Cars...

[Morgan Gillespie]

One of my favorite things to do while watching computer animated movies is find errors, like textures that got messed up, meshes with odd holes, odd joints, random eye movement is really fun to do. There was quite a few in the movie Hoodwinked, not to mention the water in the movie when untouched looked great, but when a character went into the water it was terrible.
Haven't seen Cars yet but I plan to soon, yet at $6 a ticket + mad expensive food, and me not having a job, yeah... I'll probably wait until its on dvd.

[BuddyB309]

Originally Posted by Mercury Rising

One of my favorite things to do while watching computer animated movies is find errors, like textures that got messed up, meshes with odd holes, odd joints, random eye movement is really fun to do. There was quite a few in the movie Hoodwinked, not to mention the water in the movie when untouched looked great, but when a character went into the water it was terrible.
Haven't seen Cars yet but I plan to soon, yet at $6 a ticket + mad expensive food, and me not having a job, yeah... I'll probably wait until its on dvd.

unless you are the fortunate ones that have a high definition 62"+ TV screen with surround sound capabilities you should start playing the "I-Love-you-mom-and-dad-oh-so-very-very-much" Game cause this movie you definitely have to see in theaters

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by BuddyB309

unless you are the fortunate ones that have a high definition 62"+ TV screen with surround sound capabilities you should start playing the "I-Love-you-mom-and-dad-oh-so-very-very-much" Game cause this movie you definitely have to see in theaters

Invite them to go with you, it worked with me.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Mercury Rising

One of my favorite things to do while watching computer animated movies is find errors, like textures that got messed up, meshes with odd holes, odd joints, random eye movement is really fun to do. There was quite a few in the movie Hoodwinked, not to mention the water in the movie when untouched looked great, but when a character went into the water it was terrible.
Haven't seen Cars yet but I plan to soon, yet at $6 a ticket + mad expensive food, and me not having a job, yeah... I'll probably wait until its on dvd.

You want to see this in theaters, trust me.

[Capt.ArD]

Originally Posted by BuddyB309

It seems that every Computer animation movie that comes out the company tries to "show off" a technical part of the movie. For example "Over the Hedge" when crazy with extremely good particle effects. So Dreamworks was saying "look how good we can do particle effects." Pixar was trying to show off how well they can do landscapes and computer generated backgrounds.

hey, yeah. you just hit the nail on the head. It really IS that way. pretty much every 3D movie is a giant showcase for a new feature in programming/animation. Robots had A huge number of reflective surfaces and sparks and odd lighting tricks. Toy Story was one of the first movies to use a translucent shader, with A Bug's Life following it up with Tons of translucents. so yeah, i like to see movies and see all the new goodies they are developing in animation.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by BuddyB309

One thing I did notice about Cars. It seems that every Computer animation movie that comes out the company tries to "show off" a technical part of the movie. For example "Over the Hedge" when crazy with extremely good particle effects. So Dreamworks was saying "look how good we can do particle effects." Pixar was trying to show off how well they can do landscapes and computer generated backgrounds. So Pixar was basically saying "ha! It looks so real you probably thought we went out and filmed the rocky mountains."

Good catch. "Monsters, Inc." was all about hair.

[Jeff Waegelin]

I am always impressed by the little jokes Pixar throws in their movies. Seeing a swarm of flying VW bugs made me realize this

[Joe Matt]

Anyone see the Apple sponsored car? It was aptly numbered 84.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by techtiger1

Pixar is absolutely amazing. Here is a little known fact Disney actually owns the company and lets them do there animation now. Disney bought them because of how good they are at what they do. Pixar beat out the founders of animation itself Disney for the best animated film award with Toy Story 1 after Toy story 2 was complete Disney made Pixar a insane offer and so it has been for years. Disney/Pixar animation studios.

Wait...what?

This is poorly written, so I can't tell if it's wrong or if it doesn't make sense.

Pixar has to date produced nothing for Walt Disney Feature Animation and we'll likely never see something produced in-house by Pixar, but branded as a WDFA production. Pixar is a successful brand name and Disney wouldn't likely abandon that brand in an effort to prop up its own productions. They will, however, try to get some of the folks from Pixar to imbue a bit of their own corporate culture into WDFA and try to revive it to its glory days.

[ZZII 527]

I saw Cars ... at a drive-in theater in Scranton, PA ... during a road trip ... to see the Pocono 500. Beat that.

It's hands-down my favorite 3D movie since Nemo. Ray-traced reflections were awesome, especially during the scene where they drive up the mountain path. See it!

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Wait...what?

This is poorly written, so I can't tell if it's wrong or if it doesn't make sense.

Pixar has to date produced nothing for Walt Disney Feature Animation and we'll likely never see something produced in-house by Pixar, but branded as a WDFA production. Pixar is a successful brand name and Disney wouldn't likely abandon that brand in an effort to prop up its own productions. They will, however, try to get some of the folks from Pixar to imbue a bit of their own corporate culture into WDFA and try to revive it to its glory days.

As Madison has written, Pixar was only recently acquired by Disney in January. Here is an article about the acquisition.

Prior to this, Disney served mainly as the distributor for Pixar films, but took in the lion's share of profits. Their original agreement was for Pixar to deliver a specific number of films, to which Disney would hold the rights for all sequels. To date, Toy Story 2 is the only sequel.

The delay of Cars may have been due to technical work, but it also didn't help that an economic struggle was going on between Pixar (Steve Jobs, CEO) and Disney (Michael Eisner, then CEO). Pixar wanted a larger share of future profits, and Disney was unwilling to agree. The canning of Eisner led to a smoothing of relationships between the two companies, which finally ended up in Disney buying Pixar.

Disney would be insane to put their "brand" onto the Pixar movies. Name the 7 Pixar movies released to theaters, and then try to name the last seven Disney animations released to theaters. (Using the internet is CHEATING!)

[Chris_Elston]

Originally Posted by Rick TYler

Good catch. "Monsters, Inc." was all about hair.

An in the "Incredibles" it was all about water....

It's funny how each movie, we all can pick out what they are trying to show off.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by chakorules

An in the "Incredibles" it was all about water....

It's funny how each movie, we all can pick out what they are trying to show off.

Hmmmm....

I thought Incredibles was more about them finally getting good human characters down.

[ahecht]

Originally Posted by addictedMax

117 mins x 60 x 29.97 x 17 / 24 = 149 days or about 5 months

Except it's 117 mins x 60 x 24 x 17 / 24 = 119340 days or about 327 years. So, assuming that the article that said it took "3000 supercomputers 17 hours to render each frame" was slightly wrong, and meant to say it took 17 hours on each of the 3000 supercomputers, it took almost 40 days, or a little over a month.

Originally Posted by chakorules

An in the "Incredibles" it was all about water....

I think you misspelled "Finding Nemo"

[Capt.ArD]

Originally Posted by ahecht

Except it's 117 mins x 60 x 24 x 17 / 24 = 119340 days or about 327 years. So, assuming that the article that said it took "3000 supercomputers 17 hours to render each frame" was slightly wrong, and meant to say it took 17 hours on each of the 3000 supercomputers, it took almost 40 days, or a little over a month.



I think you misspelled "Finding Nemo"

i would disagree. Finding nemo was primarily UNDER water. you only see the surface a few imes, and i thought that was pretty ugly, IMO. when modelling underwater, you don't actually model the water. Yoou just treat it like it was air, and the fish are "flying."

I think FN was all about lighting. I mean, the ENTIRE movie had caustics and shineys all over. the deepsea scene with the glowing angler fish, and nifty little reflection. that's where it's at.