New International “Tintin” trailer

Spielberg says its “animation”. The Academy says it isn’t. I say the characters are creepy looking – but it feels like a fun “Spielberg-ian” roller coaster ride… so let’s wait and see.

(Thanks, Riley Phillips)


  • http://thatfellowinthecoat.com Stefan

    I respectfully disagree with the “creepy-looking” assessment. I’m a massive Tintin fan and would be the first to be up in arms if I felt it looked shabby. I think Spielberg and the WETA crew have captured the Herge look perfectly and it looks like they have done a stunning job of adapting those classic panels to three-dimensional life.

    • Letter to Hollywood

      The following is a very broad & generalised statement not constrained to this particular film:

      But I really do feel that Hollywood should stop taking the literary & fictional works of dead creators and overproducing them into new-age cod-wallop cinema just for the $cash$.

      Those creators now gone had their entire lives to tell their stories and make their own art. Their work still stands well on its own merits, even today. It needs no “help”.

      There is no need for them to sequester our own time & talent and haunt the present via the calculated financial whim of two Hollywood hacks. (Especially one who really shouldn’t be)

      Those creators are already in the halls of our history and are viewed more fondly for their own hands work. Don’t obscure their place in that history while trying to tie yourself to them & cement your own place in it.

      If you really love the works of Herge & Tolkien then you show & read those to your children. You don’t go out and bastardise them for an easy $.

      • http://thatfellowinthecoat.com Stefan

        Spielberg has been wanting to make a Tintin adaptation, since the 1980s and Herge even stated that the only director who could do justice to his work is Spielberg.

        So, this actually has the consent of the original creator.

      • Matt

        What Hergé wanted was a live action film from a live action director. All these years later and what he got was a joke, and it was mostly from Peter Jackson.

        The next Tintin in this series is ALL Peter Jackson apparently.

        Spielberg had the initial consent to develop a Tintin project, but it should’ve happened back then. Hergé is spinning in his grave right now because Jackson is not Spielberg and Tintin is not noir.

    • DB

      I not-so-respectfully disagree with the assessment that these are NOT creepy looking. This looks as bad as “Polar Express”

  • JP

    I watched the old Ellipse version of “Secret of the Unicorn” just the other day. I guess it’s hard to get used to something new, like this mo-cap version. Creepy, indeed.

    I wonder if this’ll ruin Tintin for me… much like Tom Hanks ruined my love for “The Polar Express”.

    • Cody S.

      If a blip of a film can ruin your enjoyment of a nearly wordless visual children’s book from the mid 80′s – then I think you’ve got bigger problems then worrying about Tin Tin.

      Better yet – why not just skip the movie all together and leave nothing up to chance?

  • C. Stulz

    I hoping this doesn’t do for Tintin what “Crystal Skull” did for Indiana Jones.

  • http://elblogderg.blogspot.com Roberto

    I’m the biggest fan of cartoony cartoons, but I don’t find the characters creepy looking. I would never buy a toy of this version of the characters but I think the faces are very convincing for this photorealistic style. I like how they look real in the close ups but they resemble the iconic style of the comic books when we see them at some distance (especially Thompson and Thomson) What makes it more strange that the body movements are sometimes pretty rigid and artificial. It seems that the expressions of the faces should be the most difficult thing to do, but they got that better than characters running.

    I also find the general look of the movie a little too dark. And I don’t mean “dark” as “adult” or “creepy”, just dark.

    The story looks interesting and faithful to its source, so it will surely be twelve times better than The Smurfs movie. And I’m not even a fan of Tintin comic books like I’m of Smurfs’.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Certainly this is nowhere near the level of faithfulness that’s being done with The Smurfs.

  • Kitty Wills

    I still think it looks better then that train wreck that was Mars needs Moms. But the only thing this really makes me want to do is go reread the old comics. lol

  • Sat

    Somehow it’s looking a bit better than before, but it’s probably because it made me remember the similar scenes from the old comic book…
    Yet it’s still a bit creepy. I may give it a chance anyway.

  • http://www.toasterguy.com Aaron H

    It looks okay, but something about it is unsettling. I wish they have cartooned the faces just a little more. It’s not “Mars Needs Moms” bad but it’s not “The Incredibles” good, either.

  • Jane

    It looks like dead bodies walking around… Will not be paying to see this.

  • tgentry

    Creepy mo-cap aside, it kind of looks boring in today’s movie landscape.

  • Amy

    And the Academy is right. It’s another tool for film makers, but it’s not “animation.”

  • http://www.hunteachother.com Max W.

    They even managed to make the dog, Snowy, look creepy. How is that even possible?! That must have been hard work! Seeing how “realistic” this looks, this probably is the future of live-action films (as folks like Zemeckis are proclaiming), rather than animation. So maybe animation is in the safe zone.

  • Owen

    I always find stylised characters with very subtle and realistic motion very very odd to watch

    • http://aalong64.blogspot.com Aaron Long

      I think that’s why rotoscoping looked so weird most of the time, and this is basically the CG equivalent.

  • James

    This is the best looking mo-cap I’ve seen so far (in other words, most like full CGI animation). Of course it’s just a trailer, but certainly not anywhere near Polar Express or Mars Needs Moms level of uncanny valley from what I can tell.

    Outside of that and the fact that Tintin bears a little too close resemblance to Mickey Rooney, it all got me looking forward to it.

  • http://www.animehell.org danno

    I wasn’t digging the trailer until Captain Haddock showed up. Now it’s starting to feel like a Tin Tin adventure.

    • Ergo

      Yeah, Captain Haddock is brilliant.

  • The Gee

    Wow.
    Now I’m torn.

    I was one of those who thought using CG and maybe mocap, too, could still result in something visually interesting that was faithful to the comics.

    But, now that they aren’t shy about showing the lead’s face, this trailer does have some plusses to it. But, it also has a lot of deadspots, like when the guy tripped over the cat.
    (hopefully, the scene shows him falling and doesn’t just cut to the end result; no matter how comic book-like that cutting would be. After all it is, according to Spielberg, animation.)

    The trailer is too fast paced, too many cuts to make a lot of sense of the character animation (to my eyes, at least.)

    Which does lead me to wonder if they did potentially go whole hog on scenes and have a gazillion, or whether the camera/shot possibilities allowed them to stay on scenes for longer durations, like when the rowboat falling in one shot.

    I still won’t see it anytime soon though.

  • David Gerstein

    Tintin looks significantly more appealing and believable than we’ve seen previously (though his final “not now” is still the distorted-looking shot from an earlier trailer).

    That said—wow, what clunky dialogue and clumsy editing. “Look at this!” “What secrets do you hold?” and “What’s this?” all from the same character within thirty seconds? It’s Copywriting 101 to avoid repeating the same words too often in a short period of time—unless you’re trying to draw attention to the repetition, which obviously isn’t the intent here.

  • John L.

    Pretty sure this is heavily hand keyed on top of the mocap. And although it is a bit hard to judge from the trailer as there is not really a subtle acting shot, I have to say from what I see it looks ok.

    I agree they could have cartooned or exaggerated the faces a bit more.

  • Doug

    I don’t find it creepy at all. But mostly when watching I’m wondering “why not live action?”. I’ll suspend my judgement until I see it.

  • Michel Van

    this Tin Tin act like Bruce Willis in “Die Hard”
    but i like how capitan Haddock act
    i will wait until the movie comes to Europe

    for the moment i try to survive
    Sony propaganda Blitzkrieg for new The Smurfs movie in Belgium
    on TV, in Cinema Trailer, on billboards, in newletter (Every day),
    on Radio, in supermarkets, in shops, Internet and even over Telepone !.
    I Hate Smurfs
    until propaganda Blitzkrieg about Tin Tin “Secret of the Unicorn” break lose here

  • tom

    It’s not the design of the characters that is creepy, it’s the botoxed way they move their faces. Their faces don’t seem to have the full range of movement of, say, a Buzz Lightyear or even a Megamind. This has the budget. I don’t know why they don’t see this and take proper steps to fix it.

    • DB

      The faces could be as expressive as (fill in the blank for any live-action performance you admire) and this movie would STILL be a terrible idea. The filmmakers have taken lovely source material and buried it under 2000 tons of computerized crap. Maybe if Pixar had done it they would have found a way to translate these characters into CG, but I’m not sure if even they could have pulled it off.

      There has not been such a bald-faced display of Spielberg’s bad judgement since “Hook”, which I hold to be one of the worst movies ever made.

  • http://cjdoodles.blogspot.com/ CJ

    I’m a huge Tin Tin fan and I think this looks wonderful. If this had an uncanny valley look, I would most likely shoot it down, but to me this is evidence that mocap is getting better.

    I find it humorous that a lot of people are shooting down mocap as a field of animation when they don’t take the time to understand that many new fields of animation had very creepy and uncanny starts.

    For example Pixar’s Knick Knack was a uncanny version of CGI. And at one point Pixar’s humans were veeery uncanny. Some genres of animation might take more time than others to perfect and balance. So to knock down mocap because it’s relatively new and unperfected would be like knocking down the first attempts at CGI. Look at Avatar! It used mocap and turned out to be a well animated film.

    I say instead of knocking this type of animation down, praise and support he good aspects of it and criticize the bad. IS there a lot of bad in many movies? Yes, but there’s also a lot of good that could possibly lead to better and new techniques across the board.

    • Chris Webb

      Please don’t make excuses for Zemeckis and Spielberg – the technology is not holding them back. There’s just no excuse for faces that don’t have much expression. Why?

      Motion capture has been around for many years. The technique has been around for at least 20. And Hollywood has been using it on movies like this for at least 10.

      The first animated 3-D faces appeared in movies in the 1920′s or before…

      Filmmakers have been animating faces using a computer in a pleasing way since at least the 1990′s…

      So why Zemeckis and now Spielberg don’t bother to fully animate the faces on these films is puzzling. Audiences know when a face communicates to them. George Pal’s movies have more appealing character expression in them than this Tin Tin thing. The Tin Tin faces should at least be as expressive as the faces were in “The Incredibles.” If Spielberg chose not to animate them fully, he was wrong.

      Until one of these mo-cap movies fully animate the faces, people will find the characters to be a bit “off.”

      So what is holding Zemeckis and Spielberg back? Budget? (C’mon!) Perhaps it’s lack of knowledge. (I doubt it.) Or hubris. (More like) Or whatever. But they are not taking care of pleasing the audience. This style of film is not communicating to the audience as well as these guys know how to do. And communication is what films are supposed to do.

      So please don’t make excuses for Zemeckis and Spielberg – the technology is not holding them back. It’s their egos that are to blame.

      • http://www.shamoozal.com Frank

        Hah. It is because of comments and articles like the above that I don’t come to this site anymore. “…their egos are to blame…” hah.

      • tommy

        The 3D faces from the ’20s thing sounds awesome. Do you remember any names attached to them or titles or anything? I would love to see that.

      • http://cjdoodles.blogspot.com/?zx=f99cc77688da65dd CJ

        I’m not trying to make excuses for them I’m just being honest.

        If you want a more in-depth opinion on Zemeckis and his other mocap films I did not like them because they were stiff and had the “dead eyes” that were all too apparent. However, Tin Tin seems to be an improvement in this respect and like I said before, Avatar was mocap and turned out great.

        I also think you’re misreading my comment I didn’t state that “Tin Tin was a marvelous work of gold” as you seem to imply. What is working however is that it looks more fluid that most of Zemeckis work and the characters don’t seem to have the dead eye. To me, this is a huge improvement.

        And there are things I agree with, the movement o the mouths that I’ve seen so far do look a bit static and could use improvements. And I also agree that both Zemeckis and Speilberg could do better.

        The point of my entry was simple; “don’t hate mocap for mocap, hate what it is people do with it.” Not all mocap is bad, but there seems to be a lot of people here who automatically shoot it down as though it’s some inherently evil detriment to animation that will ruin the entire industry. To me that’s a stupid thought to even consider.

      • Chris Webb

        My point was that Zemeckis and Spielberg could do better. So we agree on that.

        I agree with you that mocap will only get better. But if James Cameron could do a good job with it, I don’t see why these guys aren’t doing as well as he did.

    • tgentry

      I’m not sure if you understand what uncanny means.

      • http://cjdoodles.blogspot.com/?zx=f99cc77688da65dd CJ

        If this is referring to me then yes, I do know what it means.

        If I’m not mistaken it was a term coined by a Japanese robotosist. And the general consensus of the term is when “something artificial is to realistic that it can become off putting.” And this is especially true when there are quirks or slight things off with the animation or “soul” of the character. Such as the “dead eyes” seen in several mocap films or the “limp” animation as pointed out by another commenter.

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    It looks like lushly-produced live action, with all the characters wearing big rubber heads. It’s not a bad look. It’s very weird.

    • tgentry

      I agree, everything looks real world and pretty much realistic, and then the people have these deformed faces. It’s unsettling.

  • http://dmgermain.blogspot.com David Germain

    Yeah, not only do the faces look creepy, the Mo-Cap makes all the action seem watered down and limp-wristed. Nothing about that entertained me at all.

    It’s ironic that they spent all this money on computers to render this and it doesn’t even look as good as that Popeye movie Robert Altman did more than 30 years ago which I’m sure was done for a lot less money.

    I’ll miss this one.

    • http://cjdoodles.blogspot.com/?zx=f99cc77688da65dd CJ

      That’s the only real major complaint I have here is the movement. A lot of mocaps from Zemeckis tend to have that “limp wrist” movement as you so put it. They seemed to have made improvements in the “dead eyes” department, but the action could have been snappier.

    • DB

      Thinking about it – even 2-D characters that are rotoscoped have an annoying quality to them, there is something about ‘too-smooth motion’ that looks wrong – possibly it’s that they do not reproduce the ‘blur’ that is natural to our brain when we observe fast motion.

      I actually think Snow White (of the Disney film) teeters on the edge of not entirely working, although the great animators there barely managed to pull her off. Disney animators put a great deal of skill and talent into understanding how to make rotoscoping work (whereas an example of bad rotoscoping exists in “Gulliver’s Travels”.

      I think the technicians (not sure if they should be called ‘animators’) now working on CG projects have yet to find a way to make motion capture work in the way Disney animators learned to use rotoscoping.

      The really sickening thing in this clip is the decision to completely reject the elements of Herge’s visual style which made his comics so charming.

  • Spencer

    Spielberg’s lost his zazz anywho. The animation on this doesn’t even have the zazz of a Zemmy.

    Maybe there should be a special Razzie award called a Zemmy.

    • http://highlyrecommended.blogspot.com Satorical

      Uh, right.

      In the past decade alone, he’s done AI, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich. Those all rocked. The Terminal was bland and the Indiana Jones movie had the stink of post-80s Lucas all over it, but he is still making excellent movies.

  • Conor

    I really wish the film would just commit to a stylization rather than dilute certain exaggerated aspects with attempts at photo-realism that still haven’t made it out of the uncanny valley.

  • http://arschblog.blogspot.com Steffi-Alien

    The thing that irritates me the most is that it looks like real humans with the clothes and rubber masks of cartoon characters.°_____°”
    It would have been better if they would have been closer to the original drawing style and NOT using Mo-cap!
    Otherwise it looks really good!:)

  • anonymous

    yup, thats creepy! Cartoon faces on human bodies look odd as well on some of the characters. A 2 hour movie full of visual effects and cool looking camera shots…..woohoo!

  • CC

    hmmm… I don’t mind the style actually. Mocap shows it’s ugly face when they talk, however.
    Also, did anyone else get pulled out of it when the guy fell down the stairs, or when the other guy got electrocuted? It’s just too close to reality that it’s tough to get away with more ‘cartoony’ actions…
    I don’t hate it though. Wait and see.

  • http://n/a Foghorn Leghorn

    “Motion capture” is a glorified eufemism for “rotoscope”.
    No one who ever saw Bakshi’s “Lord of the Rings” considered it “animation”. Why? Because it is tracing, pure and simple. Mo cap is tracing. It is a mechanical reproduction of real people acting. It really is live action disguised as animation. It is fake. Sorry, that ain’t animation. There is no creative interpretation of reality; none. How much clearer can it be?

    • Chris Sobieniak

      What I had been saying all the time but feel I have to hold back since I’ll never win.

  • snip2354

    Spielberg saying mo-cop is animation. … Wasn’t he the one who produced such uninteresting, B-list titles such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Tiny Toon Adventures, Animaniacs, and Pinky and the Brain? Oh, and he’s also one of the execs at DreamWorks still, right? I’m not going crazy?

    • Chris Webb

      Steven Spielberg has never animated anything in his entire life. And with Tin Tin, he still hasn’t.

  • http://justforspite.blogspot.com GeneRasputinHole

    can’t remember the last time i saw a trailer for an animated movie that contained so many shots that actively avoided showing the character’s faces, and particularly their eyes. there must’ve been 3-4 close-ups in this trailer where we got a good look at the characters’ faces.

  • http://thewoj.com Steve

    Why didnt he just make this live action?

    • Matt P.

      My Point exactly! He’s made the film look this realistic so why not just film it in live action and use computer animation for the scenes he can’t do without it?

      • Pow!

        Oh, because its a different look in animation that he wanted to achieve. Live action it would not have looked like an animated cartoon which moves with the nearly impossible to capture subtleties of human movement. Hope that clears things up!

    • DB

      I have to wonder if he has some kind of financial stake in the Mocap software a la Robert Zemeckis.

  • Bud

    Wow. Speilberg’s first zombie movie. Just creepy.

  • JMatte

    I grew up with Tintin, and I am curious to see how they adapted the stories for the film ( looks like they used two or three books, depending if they actually go for the treasure…). I don’t mind the look that much- some of the animation feels like it lacks weight here and there (remember that other thread about physics in animation?). Also, is it just my eyes or does Haddock’s head seem big for his body in some shots (inside the plane, 1:23, for example)?

    Despite these small personal nitpicks, I will see it. I prefer to judge the whole film, not just a trailer.

  • Justin

    I don’t think the “Animation” looks good at all. But I have to disagree with the academy here. I’m sure that he had animators to go over and fix and re work a bunch of the mo cap. So, I mean he had animators, so I would consider this somewhat of an animation.

  • Dan Kyder

    How could anybody HIRED within the animation industry have so little understanding of physics and weight, that they would willingly hand over that appalling lamp post scene.

    I would rather walk out the door and quit, than deal with what my manager would say if I animated that scene

    • http://www.shamoozal.com Frank

      I’d love to see you put your money where your mouth is.

      • Dan Kyder

        Thankfully I will never have to, because I’m the sort who wouldn’t let myself hand over work like that for my own PERSONAL standards

      • http://steve-hogan.com Steve Hogan

        See, I was noticing the weird “Tripping over the cat” scene that looked like it was filmed underwater. (And consequently looked rougher on the cat.)

        I appreciate that a lot of work went into this, but when you try this hard to make cartoons look like real life, any little thing “Off” gets magnified.

      • Doug

        Well, la di da. You must be single and in good health.

      • http://agoynamedjew.blogspot.com Anson J

        It’s an 80 lb. cat with very sticky paws.

        Yeah…that’s it.

    • Mike

      My thoughts exactly! I was ambivalent on the trailer until that moment, at which point I determined that in no way was I going to pay to see this.

    • The Gee

      Yeah.
      That. If they had approached that like a cartoon: WHAM!, a standard horizontal impact take, it would actually get a laugh.

      Instead, they kept on trucking and kept him in the shot by showing that?? Oh what am I thinking? Live action talent edit like the Dickens. I know that. Bad parts will be removed and scenes swapped before release.

      In fairness on that though, the big scenes with vehicles seem to be more solid. But those are more familiar territory for someone like Spielberg.

      Again, the cuts in the trailer don’t allow for good assessments of the faces. And, that trick with the VO while showing the character…not too cool.
      good make-up job vs. bad plastic surgery.

  • http://www.sibsy.blogspot.com Sabrina

    I agree, why is this even “animated”…it could’ve just been live action at this point.

  • david

    the guy hitting the lamp post! STEVEN SPERMBERG! GET WITH THE PROGRAM

  • http://www.punkrobot.cl antonia

    The thing that I’ll miss the most from the comic version is the snarky commentary of the dog milú (or snowy, in the english version)

    • Chris Sobieniak

      They didn’t do that either in the Nelvana series as well (I suppose the other Tintin movies didn’t have it either).

  • tommy

    There’s absolutely no reason for Tintin to be animated instead of live action — unless it’s about money, but I don’t know how much these things cost. Tintin may have been a comic, but it was hardly a cartoony one, and nothing would be lost by doing it in live action. I watched a live action Tintin movie last night (Tintin et le mystère de la Toison d’Or) and it was great. No cartooniness was lost. The characters actually looked funnier in the movie. The whole thing was funnier than the Tintin comics.

  • Tom

    I really like it, but the physics seem way too floaty. Get it figured out!

    • Sabrina

      Totally. Every movement feels too slow and “floaty”, especially that scene with the lampost…yikes. I thought I was the only one that was seeing the “animation’s” weird timing..or lack thereof.

  • AJ

    Tt feels like the people of rockstar games made a movie. The movement has a real “L.A Noir” vibe to it.

  • TK

    Ummm, no.

  • http://beesbuzz.biz/ fluffy

    Stylized character designs with photorealistic textures makes for a very unsettling look. It’s like those photo-manipulations of Super Mario and Homer Simpson by Pixeloo that were circulating a few years ago.

  • http://www.ailhadoceu.com.br Ceu D’Ellia

    Looks like actors using heavy rubber masks, from face to feet.

  • Dr Hibbet

    I prescribe fire..and lots of it.

  • http://www.frankpanucci.com Frank Panucci

    I just compared this to THE GOON’s trailer.
    GOON has way more Hulk Smash than TINTIN.
    The GOON character movement is decisive and powerful.
    The TINTIN character movement is tentative, as if its mocap performers were struggling under the weight of a ninety-pound tethered capture suit from the 1990s, which also happened to be made of delicate crystal that would not withstand sudden movement.

    THE GOON trailer:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P21Re_mB2Q

    • Adele

      totally would have suited Tintin.

    • James

      Agree. No matter how much better mo-cap tends to get, it really lacks that “snap” that the reigning CGI features have. Heck, I might even have a bit more enthusiasm for “The Goon”, even though it will likely be made at a fraction of the cost.

  • Joel Brinkerhoff

    Guess I’ll be the first to mention this is a series and an animated character will not age as the cast of Harry Potter did. Tintin is an always will be a certain age and all the cast may live forever more for.

  • Pieter

    God, those awful “it doesn’t look realistic!/Uncanny Valley/Strange movements”-comments…

    Has it ever crossed your minds that maybe Spielberg doesn’t want to create a realistic world? He’s creating HERGE’S WORLD and from the looks of the trailer he has done it superbly.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      All because we didn’t think about it in that sense, and I can see your point clearly there as well. This certainly does feel like the world in those comics and how I see it play out.

  • http://allofmyheroes.blogspot.com/ Jeaux Janovsky

    I actually think the Doug film looks a bit better. http://lumber.tumblr.com/post/7512887626/doug-the-movie-trailer-hd-by-drcoolsex
    More emotion and all that.

  • http://utopiamoment.ca Jack Ruttan

    They look to me like actors wearing masks.

  • Valentin Moretto

    Come on now, they know a Tintin adventure isn’t a Tintin adventure without the showcasing of Captain Haddock’s legendary cussing talents. Too b!

    Mille milliards de mille sabords!

  • Skeptical

    When did Tintin turn into a buff, 30-year-old stuntman? When did Snowy become Sony’s AIBO robot dog?

  • Miller

    It’s a mocap “Remo Williams – The Adventure Begins” but with less of everything.

  • Toonio

    Spielberg and Jackson lost touch with their creative muses long time ago.

    Victims of their own fames the now create movies that make no sense and have no transcendence.

    They should gracefully step aside and get on the producer chairs where they kinda shine.

    • DB

      Spielberg has had spotty judgement over his entire career – while I DO like many of his films, I put “Hook” in the category of ‘worst-films-ever-made”, and possibly “1941″ as well.

      • David Gerstein

        When Spielberg thinks he’s producing something for children, especially young children—look out. He often gets “heartwarming” in a patronizing, embarrassingly cliched and artificial manner.
        It’s his one weak spot; see also Lucas, George.

        I’m amazed the Tintin movie isn’t following this trend. Maybe the Herge estate wouldn’t let it.

  • Kevin H.

    …Looks really stiff and boring.

  • Pow!

    I’ll say this much, in a field where every feature length is either based on Pixar, Dreamworks, Looney Tunes or classic Disney, its refreshing to see something which looks like absolutely nothing I’ve ever seen before.

    • Letter to Hollywood

      @POW!
      I disagree with pretty much everything about this comment.

      If you find a project & approach like this one to be “refreshing” and think that the only proper animation work going on in the industry today “is either based on Pixar, Dreamworks, Looney Tunes or classic Disney” you obviously need to get out more into animation, art and film in general.

      All I see in this trailer is an apathetic approach to the looting of a corpse for vested self interest.

      • Pow!

        I appreciate that your comment was condescending. I can’t see how you could have made your point without stooping to that. Other than the occasional stop motion effort, I really can’t think of an original looking American film released in the past five years. If you can, go ahead and list it!

  • Jabberwocky

    It looks okay… except for the faces. Honestly, they should have either gone all live-action or made the faces properly cartooned. This half and half thing is just a little off. It’s not as horrible as the super-realism of Polar Express or something, but it’s still an odd choice.

  • sweetbottom

    Am I the only one getting a serious Lupin vibe from this trailer. Speilberg was a vocal champion of Hayao Miyazaki’s Castle of Cagliostro, even going so far as saying it “had the greatest car chase of all time”. The whole over the top physicality of the action really feeling like the chase scenes in Cagliostro.

    I think everyone wishes this was animated and not mo-caped, but if he is indeed channeling his inner Miyazaki, I for one can’t wait.

    Does anyone else see this too?

  • Purin

    Well… I’m not all that excited to watch it as a visual treat, but I’m intrigued about how it is as a movie and a story.

  • Frank Ziegler

    Awfully stiff looking for “animation”. Like some others have said, would have preferred it live action. I can’t see how this technique is adding anything to the mix.

  • http://www.moonito.com jorge

    the trailer is like nothing :$

  • jerome

    Here is the trailer in beautiful HD (with french subtitles) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNSXxIH_uRI&feature=player_embedded

  • Adele

    Sorry, I couldnt hear you all because Im stuck deep in the Uncanny Valley after watching the trailer. I used to casually read the books and watch the animated series and this looks horrible in comparision. Its a bunch of animated corpses running around and Snowy is ugly, not cute at all. I dont care if its Jackson, Spielberg & Weta, they havent done a good job. They should have just gone with an animation studio that can produce something traditional, that resembled the comics and series. OR if CG is so important to audiences, then a cg animation looking style like what we see with Dreamworks and Pixar etc. Other than Avatar (which I hated) I havent spent one cent on any other 3d or mo-cap films, its an ugly movie making tool that should be used sparingly. Just use real actors! Mo-cap “animated” films will take years to fit in, not until a couple of generations are dead and all that is left are people who were born into this movie making era and havent any idea that the French traditional digital animators could have done a better version AND just market the hell out of it to get bums on seats. Im not even going to go to the Smurfs article, I hate that film already. Now throw me a rope so I can climb out of this valley.

  • Scott B.

    It should have been animated in a ligne claire style, with dimensionality and precious little shading, so that, you know, it looked like “Tintin.” But CGI, mo-cap and 3D are all the rage these days, so whatchagonnado?

    In any case, this is too dark, as in, there’s not enough light, as others have said.

  • Mc guffindor

    I don’t get it, they worked a whole style and look for this movie, and then glued big phony noses on it?!?!

  • http://www.studiosoi.de jakob

    it would have been SO easy:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/pipojki/5308042146/in/photostream/

    It’s an absolute shame…

    • wgan

      absolutely that style nailed it, what a train load of shames!!

    • http://www.bruandboegie.co.za Mike

      Woah, that looks leagues better than this movie. I was gonna post about how it looks much better than my original impressions from the first trailer, but that sculpture / link looks fantastic! Sigh. I’ll probably end up watching it anyway out of curiosity but how rad it’d have been if the movie stuck closer to the source material.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        It certainly would’ve worked this way if they hadn’t tried to go for the more realistic look with those eyes and skin. I don’t mind the shadows or dark tones used in the film personally.

    • Matt

      Indeed.

      With this whole overproduction values ethos flying around in the Hollywood entertainment industry at the moment I think people tend to forget just how appealing Hergés actual comic style really is, and just how damn versatile CGI can really be.

      But Spielberg & Jackson are both live action directors, so they don’t know these things.
      They’re also both far too busy making their other live action projects and just want to direct & produce this thing from the comfort of an armchair. Exactly like what happened to George Lucas with the whole green screen Star Wars fiasco.

      Back when Hergé was still among the living he was keen on the idea of a renowned live action director like Stephen Spielberg making a live action adaptation of some of his stories, but Spielberg couldn’t even honour a dead mans wishes. No, too old, preoccupied and lazy to do something like that.

      So then Peter Jackson comes along and says:
      “We’ll just give e’m the old CGI rotoscope and call it animation and make it like a cartoon, but a realistic cartoon, because Hergé wanted a realistic live action noir quality to it, or something like that. Let me know when the checks start coming. I’ll be down here making The Hobbit”

      Tintin will be their little cash cow for the next however many iterations they can squeeze out of it.

      Hergé was worth more of your time then you were ever willing to put into this.

      The two biggest mistakes of Stephen Spielberg’s filmmaking career: George Lucas & Peter Jackson.

    • DB

      The characters are better, but everything that surrounds them still misses the charm of Herge’s overall visual style.

      • http://justforspite.blogspot.com GeneRasputinHole

        because it’s a maquette in a window. everything around the characters is the real world.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        Course I hate to be the one to admit in those comics, it was essentially the real world as Herge boiled it down into his ligne claire style. The “world” as the movie portrays isn’t what turns me off as more for perhaps the details of the characters themselves.

    • http://www.hunteachother.com Max W.

      Argh, yeah, those are 3D, they look GREAT! It’s the freakin eyeballs, these CG folks always get obsessed with giving everything realistic eyeballs, drives me nuts!!!

      • Chris Sobieniak

        And that’s what turns it off for those of us when it comes to how realistic should be eyes bit, when all they ever were was just simple black dots (or circles).

  • Steven M.

    You know, they try to replicate live-action so much in mo-cap, they might as well just make it live-action. For the trailer, it kind of bored me.

  • Daniel J. Drazen

    Does anyone else think Capt. Haddock looks like Leo McKern?

  • Matt

    The most disturbing shot in this entire trailer is at 0:07 where Tintin is standing in front of an entire wall of mirrors and they magically obscure any reflection of his face. It’s not a clever set up for a reveal, it’s just plain unsettling.

    • Lib

      I strongly disagree. I believe that is, in fact, the best shot of the entire trailer and possibly the best one of all they have shown so far.

      It is a beautiful character introduction, reminiscent of Spielberg’s Indiana Jones reveals, cleverly emphasizing Tintin’s most iconic physical feature: his hairstyle.

      And while I would’ve also preferred the movie to look like those figures linked earlier, with a more exaggerated animation like The Goon, I still loved the trailer. I was with everyone else on the skeptics’ wagon when they first showed their character designs, but ever since then I’ve been liking the movie more and more as they kept revealing new things. And I think this last trailer was plainly awesome, it does look like the real comeback to Spielberg’s classic lighthearted yet action-packed adventure movies from the 80s that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull failed to be.

      • Chris Sobieniak

        I’ll give them credit for at least that in this trailer. It certainly sets it up perfectly despite the qualms we have over design and/or setting. They’re certainly doing their best to adapt Herge’s characters and stories for this film.

  • cjseaton

    Some would argue that this might not be related, but I wish more modern filmmakers who want to use mo-cap and try to make “realistic” CG characters would read “Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud. McCloud even references Herge’s Tintin as an excellent example of stylistic characterization that allows the reader/viewer to more readily immerse themselves in the character and connect with the story. One of the marvels of animation is the more stylized the characters are the easier it is for the audience to connect with them. Too bad lots of people seem to think that audiences will only watch animation if it looks more “life-like”.

    • http://www.stringstornasunder.blogspot.com Chris Powell

      This is a VERY revelant and well said comment. Thank you

      • Was My Face Red

        Hear hear!

  • philippe

    A Tintin movie by George Pal in 1938, that would have been great! With Walter Trier at the design!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS0iCCB-sxw

  • http://www.okgrillo.blogspot.com Oscar Grillo

    PEOPLE STILL WATCH “SNOW wHITE” AND “PINOCCHIO” AFTER SEVENTY YEARS AND TITIN HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY AND SUCCESFULLY PUBLISHED SINCE 1929. I DOUBT THIS FILM WILL BE REMEMBERED AFTER 2013. GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN IT!

    • Dr. Ivo Robotnik

      Just watched Pinocchio again. It’s a boring movie that looks reeeeally really pretty. If people still watch that, and if those are the standards, then there may be hope for this one yet.

  • http://agoynamedjew.blogspot.com Anson J

    If you REALLY want to bring TinTin to life for the big screen, let the guys who did “Isolated Dogs” (http://www.cartoonbrew.com/student/isolated-dogs-les-chiens-isoles-from-gobelins.html) do it. They’ve shown that they can make animation that truly looks like moving comic book art.

    These mo-cap digital actors look kind of creepy in my opinion, and should be saved for use as digital stuntmen or effects creatures in live action movies.

  • DB

    Oh my god

    That is just horrible. I could not bear watching more than half of that crap.

    I am not even a big Tin Tin fan, as I don’t find the narratives/characters that interesting, although I think Herge’s drawings are beautiful and full of charm.

    These characters are creepy, have that annoying smoothness of rotoscoped characters AND the whole design of the enterprise is an insult to Herge’s lovely drawing style.

    What is WRONG with Spielberg +company that they just didn’t make this as a 2-D animated film? Do they have some kind of financial stake in the motion capture software like Robert Zemeckis? I mean, this garbage looks like a purely business decision to make money.

  • Mister Twister

    If only it wasn’t motion-capture… if only it wasn’t motion capture… if only it wasn’t motion capture… if only it wasn’t motion capture… if only it wasn’t motion capture… if only it wasn’t motion capture…

  • http://agoynamedjew.blogspot.com Anson J

    So all the suits will tell you that you can’t sell 2D animated movies anymore because there is no longer a market for them. And that animated movies aimed at adults rarely make any money, so they rarely make those kinds of movies either. Or that you can’t make black and white movies any more for the same reason. Most of these mocap movies — from Final Fantasy to Mars Needs Moms have proven themselves to be consistent critical and box office bombs. Yet they keep on getting made. Can somebody explain this?

    • DB

      One of the most revealing interviews I have ever seen was an hour-long interview on The Charley Rose show with Robert Zemeckis and Tom Hanks when they were publicizing the release of “Polar Express”.

      Zemeckis went on and on about how great it was not having to have to deal with pesky actors or crew members and being able to control everything. More surprising was Hanks’ willingness to throw his fellow actors under the bus, as he rhapsodized about being able to play multiple parts himself.

      Both made a big point in promoting the Zemeckis-owned motion cap software, so I think a big part of this whole enterprise was trying to make money off of this software as an investment.

      I think people look at things like the financial success of Facebook and are driven to find their own corner of the digital universe that will be the ‘next big thing’ and make them billions of dollars.

    • David Gerstein

      “So all the suits will tell you that you can’t sell 2D animated movies anymore because there is no longer a market for them. And that animated movies aimed at adults rarely make any money…”

      Yep. And both of those reasons are why the 2D, adult-targeted Seth MacFarlane cartoons are among the most popular series on TV.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I don’t think it can be explained, at least not by me, and I don’t want to be the one to admit I don’t have an answer anyway. It’s just typical Hollywood line of reasoning.

  • Isaac

    Looks great, and it will no doubt be a box office success and a fun movie all around. Shame about the faces, though.

  • Marco

    It looks so wrong.I’m not scared of human zombies, but zombie dogs gives me the creep.

    Story wise I’m curious to see how they manage the mix of 2 different books.”The Crab with the Golden Claws” where Tintin meet the Captain (Story about opium traffic situated in Arabia) and “The Secret of the Unicorn” where he already knows him (Situated first in Brussels then in the Caribbean in part 2 “Red Rackham’s Treasure”)

    This trailer just saved me 10 euros.

    • billburgnyc

      The story issue is the biggest mystery to me in all this discussion. I don’t understand why, as it appears, they seem to have adapted only half of the treasure hunt story that begins in “Unicorn.”

      Still, screenwriter Steven Moffat’s involvement is one of the few details about this production that makes me (cautiously) optimistic.

  • Rich

    How was it possible to ruin Herge’s great character designs and make them as creepy as those in Polar Express? This is too ugly to watch.

  • http://www.spiteyourface.com Tony Mines

    The marketeers seem resolutely coy about showing Tintin still. They’ve managed here to follow the modern trend for putting the whole movie in the trailer, but without a single clear shot of the lead, who they obviously know is the worst offender in those stakes.

    Also, the animation is clearly animation, because its samey, floaty and weird. Was there less gravity in the 1930s?

  • Doug Drown

    I’m only marginally familiar with Tintin; I’ve never read one of the books cover to cover. The characters’ faces don’t strike me as creepy (certainly not as much as those of The Polar Express), and even though the trailer really doesn’t reveal much, it looks intriguing enough that I think the film would be worth seeing. I have my fingers crossed that Speilberg knows what he’s doing. Count me in.

  • http://www.readingjuice.co.uk/ MM

    I wasn’t to keen on the style of animation at first but it’s really grown on me. I always hoped they’d do something more interesting like this, for people who want a 2D tintin there’s always the animated series from the early 90′s which are pretty faithful renditions of the stories (apart from playing down Haddock’s drinking problem and some other themes which weren’t so family friendly).

  • http://www.bigdaddyanimation.com Big Daddy

    Looks better than Polar Express. More cartoony!

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    It really looks great now. Obviously a combination of ‘The Secret of the Unicorn/Red Rackham’s Treasure’ and ‘The Crab with the Golden Claws’. I really hope either Thompson and/or Thomson will say ‘To be precise’.
    Is the villain from any of the Tintin books? He looks a lot like Prof.Calcalus. They should have used Rastapulos instead.

  • http://www.transformationsequence.com/ Wil

    Why do Haddock and the Thompson Twins look far more cartoony than Tintin?

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Who knows. Tintin in particular isn’t meant to be in the same boat as them since his character isn’t meant to stand out as it was in the comics. Someone once told me that about how personality-less Tintin is and how the reader can project him or herself into Tintin and the cases he encounters in every adventure.

  • Vzk

    I hope Spielberg and Jackson make my favorite Tintin story: Tintin in the Congo. Just imagine those exaggerated black caricatures in motion-capture! Jesse Jackson will love it!

    • Chris Sobieniak

      And the moment when Tintin orders them to lift the train back on the tracks using Snowy in the ordeal! I still can’t get that out of my head!