Weasel on 20/1/2005 at 19:47
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Note that in any of the T1/T2 cutscenes that involved a human doing anything more elaborate than talking or moving a hand, they had to resort to very obvious live-action footage.
So, they could do the same thing in the full-length movie, but do it better. I think the live-action silhouettes could look really cool if done well. I thought they looked pretty good in the rustmonkey cutscenes, but they probably didn't have experienced actors playing the silhouettes. If they got the right people, they could make it look slick. They could probably get some talented mimes for cheap, and have them tone down their movements a bit.
Marlow on 20/1/2005 at 19:52
OK, Zylon, they do introduce live action, but it is quite well integrated into the whole, and produces a very consistent look (especially in TMA), so I can't see what's wrong with it. Of course, working with cutouts has its limitations, but the addition of elements of live action or CG animation (provided that it retains the character of the cutscenes - black shadows over a more-or-less-hand-painted background) largely removes them, and then Rustmonkey can also use a whole array of image processing tools which Terry Gilliam couldn't even dream of...
WhiteFantom on 21/1/2005 at 00:16
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
Hell. No.
Their animations look amazingly stylish, but technically are only barely more advanced than Terry Gilliam's old Monty Python cartoons. The actions you can depict by moving around static cutouts are extremely limited. Note that in any of the T1/T2 cutscenes that involved a human doing anything more elaborate than talking or moving a hand, they had to resort to very obvious live-action footage.
And what exactly is wrong with Terry Gilliam's Monty Python animations? I'd happily watch a movie-length version of that. And considering that Rustmonkey's animations are considerably more stylized and fluid, that makes it even better. What's the problem?
--Jennifer
ZylonBane on 21/1/2005 at 00:23
Quote Posted by Marlow
Of course, working with cutouts has its limitations, but the addition of elements of live action or CG animation (provided that it retains the character of the cutscenes - black shadows over a more-or-less-hand-painted background) largely removes them, and then Rustmonkey can also use a whole array of image processing tools which Terry Gilliam couldn't even dream of...
And then you would have Thief Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut.
Marlow on 21/1/2005 at 01:20
Come on, Zylon, comparing Rustmonkey stuff to South Park? I know you don't like the idea, but this is a bit over the top... I agree with much of what you say - i.e. that this method of making films excludes many kinds of scenes available in live action films. But at the same time, the unique atmosphere of Rustmonkey animation is not available to a large majority of run-of-the-mill movies. Artistic quality instead of action - why not?
godismygoldfish on 21/1/2005 at 01:52
Action is damn well possible with this animation technique. It just takes a lot more time and effort to pull it off right.
he flys on 21/1/2005 at 02:05
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
An animated Thief would most probably suck. Just look at TDS-- they went for the cartoony look there vs the proverbial gritty realism of the originals, and AFAIK very few people considered it an improvement.
I don't see how you could possibly know this without playing the game.
Quote:
And then you would have Thief Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut.
The similarities bewtween South Park and Thief are astonishing!!!! When I was playing Thief, I instantly knew the animators of South Park had concocted them!
godismygoldfish on 21/1/2005 at 03:15
(
http://www.tyrot.com/a.avi) Sometimes it's amazing what one person can do, though ;)
(needs xvid, and the quality is kinda crappy, especially for the file size. I apologize, xvid will be severly punished for this transgression)
SithLord2001 on 21/1/2005 at 03:34
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
And then you would have Thief Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut.
That could be the quote for the SDK imo.....(I know it was lame but it came to my pathetic mind... :tsktsk: )
he flys on 21/1/2005 at 03:35
The link isn't working!!!!!!!!!!! :(
