PDA

View Full Version : Look vs. Story



tonypete
01-19-2006, 09:59 AM
OK, so I am having a discussion with a co-worker over the upcoming PIXAR movie CARS, which I think looks terrible. I have no desire to see it just because it looks cheap and cheesy, and you expect more from PIXAR.

My co-worker on the other hand can't wait for the film, arguing that PIXAR always comes through with a good story.

Which leads me to ask...how much does the look of a film outweigh story when it comes to decisions to attend a film? So what do you guys think? How much does it influence your decisions and the movies you see?

For me, I'd say it is about 75% of my decision to see a film. Especially animated films. If it does not look interesting I simply don't want to go.

spec24
01-19-2006, 10:08 AM
OK, so I am having a discussion with a co-worker over the upcoming PIXAR movie CARS, which I think looks terrible. I have no desire to see it just because it looks cheap and cheesy, and you expect more from PIXAR.

My co-worker on the other hand can't wait for the film, arguing that PIXAR always comes through with a good story.

Which leads me to ask...how much does the look of a film outweigh story when it comes to decisions to attend a film? So what do you guys think? How much does it influence your decisions and the movies you see?

For me, I'd say it is about 75% of my decision to see a film. Especially animated films. If it does not look interesting I simply don't want to go.

trying to understand your post - you say the "look" - as in meaning the physical appearance of the film? I only ask because at the end of your post you say "If it does not look interesting I simply don't want to go." I assume you mean the physical appearance of said film. I think Cars looks physically great - I have no complaints with what I've seen so far. But even if I did think it was cheesy looking I would still go because I know it's Pixar and that's quality. That being said I would say that how a film "looks" does influence my decision to see it. Otherwise it would have to have a really really good story. I like the visuals - what can I say. However, not even the best visuals in the world can save a bad movie *cough..starwarsepsiode1and2..cough*

iggy21
01-19-2006, 10:21 AM
Theory- Pixars animation in Cars is going to be crappy, since this film is still under Disney. (I doubt this is true, but who know)

The way ive understood it is this:

Visuals cannot always carry a movie without a story , but a story can usually carry the moive without good visuals..

Now, acting (voice and physical) and execution and timing and also ruin a good story.

tonypete
01-19-2006, 10:21 AM
OK, so by "look" I am meaning, the design, and visual style of the film.

I agree that Star Wars suffers from an excess of 'style' over 'substance', but you also can't argue with the fact that they were also hugely sucessful films. People went to see it simply because they 'looked' good. (BTW, I'd put Episode III in that pile too, I personally hated that film. But that is a different discussion)

As an artist and professional animator 'look' is important in my descision to see a film or not, and I just wonder if that is a common sentiment among my peers.

Wickster
01-19-2006, 10:23 AM
Hoodwinked was well recieved even though its graphics was not up to par with animations such as Shrek, Nemo, Madagascar, Final Fantasy and the wild. I think because it had a funny story.

I have a friend who continually criticise the look of Hoodwinked but was deeply impressed with the story. He also said that it was one of the funniest movies he had seen this year. Overall he said it was a good movie...so I guess story wins out on that movie.

EmperorPete
01-19-2006, 10:35 AM
I've always felt that a good solid story was more important than the effects it's wrapped up in. Of course, there has to be a balance; it's no good having the most amazing plot in the world if the movie looks abysmal. But I would always place more importance on the story than on the visuals. Eye candy can only carry a bad idea so far before it falls down anyway.
And yes, Episode III was a huge letdown.

tonypete
01-19-2006, 10:37 AM
I don't mean by this that I'll watch a movie with good visual effects if it is a stupid film, but I think think that the appearance of the film has a big influence over audiences and the choices that they make.

I think that the design and style of Hoodwinked is part of it's sucess and charm. It is meant to look that way, and remains consistent throughout. It is not supposed to be slick and 'state-of-the-art'.

Cars on the other hand has a "been there-done that" feel to it, and I'd rather spend money and time elsewhere. I expect PIXAR to push the art of the animated film both in visuals and story and it appears (to me at least) that this film does neither. Every time I see a trailor or ad for it, I think of those Chevron car commercials, which I found very entertaining, and the film suffers by comparison.

hrgiger
01-19-2006, 11:07 AM
For me personally, I could give a crap less about a story if the visuals are strong.

However, in the case of CARS, I probably won't see it either way because it's about nascar (or whatever) and the subject does not interest me. Probably because I don't sleep with my sister.

NanoGator
01-19-2006, 11:10 AM
*scratches head*

I've heard a number of criticisms of the style for Cars, but man I'm just having problems seeing it. No no, I'm not rushing to Pixar's defense here. I'm just really curious if somebody could point out what is triggering the reaction. A friend of mine pointed out some of the lighting/shading in Monster's Inc. I had never noticed it before, but it was rather flat in places. I'm wondering if I'm missing a similar detail in Cars...?

I guess that answers your question, though. Story story story. That's one of the reasons I'm so allergic to the Star Wars prequels. TPM was a beautiful movie, but it can't carry my attention. Take ESB, though, shrink it down to 160 by 120, and I can still watch it. That sorta make sense?

Wickster
01-19-2006, 11:17 AM
I kinda agree with you there. I really don't like seeing some of the animations of old being turn into 3D when they were perfectly fine when they were 2D. I also have to admit I'm not too hyped up about Cars as much as I was hyped up with all other pixar films. Talking animals are getting old now also. Though I wouldn't be to quick to judge that Cars will fail I'll wait till I know the story.

Final Fantasy (spirits within) was a prime example of having the greatest visual but lack of good story, for which it failed. On the other hand Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children is another approach of good visual with a not so good story as well seems to generate more good vibes than its previous film incarnation. Wheras FF7 is more stylized realistic than a full blown realistic makes watching FF7 a better experience.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, your look of your film should try to match the story your telling. Story is ofcourse still king, but the style you put in to tell that story will probably make or break your film in the box office.

My take on the visuals of Cars is that if the film was if the cars were actually photorealistic "real brand" cars, talking and interacting with each other, composited with real people and locations then it would be a little more interesting for me. Its not to say the visuals they have now is bad, I just don't find it exciting.

I can't judge it on the story cause I haven't seen it. However, if its another "Loser" car who wishes big and ends up winning the Nascar in the end then count me out. I'll wait for it on DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

NanoGator
01-19-2006, 11:34 AM
My take on the visuals of Cars is that if the film was if the cars were actually photorealistic "real brand" cars, talking and interacting with each other, composited with real people and locations then it would be a little more interesting for me. Its not to say the visuals they have now is bad, I just don't find it exciting.


Are you saying that the visual style of Cars is cartoony where you hunger for photo realism? (Just curious, that was more or less the reason I avoided Madagascar...)

Wickster
01-19-2006, 11:54 AM
Nothing against cartoony or photorealism, I just think the visual style of Cars is not matching the story its trying to tell. Maybe I've seen that chevron look too many times and just doesn't find the "style" new anymore.

Tom Wood
01-19-2006, 01:00 PM
Story is all that matters.

One of the first 'moving pictures' is a cave painting where the images are drawn with echo-lines that make them look out of focus under an electric light. But when lit with a flame, they dance. "Gather 'round boys, and let me tell you a story..." The imagination fills in the rest. (I suppose the peyote helped too.)

'Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow' is a good example of a great new look (cheaply made by comparison) in search of a story. One that would have been so easy to fix too, if they'd patterned after 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' and set up the quest properly at the beginning.

'Cars' -looks- fine to me, but so far I've not seen evidence of an engaging story. Not that it seems to matter any more - Madagascar, Shark Tale, countless others - no story.

TW

Meaty
01-19-2006, 03:13 PM
Considering Pixar's past performance, I think the story will be good.

If I remember correctly, I wasn't all that hyped by the look of The Incredibles... but that turned out to be my favorite that year.

SplineGod
01-19-2006, 07:14 PM
Considering its mostly subjective either way works. :)

cresshead
01-21-2006, 08:09 PM
i don't consider pixar to be the king of the hill and that everything they make is pure gold...they've had their share of poor or underperforming films...

red's dream [short] was terrible..great fx....awful story.
that sheep thing with the song/poem..[short]...unwatchable rubbish!
bug's life..had great cast of 'bad guys' and 'some' VERY mediocre good guys.....
finding nemo was techincally fantastic but the story was too typical for me...

pixar have done some amazing movies though..incredible is...incredible! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


cars?.........i'll skip the film release unless the reviews/general consensus from the public is WOW....it doesn't 'look' wow....so the story will have to be top banana......

and of other films.....shark tale looks rubbish..not rented it but the trailer really put me off for EVER seeing it........ :thumbsdow

REAL poor cgi films are:-all have crap stories
magic rounderbout
pinnichio 3000
bionicle 3
robots
boo zino and the snorks

shrek 2 was underperforming
madagascar was quite lame........


films i do think maybe don't look so 'WOW' but the story is good is kaena, roughnecks [tv show], voice of a distant star, dan dare.


one thing pixar DID do was to open up the full cgi film market..it just need to mature and get some good stories turned into good cgi films rather than bandwagoning the latest advance in cg fx into a film [hair/fur/water/hdri rendering]

some of the best films ever made had some constraints put in there...either by design such as some of the hitchcock films like rear window & rope or cg films like toy story where the lack of fx/cg development meant they had to work within what they COULD create and create a good, strong story to underpin the visuals they had to work with....tha'ts why just having great visiuals will never make a great film....you need story, acting, timeing and editing to make a good film and not just a capable fur renderer!


they'll learn...it'll just take a while for the studio's to 'get it'

one thing that most people are aware of is that the western viewers only get to see funny/entertaining/childrens focussed 'films'.......

3d as a film medium is still percieved as NOT for the grownup market....24+ for example..they put it next to 2d cartoons

anime from the jananese market is has a much broader appeal and stories can and are written for younger kids and well as a truly grownup audience in some of their titles released.....

i hope pixar when they finally split from disney have a crack at a film created NOT for just children but a determined attempt at the adult aged maket.

spec24
01-22-2006, 07:56 AM
OK, so by "look" I am meaning, the design, and visual style of the film.

I agree that Star Wars suffers from an excess of 'style' over 'substance', but you also can't argue with the fact that they were also hugely sucessful films. People went to see it simply because they 'looked' good. (BTW, I'd put Episode III in that pile too, I personally hated that film. But that is a different discussion)

As an artist and professional animator 'look' is important in my descision to see a film or not, and I just wonder if that is a common sentiment among my peers.

nope, can't argue - they made a lot of money. But it was a no-brainer. No Star Wars fan was going to miss it and they were tailor made for kids who could've cared less about the story.
MTV makes a lot of money too, that's one I CAN'T figure out. :)


However, in the case of CARS, I probably won't see it either way because it's about nascar (or whatever) and the subject does not interest me. Probably because I don't sleep with my sister.

Never watched a Nascar race in my life but that was pretty insulting to anyone that might.

faulknermano
01-22-2006, 08:35 AM
toy story's storyline was good because it was original, novel. but i personally feel that pixar stories got more and more formulaic since. i feel bored with them. monster inc, was entertaining. even though the "concept" of monsters was nice, but i still felt this overall sense of sameness, as if the "concept" could be interchanged with another.

in my own tastes, i'm a little bored with "kid stuff". pixar subject matter could use some seriousness for a little novelty once and a while. and i dont mean shrek-type nonesense, btw.

faulknermano
01-22-2006, 08:40 AM
Final Fantasy (spirits within) was a prime example of having the greatest visual but lack of good story, for which it failed. On the other hand Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children is another approach of good visual with a not so good story as well seems to generate more good vibes than its previous film incarnation.

i think FF:AC's story is/was most appreciated by those who fans of the game. it picks up where they left off in the game, so i think at this point, it's hard to really say. i never played FF, but former coworker of mine loved the story.

meanlebh
01-22-2006, 10:13 AM
I am really surprised to hear some of these responses...to me the trailers that I have seen for cars, the effects look very well done, some of the lighting and environments are amazing, and as far as story is concerned, well i think that most people feel that way about pixars movies before they are released, and then end up changing their opinions once the film is released....i think that you will find that the story for Cars probably wont' be anything that you were expecting...for those that are thinking that it will be mostly about nascar, i have a feeling that this will only be a small portion of the whole film, and that it will have a much stronger story than that....of course i could end up eating my words, but who knows....

Emmanuel
01-22-2006, 11:08 AM
You nailed, it, pal, I just recently discovered that the beauty of Cars this time (as in Nemo) is in the backgrounds and wide spaces (of course the car texturing is perfect).I guess Cars will be the most beautiful CG movie of 2006.
Those backgrounds just rock.

Maybe the trend right now is to deliver the CG equivalent to Ben Stiller/Owen Wilson/Vince Vaughn/Will Ferell movies.
Just good, funny, mindless comedies.Like "Wedding Crashers" or "Zoolander".
Nothing wrong with that.I love comedies.

Stooch
01-23-2006, 05:48 PM
Never watched a Nascar race in my life but that was pretty insulting to anyone that might.

Truth hurts. lol.


I know of a show that uses paper cutouts and really rough animation, with really good story telling, cinematography and sound effects. (well they switched to digital medium now). Very funny and entertaining yet lacks in visuals. Yet it is a huge success and rakes in money.