A Scanner Darkly Movie

External Since: Mar 10, 2005 Posts: 6

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 22:21:47 +1100, Blair <blairr@newsguy-com> wrote:

>judeodementia <dleko DeleteThis @fleebert.net> wrote:
>
  >>Not necessarily. They are, after all, using real actors in the
  >>cartoon version. They could use the same script, the same actors, put
  >>some more money into it (I assume the animation is cheaper than good
  >>sets, lighting, makeup, etc.) and make a "live action" movie.
>
>I think you're seriously deluded about how the film industry works.
>Films do not get a significant budget unless they have a major star
>attached, or some other bankable attribute, i.e. they are a sequel or
>based on a hot property such as Harry Potter or hit video game/comic
>book character. Once enough money is involved, then the acountants
>take over, the people providing the money aren't interested in taking
>any chances on the film being a flop. And sadly, intelligent films
>are over the heads of 95% of the viewing public. Even films like the
>Matrix are too hard for a lot of people, that's why they have to
>sandwich in the fight and action sequences to keep their interest.
>
>If you can give me an example of a science fiction movie in the last
>10 years that wasn't made on a shoestring budget - and doesn't contain
>the requisite amount of guns/spaceships/ explosions/action sequences
>etc etc I will back down. The only possible exception I can think of
>is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (but it does have Jim Carrey
>for star drawing power).

Sadly, you are right. But I'll put Keanu Reeves up against Jim Carrey
as a "star" any day.

jd

External Since: Nov 26, 2004 Posts: 4

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:23:25 GMT, judeodementia wrote:
>
> Not necessarily. They are, after all, using real actors in the
> cartoon version. They could use the same script, the same actors, put
> some more money into it (I assume the animation is cheaper than good
> sets, lighting, makeup, etc.) and make a "live action" movie.

Animation can be hellishly expensive. It's not cheap at all to pay people
to draw by hand 24 frames for each second of film. Granted, this is more
tracing, but it's still a time intensive, and thus expensive. And what
makes you think they aren't doing makeup and lighting? Again, this film is
basically a painting over of live-action, so the live-action plates have to
look good to give a reference to the animators. Linklater started out in
independent live-action, so he knows how to shoot it on a budget. The
reason he went animation was not to save money, but to achieve a certain
visual look.

  >>By the way, action movies nowadays contain huge swathes of
  >>animation... what do you think CGI is????
>
> I know what CGI is, and, done well, it isn't cartoonish.

This isn't cartoonish either. It's animated, but it's leagues away from
what could be characterized as a cartoon.

  >>You really need to get out and see what passes for animation these
  >>days. Check out Linklater's previous film "Waking Life".
>
> I bought the "Waking Life" DVD based on the reviews, but I found it
> unwatchable. I never finished it.

"Waking Life" was awful. The animators had free reign, and handed in work
that varied wildly from inspired to insipid. The script and dialogue
weren't good either. However, the animation on this looks reeled in, and
Linklater has shown he can do solid directing when it's someone else's
writing (School of Rock).

  >>And take a
  >>look at some of the more top-shelf anime like "Ghost in the Shell",
  >>or Miyazaki's work such as "Princess Mononoke"...
>
> The only anime (if that's the correct term) that I can remember
> watching and liking was "Spirited away" by Hayao Miyazaki. If they
> are like that I may give them a try.

"Mononoke" is similar, given that it's the same filmmaker, although a bit
more mature. "Ghost in the Shell" is even more ponderous, although it does
have the requisite action scenes and even a little T&A. I'd recommend
checking out Miyazaki's other work as a starting point since you liked
"Spirited Away."

I think part of the problem is that you think "animation = kid's stuff,"
which really isn't true, but is a common perspective among Americans.
There's animation out there in every genre for nearly every type of
audience, but it's still an under appreciated art form.

-Jay