reboot, the series has nowhere to go but down. Ledger's Joker is the greatest villain I've ever seen in a comic adaptation. It won't be topped anytime soon. He represents the anarchist genius, Lecter with a bazooka. He captures the apathy of true evil, creating death only as amusement. A mad and rabid dog, as was symbolized in the film. The devil. It won't be surpassed any time soon and why bother? The natural evolution of this series should now lead from man vs Devil to man vs God. That is the elemental conflict that was explored at the end of Miller's Dark Knight Returns. He knew that it was the only logical finale. The powerless human, armed only with his cunning, against a living God, who serves humanity but let's face it, is a bit out of touch. His innocence and naivety is a weakness that can turn him into weapon. Anyway, its probably a waste of time but I know sometimes important folks look at these talkbacks and I thought a discussion might draw some attention. It's probably already been brought up anyway.
ps what the hell is Tin Tin?
pps Spielberg is the man, so its probably good stuff. -
But I sure a shit wouldn't spend 200 million on it.
-
Though at a reasonable budget as you say TeryyMalloy.
200 fucking Million on TinTin ?!?!?!? No, no, no, no, no no, no.
NO! -
as long as it's Batman VS. Superman.
It takes the franchise out of the semi-realistic, but there's no denying Bats and Supes occupy the same (DC) universe.
I'd like to see Superman through Batman's eyes.Alien. Uncontrollable. Ticking time bomb.
God. -
"It's spelled Tintin but pronounced Tantan?"
Man, that reminds me of "it's spelled 'Gigli' but pronounced 'Jee-Lee'". -
But I have to admit that the thought of Speilberg, Jackson and Moffat working as a team is fascinating. Moffat has real knack for weaving a feel-good tale - he's hit a home run on every script he's written for Doctor Who so far, even in the eyes of people who waited with inflated expectations.
-
Sep 22, 2008 1:27:55 AM CDT
Nah! it's spelled 'Gigli' but pronounced 'steaming pile of shit!
by g100
heh.
True though though, that to get Jackson and Moffat on board with Spielberg there must have been SOMETHING interesting about it. Just not 200 Million interesting it would seem.
Put is on the shelf (yet again) and wait. As C.G. power to cash ratio will get cheaper as time gets on. -
making the textures of a stylized character photorealistic. Here are similar examples by an artist who has a blog:Homer Simpson Untooned http://tinyurl.com/38egeoJessica Rabbit Untooned http://tinyurl.com/65utagSuper Real Mario World http://tinyurl.com/3bkzrxCreepy, huh?
-
You know, from Thunderbirds. Rrrrowrr.
-
(because that what it sounds like up there). That's NOTHING! Even if it IS per movie (please clear it up), it's STILL 2 thirds what it'd cost in Hollywood. Remember Jackson made the LOTR movies for a bit over 80 million each. I don't understand how 130 is outrageous (compared to your average Hollywood flick) no matter how it's made, if we're talking maths and budgets.
-
Because it's a film about an arian wunderkind and his yappy dog who wander about over mountains getting into tard-tastic adventures with their bearded paedo sailor friend.
The films could be made for £10 million each, easily, the only reason for all the cash is that Jackson and Spielberg would want to create giant and silly sets and locations, and a crappy CGI mutt instead of just filming some good actors in interesting real-life places with a trained animal.
Also it's just a bit shite really. -
its a comic book. Get the South Park guys to animate it with geometric snips of construction paper and then hire a batch of celebrity names to perform the voices, and go. Five million at the most.
-
Sep 22, 2008 10:07:56 AM CDT
and yes, in french it sounds more like "Taintain"
by themanbehindthemask
-
i don't!
-
Fucking live-action Honk Kong Phooey! Tintin and his dog would be HK's prison bitch and you eurotwits know it! YEEHAW! Gimme some red meat kung fu cartoon dog antics fuckers! The dude jumps into a file cabinet as a janitor dog at a cop shop and jumps out as a fucking ninja. You wish you could piss that cool much less actually be even a little bit as cool. HKP can fucking karate chop a fucking mountain top off into orbit. What can Tintin or his dog do? Run around going "Blimey!" all day? Isn't Tintin's dog a schnauzer fucking hitler dog? And Berg is doing this? With Hitler's dog? WTF right?http://tinyurl.com/42rqcaNow That is good cinema!!!!WTF are Berg and Pete doing with this Holocaust cartoon dog bullshit?
-
Get the kids interested and then you have a built-in audience. For years, I've felt the same way with *Doctor Who*. We need a cartoon version.
-
Why the hell are you people taking the side of a big corporation? What will they ever do for you? Nothing! Whereas, a talented guy like Steven Spielberg can certainly find numerous studios willing to distribute something HE made.
-
Have we learned nothing from the Zemeckis obsession with technological innovation over story? Zemeckis blew it with Polar Express and Beowulf. It was hideous, distracting. And Jackson blew it with KING KONG, distracting, weightless, cartoonish animation of sem-decent (but not yet ready for daylight) CGI models, and no attention to the story. And Spielberg only cares about Nazis and Holocaust allegories. Is Tintin going to fight Nazis and rescue people from concentration camps? A whole pile of money will be sucked into Jackson's WETA company, for very little return, but more creepy CGI characters.
The comics were amusing. Leave them the fuck alone. -
Taint, Taint, That is all
-
I also pronounce croissant KRAW-SONT. It's one of the many benefits of not speaking French.
-
Haha you know I had just written a post almost EXACTLY identical to yours when I scrolled up and saw you'd beaten me to it.
I think you're absolutely right that's the look they're going for. -
Please don't make this based on the overseas Asterix comparisons. The new Asterix movie is gonna make around $4 million in Canada, and all of that in fucking Quebec (cause they're crazy French bastards, god love em). That is the only place that movie will make money in North America. So attach the beard brothers to the picture, put a massive marketting push behind it, and what? Nothing, that's what. If what I'm reading is right, most of the nerds on this board don't even know who the hell Tin Tin is (NOT a good sign). So now imagine trying to sell that to Joe six pack, cause that's whose gonna have to see this movie for it to make $400 mill and up. Good luck! Universal have a better chance with Wil Ferrel in Land of the Lost (and if that doesn't tell how far up Shit Creek is, nothing will)
-
tnOKcXcH ATgMCu
-
Gvmsqs xUDvGEzL
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 455 total posts 231 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 127 total posts 118 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 108 total posts 108 posts
- Rest In Peace Bethesda’s Adam Adamowicz -- 84 total posts 84 posts
- Wanna smell like the Hulk? What about Cap? Consider yourself a Thunder God or a unisex God of Mischief? -- 65 total posts 64 posts
- Ridley Scott's Next Will Be Cormac McCarthy's THE COUNSELOR! -- 53 total posts 53 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 50 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 98 total posts 46 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 169 total posts 43 posts
- Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! -- 132 total posts 42 posts