Cars...

[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.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

Hmmmm....

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

I thought the humans in the Incredibles looked very "cartoonish" and I was more impressed with the humans in Toy Story 2. Technically I'd say nothing stands out in the Incredibles. Story wise and acting wise it is a very strong movie.

[BuddyB309]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I thought the humans in the Incredibles looked very "cartoonish" and I was more impressed with the humans in Toy Story 2. Technically I'd say nothing stands out in the Incredibles. Story wise and acting wise it is a very strong movie.

The plants in the jungle Island. thats all i can think off.

[Rick TYler]

Originally Posted by Joe Matt

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

I think that was "Toy Story," actually, but I'm prejudiced. "Toy Story" is the "Citizen Kane," "Casablanca," and "Cocoanuts" of CG animation. (My vote goes to "Beauty and the Beast" for traditional animation.)

I saw "Cars" last night. Oh. My. What a beautiful film. The desert plants were my favorite part. Along with the shiny cars. OK, the desert plants and the reflectivity on the cars were my two favorite parts. And Bonnie Hunt. I love Bonnie Hunt. My three favorite things...

My least favorite thing was the script. Too long, too cliched, and too predictable. I thought it was more "Bug's Life" than "Toy Story." Even though it is a good but not great movie, it is more than worth what I paid to see it in a theater. No television, no matter how large the screen, is going to look as good as it will in your local megaplex.

Go see it now.

[Capt.ArD]

I saw it, finally, and it looked amazing. shineys and heat refraction and OOOOOH the shineys. Too bad the theater only had showings with SUBTITLES! (subs really detract from a movie).

anyway, i gotta say i would've loved to be the dude in charge of the paintjobs for that lowrider. Truly beautiful texturing.

[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.