paddington-trailer-a paddington-trailer-a
CGIFeature Film

New ‘Paddington’ Trailer Reveals More CG Grotesquerie

paddington

New Paddington trailer; more CGI Paddington grotesqueness. The Paul King-directed film opens November 28, 2014, in the U.K. and January 16, 2015, in the United States.

Unless the goal was to produce a horror film, it’s inconceivable how any designer could begin with this—

paddington-drawing

and end up with this:

paddington-trailer-a
  • Googamp32

    This is nothing compared to the teaser. Granted, this one is almost as horrendous. I’m just glad I never read the book.

    • The books are pretty good from what I know, of course I had more familiarity with the 70’s series personally.

  • Chad Townsend

    Your title had me chuckling aloud. growing up Paddington was this really great Stop Motion series on TV. But to my kid and i’m sure a lot of kids…. they wont give a crap whether its CG as long as its cute and entertaining. But I’m sort of there with you. Id rather see Aardmen or Laika do Paddington as a feature.

    • Me too, of course nothing replaces the paper cut-out humans FilmFair did best.

  • Bob

    Living fur, doctor Who and CG Nicole Kidman. Trully stunning

  • AnimationGuy

    Nope. Still in the uncanny valley.
    Anthropomorphized (2D) cartoon characters work because they are abstract pictures. When you make them realistic, they simply become creepy, and the more real you go, the bigger the creep factor.

    • Maria Barrera-Agarwal

      Absolutely!

    • Nope. No uncanny valley here. If you go more realisitic you end up with something like Dr. Doolittle. I don’t know how much cgi was involved but that’s not my point. Dr. Doolittle and movies like Cats vs Dogs weren’t creepy. This looks pretty good and I guess a lot of people will enjoy the bear and the movie.

      • AnimationGuy

        Those aren’t anthropomorphized, as in animals blended with human features/proportions.
        They’re simply talking animals, and most of the animals are live footage with CG manipulation for the talking mouths.

        • Bleurg

          Sorry man, but you haven’t grasped what “anthropomorphize” means. It’s a bear wearing human clothes and walking around doing human things. Look up a definition of “anthropomorphize” in the dictionary and you will find a photo of Paddington Bear.

    • Marc Hendry

      “uncanny valley” isn’t the same thing as “unappealling design” but I agree with you.

    • vincenzosz

      Normally I would agree with this, but in this case he just looks like a bear. How is that grotesque? My dog makes some expresison like the one above sometimes, and he’s still cute…because he’s real. And they arent going for cartoony obviously. He’s supposed to look like a real bear in human clothes. This is not ninja turltes so don’t make it that.

  • Max W

    Everything about this is completely awful.

    • It’s not “The Grinch that Stole Christmas”, “Foodfight”, or a combination of the worst of both. Therefore it could be worse.

  • Bearly_legal

    Oh hush, it looks fine. Dare I say that you, unless you are secretly an 8 year old, are NOT the target audience. Don’t you have better things to do with your day than make snarky comments? S’pose not.

    • An innocent mistake

      You’re obviously a first-time visitor to the Brew of Cartoon. ;)

    • *whispers* We’re all a little mad here.

    • Marz

      So…a page that is very clearly about animation is supposed to have better things to do than critique animation? okay then…

    • I will say there’s less ear wax in this one (now if we can refrain from “Do bears crap in the woods?”, the better).

  • James VanDam

    Once again we get a trailor that makes it unnecessary to see the movie. Bear gets adopted, father doesn’t like it, bear screw up, father throws bear out, bad guy tricks bear, father realizes that he was “wrong” and saves bear with family.

    • Well, congratulations for spoiling it for the rest of us, but I see your point. I was expecting a “Gotta Believe In Yourself” shtick too.

  • jhalpernkitcat

    I’ll admit I laughed at the “Do bears even have names?” scene. Also the voice does fit him pretty well. I think the woman wanting to stuff him is something completely new–and rather creepy to the series though.

    Also, I don’t think the 12th Doctor is very impressed with him either.

    • The real question is why the Doctor is so fascinated with Paddington in the first place. Clearly it needs to be done.

    • Paul Jones

      Towards the end of it, he’ll tell either the woman or Paddington “I’ve got the horrible feeling I’m going to have to kill you.”

  • blandyblottschalk

    The early Paddington illustrations remind me of last year’s Ernest and Celestine (or perhaps vice versa). But I would love to see an inky, runny, watercolor Paddington animated feature.

  • otterhead

    Well, it looks like a bear. A young bear. Given that it’s a movie about a young bear, I think if you’re going the CG route, that’s sort of a smart idea, yes?

    Is the argument that it should be hand-drawn rather than CG?

    • The argument most people, including me, are giving is that it falls into the uncanny valley. My issue is that although it looks like a young bear, it moves more like a human. Since the model is so realistic, the clash is more noticeable by the subconscious, creating uncanny valley.

      • I really didn’t see it too much, but then I don’t put my human qualities into an animal every day.

  • Jinx

    I remember seeing the teaser and not being a fan. That said although the shapes of the design could be stronger, the hair dried Paddington could have been worked out a bit better, and there are clearly limitations to what they could do for this movie I think he’s quite adorable. I actually think he looks better that Rocket from Guardians.

  • Eh… still uncanny valley. Not saying they didn’t try to avoid it, though.

    My main uncanny valley issue is that it *looks* for the most part like a real bear, but it moves like a human. That’s what’s giving me the uncanny valley vibes.

  • At last it’s evident he’ll appear in that blue jacket eventually.

  • I always loved that old show (a 3-D figure in a flat 2-D world was an interesting concept).

  • Afrodiseum

    Honestly, when I first saw the stills, I was horrified. Seeing it in action, though, makes me feel much better about it. Storywise, on the other hand, it’s Stuart Little all over again .

  • dt

    I tnink they have totally missed the mark. Whats with the automatic toilet humour?Bond’s books werent like that…Basically a dumbed down version for the north american market. Would have been nice if they had stay true to the books

  • MatthewLajoie

    I think this looks incredible. Great acting choices with Paddington, nice natural feel to him, the shots have a great cinematic feel to it. This keeps my attention, and even made me crack a smile. As a mid 30’s adult i think this looks warm & brilliant and cant wait to see it. Kudos!

  • Max W

    Yes. As a still, it is “ok”. But unfortunately this film is not a still, and when this thing is in motion, it is grotesque.

  • HalSolo

    1:13 – expression is spot on to that image. Cherry picking another scene with more exaggerated expression is stacking the deck. Also, the beloved stop motion series of animations is just as divorced from the original illustrations as this cg interpretation.

    The director of THE MIGHTY BOOSH gives me far more confidence in this film than your tepid snark can dissuade. Must be a slow news day.

  • SPARTALIS

    To anyone talking about the Uncanny Valley, this is my perspective –

    If the Valley can be defined, somewhat, as the point at which our minds are constantly forced to consider the inherent ‘reality’ of what we’re seeing, and thus limiting our emotional immersion, aren’t we all just forcing OURSELVES into said valley whenever a trailer is posted and Amid fuels immediate dismissive discussion of an apparent example of Uncanniness?

    Or to put it simply, we notice what we’re noticing because we purposely take note, as per the preceding notification.

    Recently, I’ve begun to feel that the Uncanny Valley is ending, if not for the CG getting better, then because our cultural mind is more familiar than ever with ‘created reality.’

  • Steven Bowser

    It doesn’t seem that creepy to me. I’m more put off by the cliche story.

  • Mark

    Thanks a bunch for posting this. I had a nightmare the other night that this leaped out of my cabinet and ran around my room. Seriously.

  • schwarzgrau

    If you want to blame somebody for this blame the studios for exploiting every character which was ever popular by kids, for their stupid real life/cg feature crap. But I don’t think you can blame the art direction, it’s way better than some cartoony lookin bear in the real world.

  • Funkybat

    The cherry-picked stills aside, after watching the trailer I still feel like this is a type of adaptation that didn’t need to happen. The CG Paddington is like a slightly more realistic version of the CG Yogi and Boo-Boo. There is something very off-putting about almost all of these CG animal-interacting-with-live-action films.

    I really wish they would go more stylized, do an all 3D feature if they must, but do it with an artistic feel. Pixar and Brad Bird knew what they were doing when they heavily stylized the world of the Incredibles. Even now that we have the computer horsepower for “realistic” human and animal CGI, that doesn’t mean it is th ebest approach. Hell, even a stylized-but-CG animal like the horse in “Brave” would feel more natural in the live action composite than these creepy hyper-real creations.

    Until we have something akin to holodecks and want to put people in a fully immersive phony environment, making characters like this super-“real” is pointless overkill.

  • pugfarts

    He moves like a corpse marionette.