I think darker than it was would mean a serious departure from the source material.
Besides, it totally fits the genre. Most adventure films (specially old fashioned ones) aren’t too dark.
I think modern audiences have developed a craving for the gritty/dark.
So I just came back from it. It was a nice movie and pretty consistently entertaining, and I like that it was devoid of too much dumb or childish humor. But I was left a bit dissatisfied by the story itself, I felt it needed an extra layer or something more to really make it captivating. The action sequences were cool (if not a bit too flashy/3-D exploitative), but they’re not that gripping because I wasn’t feeling the plot too much. In other words, it’s a nice, fun way to spend 2 hours, just not something I expect many people to be completely enthralled by.
As for the mo-cap thing, I thought it actually looked pretty nice. There wasn’t the creepy dead-eye stare so much motion capture has and movements felt fluid and natural instead of jerky or robotic. Still, I think it probably would’ve been better to either make it more blatantly animated and cartoonesque like the source material, or full live action. But there were some very nice visual effects regardless.
Personally, I adored it. May help that I saw it with my fellow French-class nerd friend, but I found it funny, intelligent and amazing to look at. It was very different than most big-budget animated films these days, given that it wasn’t really marketed towards kids but not including ridiculous amounts of toilet humor to appeal to adults. I think this is an important and positive step to make for mainstream Western animation.
Though at points I felt some of the action sequences were too numerous and unnecessary, for the most part they were well executed and paced. I’m not extremely familiar with the TinTin comics, but we’ve watched a couple films in French class so I have the basic gist. From what I can gather, the somewhat simplicity of the story and general lightheartedness is just staying true to the comics. Why does everything have to be dark and gritty these days? The movie was very fun, but not the type of fun where there was obviously no thought in anything except the giant action sequences. Its clear there was a lot of thought and effort put into it. The mystery was decent, the characters extremely enjoyable and I’ll definitely try to get it on Blu-ray.
9/10
It was never meant to be a “deep” film, because the comics weren’t either. There’s a lot of criticism about viewers being totally devoid of emotion for the characters, but the characters, especially Tintin himself, had little to no development in the stories anyways. As for the screenwriting, as much as i personally think it was one of the weaker aspects of the film for being overly complicated and having some pacing problems, it was helmed by Steven Moffat after all… 
Yeah, my signature should tell you enough about what I thought of that little tidbit of info…(not sure if you mean the Moffat thing positively or negatively…)
But anyway, you know, I don’t really buy this whole “couldn’t get into the characters” thing. A character doesn’t have to be ocean deep to be fun, enjoyable and likable. Tintin was smart, funny (“Relax, I interviewed a pilot once!”) and had some angrier, darker moments, plus could kick butt like no ones business. Haddock was…well, Haddock! His drunkenness (and soberness) were some of the best parts of the movie and when Tintin [spoil]thought he relapsed[/spoil] you could see how hopeless he felt.
I agree with what you said on the characters, because they don’t need to be developed to be funny and engaging. See, my issues with the screenplay was that I felt there were pacing issues (first 20 minutes I felt were rather slow, got fast when they [spoil]escaped from the Karaboujan[/spoil], was at a steady pace then until they got to[spoil]Bagghar[/spoil], then it got awesome fast, then the ending was a bit…meh. 
), and as much as I adore Doctor Who and Sherlock, I’m not 100% sure Moffat’s style blended with the comic’s style well. He does have a tendency to over-complicate plots, and with this being a film seen by young children, I couldn’t help but feel that some of it would go straight over their heads.
Criticism aside, I can’t wait to get this on BluRay. I bet it’ll look glorious. The [spoil]motorcycle chase in Bagghar[/spoil]is the best set piece I have seen in a film for a while so I can’t wait to watch that again.
I loved the [spoil]Bagghar chase[/spoil], specially because it was an awesome long tracking shot, but there were some over the top action bits during it, which is my main criticism of the film, along with the pacing, as you said.
That aside, I loved it, it’s one of my favorite adventure films from the recent decades and my favorite animated one of the year.
To me, the standout piece, along with the long shot,[spoil]was Haddock account of the Unicorn battle[/spoil], specially the [spoil]sword fight with the gunpowder[/spoil].
Yeah, the ending was my main problem too. There didn’t seem to be any real rising action, climax, and then falling action. There was “Starts plot, action scenes, action scenes stop, ending.” Nevertheless, I loved it and have been kind of obsessing over it lately.
The ending is an issue if they want to continue with the Red Rackham’s Treasure story because, [spoil]if my memory serves correctly, aren’t some of the scrolls from the first film in the bottom of the sea, and don’t they spend a lot of the story down in Marlinspike’s cellar where the film ended? And of course they’re introducing Calculus but the most logical way I suppose of doing that is with Red Rackhams Treasure. So very intrigued in how they’re going to work their way round this…[/spoil]
I think the sequel shouldn’t loose any time in the Island, and move to a new story.
[spoiler]Maybe they can begin the film with the party at Marlinspike Hall, as Haddock just purchased it. They can talk about how the treasure hunt was a wild-goose chase and they didn’t find the wreckage site, but that the jewels in the hat were enough for him to buy the Hall.
This mini-story about the sea exploration in the island can even be told during the 2D credits. Then they should begin with a new story-line and introduce Calculus in another situation.[/spoiler]
SoA; That is a great idea actually.
Tintin picked up the Globe for Best Animated Feature last night! Let’s see if it can pick up the Oscar too.
I hope so. I like Rango, but this one I feel more rounded up.
I think Rango will win though because of the bias against motion capture. But it looks like it’s going to be a very, very close call.
I hate the bias.
It’s true that the technique hasn’t been successful until now, but it really works on this one. But people just say “It must suck because it’s motion capture” before even watching it.
Even most people in these board, who apparently see every animated film that comes out, didn’t even bothered to give Tintin a try.
I agree, and I think people really need to look back to when CGI was still in it’s infancy. Just look at Tin Toy; it’s a marvellous short but how creepy does the baby look? The truth is that humans are very hard to do, both in CG traditional animation and with motion capture. Whilst it has taken me a while to get my head round the mocap, I think it works very well in hindsight; it gives look thats not quite real but not quite cartoon, which is an absolutley perfect accompiant to the comics style. Mocap hasn’t looked good in the past because it hadn’t been developed well yet. Also, I think that the majority of mocap films had weak stories to start with; at least this was a very faithful adaptation to the comic, and a good film, albiet not perfect. I’d go as far to say that Tintin has given mocap a reprieve of sorts after the disaster that was Mars Needs Moms.
I’m also gutted that not many people on this board have seemingly seen this, despite being a widely publicised and advertised animated film that has just gone and won the bloody Golden Globe and possibly the Oscar too. 
Yeah, I agree. I loved how some characters looked borderline real (Like Tintin and Sakharine) but others looked very cartoonish (Like the Thompsons and Haddock). You’d think it would create a terrible imbalance in look, but it actually really worked. I never felt creeped out by the way the characters looked.
I think the contrast between the characters was intended. Tintin looks very real because I supossed he’s more grounded than Haddock is. I dunno, hehe!
Yeah, I agree with that. Tintin looked more real because he was a more realistic character.
I’ll probably see Tintin in a few weeks, when it hits second-run theatres. It remains a debatable point whether all-mo-cap films qualify as “animated films,” although it’s fair to say that mo-cap is at least a legitimate tool at animators’ disposal. That might explain why folks here might aren’t necessarily open to Tintin.
I’ve seen most of the all-mo-cap films (all except Tintin and A Christmas Carol), including the first one, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Speaking of which…
Folks seem to have forgotten Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and never gave it a fair shake in the first place. The humans were done very well, especially Aki Ross. The mo-cap looked great, better than any of the Zemeckis stuff, IMO. Also, the story was not weak–Western audiences just didn’t necessarily get it, or they weren’t open to its core philosophy. All told, FF:TSW was the most artistically successful mo-cap film pre-Tintin, and it will be a personal benchmark against which to gauge Tintin. Also, IMO…Mars Needs Moms was no disaster–it was better than Monster House and Beowulf, and at least as good as The Polar Express, with less of the Zemeckis dead-eye thing than any of them.
What were the three, do ye reckon? Tintin, Mars Needs Moms, and…?
We only had two mo-cap films last year. Personally, I don’t like that animation style.