TRAILERS

1

I agree. This style of CGI doesn't really do anything for me. I will probably end up seeing this, but I am not shaking in anticipation.

Stevo on Sep 13, 2009

2

Im sorry but the CGI in this movie is equal to watching a video game.

Zachy on Sep 13, 2009

3

Looks like a PS3 game. I dont understand why they need to make this kind of photorealistic animation with motion capture. It still looks fake as hell and if you want go as real as possible why not making a real movie instead with lots of cgi effects ?

Shige on Sep 13, 2009

4

I don't mind the CGI, not sure what everyone is complaining about. It's nothing to effect whether you watch the movie or not, I've seen worse. I'm def. going to watch this when it comes out, I love Christmas themed movies during Christmas.

Kenchi on Sep 13, 2009

5

I did hear some good reactions coming out of Comic Con, and at least a few people who really, really liked it. I'm optimistic. I hope, though, that with a few more months there's still a lot of final rendering to be done. Other than that, I'll say that despite the somewhat lackluster appearance of the animation (in a few places it looks great, but overall it looks pretty mediocre) I still enjoy the early Pixar films - and those looks horrible compared to what properly budgeted animation studios put out now now a day's. I also want to know that that the animation for Tintin will be beautiful - a whole lot better than what we're seeing for this, to be sure.

Timothy on Sep 13, 2009

6

Thank god, someone agrees me. Zemeckis is making the same kind of movie over and over, none of them that great. Polar Express was not memorable, and some creepy looking kids. Beowulf was embarrassing, and I barely got through the whole film. I just wish we still had the Zemeckis who made those quality films you listed above (Back to the Future, etc). Oh well.

Sam on Sep 13, 2009

7

Dude, Zemeckis is still a rockstar in my perspective. The guy just needs to stop jerkin off to his CGI daydreams and return to his original medium. I think he has much more talent with feature films. Back to the Future remains one of my favorites and Roger Rabbit is a classic. This film could have had much more potential if they skipped the animation and just shot it on sets.

Zachy on Sep 13, 2009

8

I'm there the CGI Zemeckis uses is great, and Jim Carrey? Hell yeah! But I would rather see actual people, instead of CG clones, but I'm for it.

xerxex on Sep 13, 2009

9

hehe, just from seeing that screenshot at the top of this post, i could tell it was a robert zemeckis movie, the cgi looks exactly like beowulf.

Lars on Sep 13, 2009

10

Can't believe the negative reaction to this trailer - it looks amazing. Beowulf sucked arse, Polar Express was pretty awesome (will ppl finally get over the dead eyeballs, it really didn't affect the movie that much). This looks beautifully done and the mo-cap work is the best I've seen yet. I think it's pretty ridiculous to dismiss it.

Dave on Sep 13, 2009

11

#7 hahaha haaaaa hahaha This looks bad, and I love the story. This animation will give me nightmares for weeks if I ever see it.

Rick on Sep 13, 2009

12

Doesn't look that bad. I got annoyed that they spent a fifth of the trailer introducing Walt Disney and Robert Zemecki's. I know it's a story we've known for decades, but just give something to wow the audience.

Alfredo on Sep 13, 2009

13

the polar express was great!, zemecki´s is the only one thet works with cgi give him a break

paulina on Sep 13, 2009

14

this is awesome

Nighthawk on Sep 13, 2009

15

In what world does this STORY have anything in common with Beowulf? If it's come to a point where someone can be accused of doing the same thing over and over again just because the technology they used to make the movie was the same, then I guess Pixar is just doing the same thing over and over again. Zemeckis is making enertaining movies just as he always has. If he had shot Polar Express, Beowulf and Christmas Carol all live action would there be any comparisons?

Colca on Sep 13, 2009

16

let me know when zemeckis returns to real movies, then and only then will i and the majority of the population, bother to pay to see his films. Really he expects people to just let him drift from masterpieces like back to the future and forest gump, into unappealing junk like this? really?

troy on Sep 13, 2009

17

Agreed with most of you there, why CGI over and over again??!! Think about it, if this and Beowulf was made with real chars, then it would be more huge and epic-style with a little CGI thrown in it. If Jim Carrey played this role with the possible make-up needed, this film would rock because hes there in flesh!! Im sure even Sir Michael Caine's 'The Muppet Christmas Carol' would be better! Although I still watch this, but there would be still something missing......

Fearl3ss on Sep 13, 2009

18

bah humbug

movie mike on Sep 13, 2009

19

looks great amercians be happy for once from ireland

jono on Sep 13, 2009

20

My big problem with the motion capture (especially in Beowulf) was that they tried to make the CGI actors look just like the real actors. That's a big mistake, because your brain already knows what the real actor looks like, and you spend most of the time trying to figure out if the CGI character is a good match. Use the famous actors voices, but quit trying to match their faces. Just my $.02

darthwhitey on Sep 13, 2009

21

Sorry but Zemeckis really needs to take more of a lead from what Pixar has accomplished since the 90's. The camera is too static, the colours are deadened and the mise-en-scene is completely uncharacteristic. He's too in love with the technology and he needs to concentrate on the storytelling. Not just "how can this scene look cool in 3D?". I'll pass.

Pierre on Sep 13, 2009

22

I'm sorry, but I like this style of animation, though most people can't stand it. "He needs to concentrate on the storytelling..." ??? Better than Charles Dickens you mean??? I can't think of a better storyteller, myself. If Pixar was in charge here, Scrooge would be making wisecracks while being chased around by a giant robot.

Ken on Sep 13, 2009

23

I'm talking about HOW he's telling the story, not what he's telling. How he uses his tools to convey these classics has been underwhelming for me personally, adding nothing to the story. And even if Pixar did do what you claim, at least I'd be entertained. (also, giant Dickensian robots ftw)

Pierre on Sep 13, 2009

24

Even at it's best points it looked dire. Reminded me of the animation in Casper.

Crapola on Sep 13, 2009

25

What is it with Americans and their 'Fable' films?

TTEX on Sep 13, 2009

26

Why can't the people making a film like this look at their computer screen and think to themselves "wow... this really looks like shit!" This kind of CG is fucking hideous and off-putting. Who the fuck wants to see the individual pores on the end of Scrooge's nose all the time? It's disturbing to have realistic shaders on stylized characters. parts of it scream "real" and other parts scream "fake". I can never get into a movie when it looks like this. Not to mention the fact that the Christmas Carol is not supposed to be an action-adventure-comedy, it's supposed to be a fucking character drama. Are we so debased as a culture now that we have to turn everything into a fucking action/comedy before people will go to a theater? I mean, jesus. We've already gotten action/comedy versions of just about everything else. Why stop at Dickens? You could make a bad-ass CGI action/comedy version of "To Kill A Mocking Bird" or maybe re-make Casablanca with more gunfights and explosions, and maybe add some CG nazi zombies in there for good measure. Cause the fucking story isn't enough. We have to make sure we limit the actual plot to ten minutes of the film and fill the rest of the movie up with pointless set-pieces where they're flying through the city or up into the sky, being chased by carriages with lots of flashing 'magical' effects and then throw in a lot of slapstick and prat falls. Cause that's totally what Dickens was going for, right? Of course, as god-awful as this looks, it's sure to be a huge fucking hit, cause that's how god damn stupid people in general have become. Everyone will love this because you don't have to think, you can bring the kids, the cg looks 'cool' and there's always something going on to keep those with a short-attention-span entertained. I predict at least a few hundred million bucks in the theater for this pile of shit. Just in the states.

Squiggly_P on Sep 13, 2009

27

TTEX, I think the reason shithouses like Disney use Fables is so they don't have to pay any royalties as the stories are public domain and people already know the stories from childhood. Easy marketing.

Crapola on Sep 14, 2009

28

Robert is great and Beowulf is an underrated gem.

Wall on Sep 14, 2009

29

Why would they make it in digital 3d. Howaboute make a Chrismas Carol a serious live action horror?drama movie for once.

Marc21qw on Sep 14, 2009

30

Jeezuz! What a bunch of whiners...exactly what about that trailer didn't look great? Robert Zemeckis is trying to perfect a wonderful type of animation. I think his animated movies all were beautiful, and this looks way better than the Polar Express. In my opinion, this looks a lot better than Avatar...now, that trailer was a big let-down, (and I kinda like Jar-Jar!)

kitano0 on Sep 14, 2009

31

That trailer was in front of Ponyo for me.

Andrew on Sep 14, 2009

32

LOL...a guy named PIERRE used the term "mise-en-scene." Whatta knob. Go watch "Un Chien Andalou" or something, fucking whiner.

editor on Sep 14, 2009

33

No, this doesn't look like a game, this looks far better. No I don't mind the CGI, if it's done well and it looks like it has been. Yes I mind Jim Carrey. You recognize him immediately, even if it's not really him. That's not good. I will see this because I think it's a great tale. But I hardly doubt it will surpass the tellings in past movies.

Hans on Sep 15, 2009

34

I think this looks a thousand times better than Beowulf and a million times better than Polar Express (which I think is unwatchable). I could live without motion-capture animation, but this actually looks pretty good as both animation and simply as a movie.

Kevin on Sep 15, 2009

35

Don't really want to see this because I don't like 3D, its very annoying, but "I'd rather not" made me laugh so unexpectedly hard. #31, wtf. Why does everyone hate Jar-Jar?

Lar on Sep 16, 2009

36

This time seems to be something different about motion capture. Could be the face of Jim Carrey? I talk about this here: http://www.soloparolesparse.com/2009/09/a-christmas-carol-quando-un-trailer-e-magia/

soloparolesparse on Sep 16, 2009

37

Zemeckis and his stupid-arsed 3D experiments. Why do people make Beowulf, Polar Express and This awful film.. pleeeeease STOP IT..

sidharta on Sep 23, 2009