Might have to check that out 
I bought a Puss In Boots happy meal toy today! 
.
And I’m totally seeing it next week, I’ve just convinced my sister to go with me
I agree. When I saw the trailer for Alvin and the Chipmunks 3 before Puss in Boots, I responded with a groan.
The Alvin franchise is so dreadful, I hope Tintin beats it this Christmas season
I have a feeling Tin Tin isn’t going to do well here since not many Americans know who the character is. Alvin will probably make more money, but I think Tin Tin will be the better movie.
^i hope Tintin does well in the US, but no doubt Alvin will be the more popular franchise. Ugh, sometimes people want to watch garbage…
Exactly. It sucks too because I hear Tin Tin is supposed to be a great movie. I don’t like it though when bad movies do extremely good at the box office.
Tintin had 86% on RT last time I checked. I bet Alvin doesn’t even get half of that.
Although Tintin has already made over $200m worldwide from a $130m budget, which is great, Spielberg has intended a trilogy, and unless the film is at least a moderate success in the US, it isn’t likely to happen because they will need backing.
It annoys me too. Like, how Breaking Dawn had made a ton of money and yet been panned by critics (sorry Twihards)
Yep. I heard about Speilberg wanting to make a trilogy with Tin Tin. I would be all in for that if the sequels turn out to be good instead of just cash grabs. I think it would be better if those films failed at the box office. Like how animated films this year did such as Hoodwinked Two! and Mars Needs Moms.
I agree with you. I haven’t got qualms about Tintin sequels because at least he’s adapting them from a well established source. I perhaps should say the same about The Smurfs, another Belgian comic…only the difference is that one film was significantly better than the other in almost every aspect 
.
I think Hoodwinked Two! was destined to do badly. I don’t know anyone who’s actually a fan of the first one. As for Mars Needs Moms, if anything crippled it, it was the mocap, although the writing was very poor too. With a decent script, a different animation style and better advertising, it could’ve done well, because the story was likeable enough.
Yep. But I trust Speilberg in doing those sequels. I think Smufs was pretty known here in the states since there used to be a cartoon of it in the 70’s. I can only imagine how the sequel will turn out. Your right. I don’t even know that much people who remembered the first Hoodwinked. I don’t even know if people wanted a sequel to it. About mocap, I don’t really consider it to be animation since it’s just digaltized actors. I mean, what was the point of making Monster House when you could of just picked up a camera and shot it.
Yeah, I remember The Smurfs cartoon. I think I can even recall the theme tune!
I’m on the fence about mocap. I think with Tintin it was appropriate; they could have never shot some of the sequences in the film in live action, and yet traditional animation wouldn’t have done the cartoons justice imo, whereas with mocap, it’s given the film a very gritty, film noir look, as though you’re in a very stylised comic, which i think was Speilberg’s intention. Whether or not I consider it to be animation, I’m not sure; obviously they had to render the backgrounds, and make the characters look like the characters, and Snowy is traditionally animated, but still, you’re right, mocap is a tool. It’ll be interesting to see what the Academy make of it come awards time.
I think Happy Feet is another film that used mocap well (although I wasn’t keen on the film itself and I won’t be seeing the sequel anytime soon), but as with any form of animation, humans are always the hardest thing to perfect. Happy Feet didn’t come across as uncanny to me. Anything with humans, on the other hand, looks downright creepy for the most part, but I digress; the characters in Tintin, with the exception of Tintin himself, are very stylised and cartoonish and therefore it doesn’t look as freaky. If you take Mars Needs Moms and The Polar Express, however, they tried far too hard to make them look human and it doesn’t go down well. Sometimes realism isn’t the best bet, and that applies to most animation.
Basically what I’m trying to say is that mocap used for stylistic reasons comes across as better than making the film looking as realistic as possible 
As for Monster House, I remember seeing it when i was about 13 and liking it, but I cannot recall a thing of the film. 
I really never watched The Smurfs. Never got into it.
I remember it as a kid, I couldn’t tell you what channel. Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network? They used to show a lot of older cartoons like the original Scooby Doo, Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry (I loved that show <3 )
Can’t say I was a huge fan though
I’m pretty sure it was on Cartoon Nwtwork for me. Scooby Doo, Looney Tunes and Tom and Jerry are also great.
I’m looking forward to seeing Puss In Boots next week. I wonder whether my list will change…
I was reading earlier that Speilberg bought the rights to Tin Tin in the 80’s and him always wanting to do an adaptation to it. I don’t really remember Monster House either. Never actually saw that film. Anyway, I’m glad your going to see Puss in Boots. It’s just a whole lot of fun and a great movie.
Great points here! Agreed, motion capture as a production tool can be useful, but it’s unsettling as the basis for an entire feature. It’s analogous to rotoscoping, which is fine in small doses. But let’s be thankful Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs wasn’t 100% rotoscoped. Extending the analogy, it’s like the difference between drawing and tracing–the artist’s hand should be free to fill a blank space, not follow the lines of photoreality. Personal opinion: motion-capture features don’t belong on a list of animated features.
As for a Top 5 ranking, it will have to wait until a viewing (soon) of Arthur Christmas. Otherwise, Hoodwinked Too! would be in the personal Top 5, and that just wouldn’t do.
I agree. Which is why I think Happy Feet didn’t deserve Best Animated Feature.
Until AMPAS learns the difference between “Best” and “Favorite,” the Oscars will continue to hold little meaning and even less accuracy. But that’s okay; very few people choose to make such a distinction–a curious human foible, indeed. And only a few cognoscenti would be qualified to determine “best” characteristics and fulfillment thereof, anyway.
That said, 2006 was a rather lean year for outstanding CG animation, rather like…2011. Hence, perhaps, the scattered aggregate rankings on this topic.
I would say that motion-capture technology should count as animation. But I don’t think it’s among the most valuable media of animation. It’s not that the same amount of work doesn’t go into completing the animation but more so the awkward unnaturalness of the characters. Creating a caricature or exaggeration of something familiar sometimes leaves a more believable impression than recreating a near-perfect reality; think uncanny valley.