fchan

discussion

Who wants to see the new almost-furry movie?

Pages:1 41
1Report
Kai at 31 Jul 2009: 11:40

I so wanna go see this movie. It looks hilarious.

http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/14824491/standardformat

2Report
at 31 Jul 2009: 17:51

I agree whole heartedly.  Looks funny as hell.

3Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 01:38

It looks interesting, but I'm not a big fan of the stop-motion jittery animation style it uses. I think it's pretty distracting.

At first I thought it was just a little two-bit film but looking again -- wow, it does have some real talent behind it:

Starring: Owen Wilson, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman and Bill Murray

Could be good.

4Report
Benevolent Fur#k1AxCj2ffk at 1 Aug 2009: 02:08

Heh, looks like this movie is going to have pretty funny writing.

5Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 02:25

I FUCKING REMEMBER THIS BOOK!!
I must see it for the sake of my childhood!

6Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 05:13

I just want to remind you that this does not mean that furry is "accepted by the world" nor do many people involved in the making of this movie even know that some fucked up shit like "furry" exists ;)

apart from that, the trailer's funny :)

7Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 08:35

6

Bill Murray is a furry. I met him at a con in LA dressed as a groundhog. When we went to the headless pub for a drink he said "the best part is no one will believe you."

8Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 12:26

>>7

Pics or it didn't happen.
olol-


I truly find that hard to believe.

9Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 13:35

>>8

I actually saw somebody else say something similar on a different image board -- that they saw Bill Murray at a con.  No idea if it's true, but they were also pretty adamant.

Pretty cool if true, if not then no big deal.

10Report
at 1 Aug 2009: 20:05

>>6
Thankyou for that unnecessary public service announcement. 

11Report
Sen at 1 Aug 2009: 23:43

>>10
Oh, it's necessary. Trust me on this.

12Report
at 2 Aug 2009: 05:26

Oh wow, I also remember reading this book as a child. damn this is gonna be awesome.

13Report
at 2 Aug 2009: 19:12

>>7
http//www.craftstylish.com/...
all i can find about that

14Report
Joe Strike at 4 Aug 2009: 13:30

I said this on alt.fan.furry, but the movie looks a little too pleased with its own cleverness - a furry "Ocean's 11/12/13"? - and after Coraline or Wallace & Gromit I wasn't particularly impressed with their stop motion.

And personally, I consider *anything* featuring anthro animals 'furry,' whether or not its makers think of it in those terms.

15Report
Kavukamari at 5 Aug 2009: 01:59

Looks interesting, I might see it in a stream someday, but I don't want to pay to see it...

16Report
at 5 Aug 2009: 05:59

>>14

"And personally, I consider *anything* featuring anthro animals 'furry,' whether or not its makers think of it in those terms."

It's not you personally, it's majority of "furries" and that's what makes it so fucked up ;)

17Report
at 5 Aug 2009: 09:49

The best furry stuff has never been made by nor expressly for furries.

18Report
at 5 Aug 2009: 10:20

>>17
Exactly.

Soon as something is made for furries by furries it's a big piece of garbage. I've read the so called "furry" books and wow...

The only good furry made product I can even think of is that one videogame that's a sidescrolling beat em up type game. The animation looks damn nice.

19Report
Baidn at 6 Aug 2009: 07:55

>>17
  I generally agree.  Besides the Brothers Grinn (whome i didnt know for sure were furry till the "MILF" picture on there site lol) i havent seen much that seems to be aimed directly toward the fandom that is exceedingly well done.  Maybe its just the nature of beast and we are all like Gatsby when it comes to Anthro characters not made expressly for the fandom.  I prefer this to the more cynical view that if you do something for art it will always be better than if you write a story or create a picture with the express purpose of sexually exciting someone.

20Report
at 9 Aug 2009: 16:44

This will, I unfortunately believe, be a new generation's gateway film. A "Disney's Robin Hood" for the '00s, if you will.

21Report
at 11 Aug 2009: 00:45

"I don't have a bandit mask, but I modified this tube sock."

I lol'd

22Report
at 14 Aug 2009: 12:03

I've been waiting for this movie for the last couple years. Wes Anderson is my favorite director (besides Hitchcock).

23Report
at 14 Aug 2009: 16:20

>>3
Honestly, I'd prefer if it was just a two-bit film.  It's obvious they're aping the indie look, but it's still rife with that god-awful Hollywood sense of humor.

>>5
Actually, for the sake of your childhood, you should probably *not* see it.

24Report
at 17 Aug 2009: 12:37

Good lord, i'd never heard of this and i just watched the trailer.

That is some of the worst stop/go animation i've ever seen done professionally, it makes my eyes hurt and i definitely won't be seeing this.

25Report
Gett of Fenris at 18 Aug 2009: 17:19

The concept is good but it would have been better in Kung-Fu Panda style animation, this animation is choppy as hell and its obvious about being so.  That and his wife is flat as a board :(

26Report
at 19 Aug 2009: 02:32

>>25

I think the problem is we all got too used to CG animation since its everywhere; in cartoons, movies (seriously, can you even call them movies since most of the scenes are animated by a computer) so normally we see this as being choppy, slow, discontinued, uncanny ect. Seriously I predict a flop here as it won’t be very appealing to children since its (animation) is outdated in their point of view, and might even scare them. The only people this cartoon (movie? - since it’s recorded by camera) will apply to will be nostalgic guys who read the story and watched stop - go animation before.


   

27Report
at 19 Aug 2009: 12:03

>>26

Computer animation is most certainly a real form of animation.  It takes skill just like hand-drawn animation -- you hardly just say "computer make a movie". In fact, most hand-drawn animation is all done on computer as well.  You're not going to find much rotoscoped or other forms of "classical" animation being used much anymore.

That said, stop motion animation doesn't have to be that bad.  Go watch other stop motion films like Wallace and Grommit.  The animation is smooth and easy to watch.  This movie just looks like they didn't know what they were doing.

28Report
Gett of Fenris at 22 Aug 2009: 09:31

I agree with 27 Not all stop motion is terrible.  I personally prefer CG but that is a matter of my own personal tastes.  I also like hand drawn anime.  Personall I find when the two are used in conjunction the end result is amazing (see the anime "Karas: The Prophecy" for an excellent example of the two styles working together.) And wallace and Gromit kicked ass.  Also was Chicken Run stop motion? I can't remember...Anyway, Peace.

29Report
at 23 Aug 2009: 22:17

On the subject of stop motion animation equalling a flop I offer this consideration: Tim Burton.  He alone is evidence that stop motion animation does not doom a film.  Personally I think the animation is supposed to be intentionally bad so as to make the film more quirky.  Definetly a gamble in that respect

30Report
at 23 Sep 2009: 14:16

Wait wait wait-

"BASED ON THE BOOK BY THE AUTHOR OF CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY"

Do people not know who Roald Dahl is??? More importantly, didn't we all read this when we were a kid???

31Report
at 24 Sep 2009: 06:36

They used such a low framerate because it costs less money. There was no other consideration.

32Report
at 24 Sep 2009: 17:02

>>31
Why hire george clooney if your concerned about cost?

33Report
Sen at 25 Sep 2009: 02:14

>>31
I can't believe I just heard the term "framerate" used for STOP-MOTION ANIMATION. Sheesh.

34Report
at 25 Sep 2009: 07:08

>>33

And what term would you use for the rate at which the movie's frames were captured?

35Report
Joe Strike at 25 Sep 2009: 11:24

>>34
one at a time?

36Report
Joe Strike at 25 Sep 2009: 11:29

>>31
Seriously, what he's referring to is that there isn't animation in every frame (animating 'on ones'), but in every other frame ('on twos') to save money & speed up the production process. What you lose though is smoothness of motion.

& yeah, Chicken Run was done in stop motion. Interesting how Flushed Away was computer, but the characters were designed to resemble traditional Aardman clay animation

37Report
at 25 Sep 2009: 23:52

>>22

I wholeheartedly agree.  "The Royal Tenenbaums" is another film of his I found very enjoyable. 

To others ... you can't always frame everything in the context of flashy graphics and razzle dazzle.  An artist works with his medium to evoke the emotions he wishes to convey.  Nevertheless, the usage of stop-motion is refreshing as well as nostalgic.  CGI movies are churned out more often than their target audiences' attention spans can take.  It's nice to have something break the monotony.

38Report
Jesus at 26 Sep 2009: 01:12

>>37

Aww, you're just a luddite. Come on, really? Seriously, what does CGI have to do with attention span? Where were the claims of monotony with hand-drawn animation that dominated for over half a century? And to be honest, I've always found stop motion animation to be ugly, even when done well, even when I was a kid way before computer animation was viable as a decent animation tool. But I won't say that it is objectively bad animation or say that people that like it are flawed somehow. I get the impression that you look down on CGI and people that watch it.

39Report
Gett of Fenris at 6 Oct 2009: 22:58

I never saw flushed away, but I know Rita is HAWT XD.  I remember the days of yore, when all we had was hand drawn and I see CGI as the evolution of that process.  Yeah, there will always be people who look down on the new (ask hollywood why they still record on FILM when using digital would be better, faster, and cheaper) but thats what museums are for, so these people can take their kids their and say "back in my day, we had __________  and it was all we had and we had to make do, you kids are lucky to have _____." Or some such.  regardless, its 4am and what i typed may not make sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me right now, probably won't tomarrow, but right now it does.  Night me fellow furries and pleasant dreams. Yo Ho Yo Ho A pirates life for me.

40Report
at 7 Oct 2009: 01:04

>>39

Film actually provides a very high quality picture.  The resolution it provides is on par or surpasses many HD video sources.

That said, most newer (as in the last 5-6 years) Hollywood movies are using completely HD digital video capture.  It makes doing post-processing and CG effects a lot easier and less lossy (don't need to go from film to digital to film).

As soon as digital movie projects become ubiquitous in theaters, I think you'll see film movies all but disappear.

42Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage