I'm not going to sit through a rotoscoped film like this, I've seen the trailer plenty of times, and I can hate all I want without seeing it, it's only natural. We all do that with books, games, movies, and music everyday. This is obviously a niche film, which isn't necessarily a bad word, and there's not really much of a way to argue against it. Some of the best movies out there are niche films.
It just simply doesn't qualify as real art done by an experienced artist who bears their soul with their output, no matter what you think. Ari Folman has never had any publicity for his films outside of Israel until he had a team of people put his filming through a computer with deluxe Adobe software. Suddenly it's known internationally and in some circles as an animated film, which I would say is incorrect. He's definitely riding Linklater's coattails. Why even do this to your film if not for the gained publicity?
Like I said, learn some Adobe products, specifically Illustrator and After Effects, and you can make this film too, no animation or art background required. Even the inherent sloppiness of Waltz with Bashir's blocky backgrounds shows inexperience with the programs.
You do know that's what they were doing to finish Scanner Darkly over in Austin, Texas? They were handing out fliers even down here in Houston to just to desperately get their work done. All you had to do was accept low wages and vaguely know some Illustrator, (or be willing to learn) and you were set to be an "animator." No portfolio or artistic experience required. This kind of trendy rotoscoping truly is the bottom of the barrel.
Read the infamous story here if you like:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...ner&topic_set=
Soon though, you won't even have to hire artists. You can just buy a plug-in and have a Linklater animated film at your fingertips:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-f...imated-feature
But just earlier in this thread you couldn't even tell if it was rotoscoping or not, so you obviously aren't an aficionado, nor someone who understands how animation works. Granted, some of the parts use really low rate 3D models, or move the camera through vector art planes in faux After Effects 3D, but that's not the core. And like I already stated, it appears they even got lazy on their rotoscoping and tweened some of it instead of finishing the job.
The thing that bothers me most about this stuff is these directors get praised for doing hardly any work. They aren't the ones diligently tracing frames, and all they have to do is a few weeks of shooting very low budget on a digital camera, with a conservative amount of thought given to sets and lighting, unlike when you make a real movie. The rest is put through the post production team while the director sits on their ass. When this stuff gets hype it detracts from real animators who have real work to do involving understanding acting, movement, staging, pacing, and how to make things move. Rotoscoping isn't even near that cerebral. At least it could be given some flair before the late 90s when it was often done by hand, by real animators, and not just some majorly inexperienced Austin dirtbag with a mouse pushing around vector shapes.
But I'm just trolling at the moment (obviously), and I feel very strongly about the politics of this stuff, as someone who is an animator for a living. Nothing much else I can say besides elaborating more on the above will change anyone's minds, with the actual film and story existing before post production withstanding. So I'll leave you guys alone now.
Linear Mode
