http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =2kVMv_VGZ1I

AND

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =FAQwpzkxp_4

These guys are THE SHIT!!

Now, let's just see if the script holds up.

http://tinyurl.com/3b7h44

AND I QUOTE....

"Tim Miller here (creative director at blur) chiming in as requested. The film is in early development- it has NOT been set up at a studio and isn't in production. Eric Powell is working on the script and we're doing visual development. It was our choice to get the film planned out before we try and get a studio involved. "Early Development" means concept art, some CG animation tests and the script. And Fincher is a producer--as is blur and Darkhorse-- not directing.

To set the record straight for Capt Cook--Blur has never said ANYWHERE or at ANYTIME that we are "making a movie" We avoid hype and ALWAYS speak the truth. There's a HUGE difference between an announcement that a film is being developed and the film ACTUALLY BEING MADE. And we are careful about the distinction. And to be extra-clear...we're not even putting out these (or any other) press releases....it's just media reporting. This went up because Eric was having a big 10th aniversary party and Darkhorse thought it'd be nice to give fans of the comic some eyecandy. I will say though that development is coming along GREAT and I think the Goon will make an awesome film should we be lucky enough to get a chance to make it."

So... There you go. Officially, there is NO movie being made. What you're seeing here is concept work and nothing more. For now, it would seem that this is no different than any of the Buffy Animated concept pieces or the mini-pilot. Nothing is set in stone and no studio is attached. Having a producer and a team to do the pre-vis is a start, but there's not guarantee that this will cross the finish line.

I think that we should also note that Blur has previously announced several other big screen CG projects that have been sitting in limbo for years.

So, while Fichner is attached, don't get too excited either way yet. This may not even make the it out at all.

Anybody in the industry who even knows Blur knows that they have a somewhat interesting past when it comes to feature length films. In the past, there was some serious talk about translating their (then) amazing short films such as "Rock Fish" or "Gopher Broke" to the big screen. Much ado, at appears, for nothing. Lots of talk and not much else. Then, there was talk about their involvement in a new "Heavy Metal" flick. Again, talk and not much else. So, when we see these pics over at CG Talk, we can't help but be very, VERY skeptical. As fans of their work, we've been burnt in the past.

No doubt, Blur has been burnt too, which would explain Tim's somewhat jaded viewpoint.

At the same time, he's saying, "Look. There's no press release. There's no announcement. There's no deal. There's just this concept stuff. If it turns into a film, great. If not, we'll live."

You know how Hollywood is. You constantly hear about these "in development" projects that linger in limbo for years. Projects jump from director to director and producer to producer. Some make it out of decades of development hell. Some don't. For every "Spider-Man" you've got a "Shazam!", "Spy Hunter", or "Black Panther."

It's not unreasonable for Tim to be wary given the nature of what "in-development" really means. It's also not unreasonable for him to attach such a disclaimer.

Fanboys get their underoos all wet from a concept piece from a project that may never leave the pre-vis phase. It's great to be enthusiastic about these things, so long as we've got our heads screwed on tight.

That they are working on it is a fact that proves that it is "in-development" not that it is being produced. A studio can just as well decide that, given the current climate for CG films and the market previously established by defacto standard Pixar, "The Goon" as a CG flick may not be profitable enough.

A full length CG flick costs on average of $60mil-$100mil to make. Take on promotion and that number climbs significantly.

Unless you outsource your production to some place like India or China where you can produce it for 1/10th the cost, as with Hoodwinked, the risk is quite significant once you leave family friendly Pixar demographic.

A CG Goon movie may end up doing amazing biz on the DVD front, but fail quite miserably at the box office.

This is why "in-development" for a CG flick means nothing. The Pixar formula has royally screwed the CG industry. These movies are so expensive to make that anything that even remotely deviates from talking objects or anthropomorphic animals is almost certainly doomed to fail.

For CG flicks, anything beyond PG-rated might as well be R-rated. Pixar set the pace. Anything darker or more mature than the PG-rated "Incredibles" is pure poison to the box office.

I'm sure that we'd all love to see a R-rated "Goon" or "Walking Dead" CG flick in the theaters. Never gonna happen. PG-13? Maybe. If so, I can guarantee you that it'll flop. Families won't take their 5 year olds to it. Older fans will be alienated by the "Die Hard 4" pussifying of it. Anybody hoping to make money off of it will get screwed.

THAT is the reality of it.

Since my hobbyist days in the late 1980s to my pro days now, I've been doing CG for 20 years. I've been on projects of all types. I've moderated CG forums big and small. When you see a CG project that looks too cool or too good to be true... it usually is.

The best thing you can do right now is be cautiously optimistic with this film. It could well languish long enough to end up being another "Delgo".

Personally, I'd much rather see this bypass the theaters and hit DVD directly as with "Final Fantasy Advent Children". That's the only way fans get the flick they want.

Otherwise, it seems to me they ARE concept art, whether you painted them OR modelled and textured. And earlier you said "early development" and "CONCEPT WORK". So, forgive my confusion!

The main reason I think this (aside from it being the common early approach along with turntables and the like, with a bit of animation and maybe some quick mocap coming later) is that the second one is another shot, different lighting, but the same pose. I love what you've done - it looks fantastic, and you've even nailed the signature Fincher palette there, but if we're talking semantics and communicating where things are at, maybe you need to define it a bit more. Speaking of which, if it's for the early pitch/greenlight/financing, WHY would you make finished (which as I said to me means all animation controls) characters at this stage? And in terms of semantics "full 3d in this content means "not 2d painted" as opposed to stereo 3d cg, right?

Dialling the subsurface up to 11/waxy look actually looks great on the big guy btw!

Thanks in anticipation!