The Adventures of Tintin. In 3D (no, seriously... it is!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter niky
  • 11 comments
  • 1,648 views
niky

niky

Karma Chameleon
Staff Emeritus
Messages
23,800
Philippines
Philippines


Would have thought they'd start with the first Haddock-Tintin book, the Crab with the Golden Claws... but I guess they wanted the whole "regular" cast in the first movie (Thomson and Thompson, Captain Haddock and professor Calculus)... though I don't know if they'll compress both "The Secret of the Unicorn" and "Red Rackham's Treasure" into one movie.

+1 for being directed by Spielberg. -1000 for being in 3D and looking like Dick Tracy (the colors, the colors!). At least Peter Jackson is producing instead of directing, otherwise it'd be four hours long...
 
I read about it a couple of months ago, that Spielberg was up to something new. After seeing the previews for it a couple of times in theaters, it's looking fantastic. I'm assuming that he's using the most up-to-date animation? Some of the scenes looked almost unmistakeably real.

I remember watching that cartoon of it in the 90s. That show was awesome!
 
That looked quite entertaining. 👍 Spielberg directing, Jackson producing & John Williams doing the music.....that's the movie equivalent of the original NBA Dream Team!!
 
I disapprove of the dig at Peter Jackson.

Jackson and Spielberg. I like this partnership a million times more than Chris Nolan and Zack Snyder.

Atleast Tintin won't be humiliated like Superman will be, yet again. Sorry I digress.
 
Stuff like this makes me angry! Horrible CGI...noooooooooooooooooooo!
I would have preferred live-action and or good old cartoon..but really Tintin should be left as it was, stop remaking everything Hollywood!
 
I only recently saw a few episodes of the cartoon. This looks interesting...quite so.
 
JediRage
I disapprove of the dig at Peter Jackson.
Click to expand...

Having watched almost everything by Jackson except "The Lovely Bones", I'd have to say the great triumph of the "Lord of The Rings" Trilogy was incredibly good editing for the final cinematic version. We slogged through the six disc special edition set to watch the scenes which didn't make the cinematic cut, and "Fellowship" was the only one that ended up better. Some of the sequences for the other two movies are so horrendously bad, it's no wonder that they got cut. Why they even got filmed, in the first place, I'll never know...

I did like "The Frighteners", though. Especially the part where the sherriff humps a mummy...

Personally, aside from the CGI, I don't like some of the ridiculous facial appliques, but I'll reserve judgement till we see more.
 
I must admit, the only Jackson movies I've seen are LOTR, King Kong and (he only exec produced this) District 9.

Loved the adaptation of LOTR, hated King Kong and I found District 9 to be a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood drivel.

I admire him for LOTR especially because of how well he managed to adapt such a large book and kept the feel of the saga intact (except for a few scenes here and there). And the reason he probably filmed all those extra scenes was maybe because he was too attached to the source material and to have extra material to work with (for later editing and promotions). For example, I remember a promo where Gondor Soldiers were marching across Pelennor and I didn't see that scene either in cinematic or special dvd version.

Here's hoping he forms a good partnership with Spielberg.
 
Nostalgic Outburst.

Not into the 3D gig, not into movies, but I am into Tintin and miss the wondering books... even though I only have 1.
 
JediRage
I must admit, the only Jackson movies I've seen are LOTR, King Kong and (he only exec produced this) District 9.

Loved the adaptation of LOTR, hated King Kong and I found District 9 to be a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood drivel.

I admire him for LOTR especially because of how well he managed to adapt such a large book and kept the feel of the saga intact (except for a few scenes here and there). And the reason he probably filmed all those extra scenes was maybe because he was too attached to the source material and to have extra material to work with (for later editing and promotions). For example, I remember a promo where Gondor Soldiers were marching across Pelennor and I didn't see that scene either in cinematic or special dvd version.

Here's hoping he forms a good partnership with Spielberg.
Click to expand...

Some of the deleted scenes were deleted because they strayed way too far from LOTR canon. Particularly the parts where Saruman dies at the start of "Return of the King" instead of the end (which is why the "Sharky" episode isn't in the theatrical or extended cut) and where Gandalf confronts the Witch-King and gets his behind handed to him.

And even in the extended version, no Tom Bombadil. Bummer. Still love the theatrical cuts, though.
 
I'd call that smart adaptation. He knew from the start he wasn't going to include either Tom Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire and he stated his reasons in the interviews on the dvd.

Now, he needed to somehow close Saruman's story and so he replaced Bag End's porch with Orthanc's top. Most film makers would go for a literal adaptation but Jackson was intelligent with his editing and filming.

He fleshed out Theoden's character much more than it was in the book (and in a positive way), ignored characters at will (Beregond!), and added scenes of his own making (Elves at Helm's Deep FTW) etc., etc., etc. He also made a few strange and (frankly stupid) decisions with Frodo telling off Sam on the steps but I can ignore that.
 
Definitely looking forward to this movie...
 
Back