Chilli wrote:Muppet Christmas Carol - my favourite Dickens adaptation.
Flame away, I watch it every X-Mas.
Chilli wrote:Please be lying that Jim Carrey is playing multiple roles. I don't hate the guy, but everytime he multi-tasks on a film he ends up mugging the fuck out of every single scene to try and differentiate between characters.
meme wrote:Chilli wrote:Please be lying that Jim Carrey is playing multiple roles. I don't hate the guy, but everytime he multi-tasks on a film he ends up mugging the fuck out of every single scene to try and differentiate between characters.
I am lost its been so long since Carry has been in ANY film i forgot for a moment who he was, anyway what film is he makeing now?
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:Flumm wrote:"suspiciously fluttery".
Now that is a good custom rank. Any butterflies in the house?
Chilli wrote:It was cut from the theatrical cut, and restored for DVD. I like its inclusion, because it does add resonance. But its not something that you'd notice was missing as such, because while it adds subtle depth it doesn't greatly impact the film in geneeral.
“I play [the ghost of] Marley, Bob Cratchit, and Tiny Tim,” Oldman told /Film at the Dark Knight junket. “I saw the designs, and the realizations of London and the characters. The design of it, and the look of it, is beautiful. It’s quite stunning. It should be quite magical.”
Ah, nobody is broken inside enough to hate the Muppet Christmas Carol.
ChaoticMoira wrote:Flumm wrote:
Ah, nobody is broken inside enough to hate the Muppet Christmas Carol.
I am so sorry to disappoint you. I hate everything muppet. Always have.
RogueScribner wrote:Your innerchild is dead.
A CHRISTMAS CAROL
Before we return to the Kodak, we're encouraged to walk through a gallery setup in the Hollywood & Highland annex for Robert Zemeckis's motion-capture rendition of Dickens's yuletide yarn. The first room is lined with classical portraits of Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and Robin Wright Penn as multiple characters from the story. Basically, it's digital makeup f/x, only a thousand times creepier than anything Dick Smith, Rick Baker or Rob Bottin ever devised. Look, I've read Dickens's novella, and I'm well aware that the narrative is much darker in tone than it's usually presented; with this in mind, I'm pretty sure I never imagined Bob Cratchit looking like a cross between Gary Oldman a face-lifted Katherine Helmond in BRAZIL. Or Belle as a bulb-eyed Robin Wright Penn with a dash of Sleestak thrown in. I am not exaggerating. Perhaps the digital alterations will play better when they're not in portraiture. Or maybe Zemeckis intends for this film to play like a goddamn nightmare. After what he did to THE POLAR EXPRESS (loved those Leni Riefenstahl elves), I'm beginning to think that the mean-spiritied satirist who gave us USED CARS is alive and well. And I'm starting to get excited about this.
Back at the Kodak, Zemeckis is called out on stage to sell us his vision. "You can't beat the source material," he says. He also notes that A CHRISTMAS CAROL is one of the greatest time travel stories ever written. The inference is clear: "Let me at some time travel, and I'm a lock for $200 million." The rest of his comments concern the upside of motion capture and digital cinema: at last, Dickens's story can be presented "the way it was intended" (I didn't know Charlie was such a forward technological thinker); the only limit is one's imagination.
After a few minutes, Carrey joins Zemeckis on stage and yuks it up. I really wish Cook would've asked after the "smiley Christ" character sketch. I don't remember that from Dickens. Peter Barnes, yes. Dickens, not so much.
Eric Ditzian wrote:It’s another time-travel movie from the man behind the “Back to the Future” trilogy. It’s a chance for Jim Carrey to play a handful of characters at once. And it’s yet another leap forward for a cinematic technology that was scoffed at when it was widely used for the first time in a big budget film.
“A Christmas Carol” utilizes the same motion-capture technology that was panned in 2005’s “The Polar Express” (those dreaded “dead eyes,” which left Tom Hanks looking less than human) and applauded in 2007’s “Beowulf” (Angelina Jolie rising provocatively from a murky lake). Since then, the computer-driven capabilities have only increased, and the special effects wizard working side-by-side with director Robert Zemeckis (“Back to the Future”) on “Christmas Carol” can’t wait for audiences to get a peek at what they were able to pull off.
“I think you should be prepared to be blown away,” Michael Lantieri, the special effects supervisor on the film, told MTV News. “I’ve seen some things that I haven’t seen before.”
That’s a tantalizing statement coming from someone whose credits include groundbreaking special effects films like “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Back to the Future Part II” and “Jurassic Park.”
“‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit,’ that I did with [Zemeckis], we took cartoons and put them into a real environment,” said Lantieri. “What we’re doing now is taking people and putting them into a nonexistent environment, which is just 180 degrees out of what we were doing.”
“Christmas Carol,” based on the well-known Charles Dickens’ tale, follows penny-pinching Ebenezer Scrooge, who over the course of one night travels through time to visit his past, present and future. Carrey will play Scrooge at various ages, plus the three different Ghosts that lead him on his journey. Portraying so many unique characters convincingly would not have been possible with the early motion-capture technology, according to Lantieri.
“There used to be limits because of the amount of data that you could retain when you’re capturing,” he explained. “You couldn’t do crowd scenes. Now we can capture more information, which will make the eye blinks and the eye movements beyond anything you’ve ever seen.”
All of which means that when “Christmas Carol” hits theaters this November, we’ll begin to forget about our initial resistance to motion-capture technology. “It’s at the point where people are going to say, ‘Oh, I get it now,’” Lantieri said, before giving us a tease of what we’ll be seeing in years to come.
“The next step—and it’s currently happening—is to do [motion-capture] in combination with outdoor, real-time photography and mix it up,” he said. “I think you’re a year away from seeing some startling stuff.”
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:I can remember slapping my forehead, in true Picard fashion, when the new Alice In Wonderland film was first announced. Why? Because a much more exciting, thrilling and downright fun film could be produced from Frank Beddor's The Looking Glass Wars. Instead of going over the same story again and again - or in Burton's case, making a sort-a-sequel - how about bringing this quality novel to the big screen? If you haven't read it I would strongly recommend that you do. It's a great read and if you enjoyed the original Lewis Carroll books you'll really get something out of this one.
Nachokoolaid wrote:76. A Christmas Carol (in 3D) - Zemekis, while I wish he would go back to live action films, has made his best animated one with this adaptation. Technically, this is AMAZING. Very little "dead" eyes, and there is a lot of impressive stuff here. Carrey also does very well here, but I disliked his ghost of Christmas Past. His Scrooge was great though, and I agree with H@rry that if this was prosthetic, Carrey would probably be in consideration for an award. Worth seeing if you like the story, but don't expect to be surprised, because honestly, it's a new coat of paint on a familiar tale. 8/10.
Nachokoolaid wrote:Here's what I wrote in my movie journal.Nachokoolaid wrote:76. A Christmas Carol (in 3D) - Zemekis, while I wish he would go back to live action films, has made his best animated one with this adaptation. Technically, this is AMAZING. Very little "dead" eyes, and there is a lot of impressive stuff here.
TheBaxter wrote:that is why i don't want to see this film. any film that features scrooge flying over rooftops is not the version of xmas carol i want to see. and you know if it weren't for the 3d thing, there would be no scene of him flying over rooftops.
Ribbons wrote:TheBaxter wrote:that is why i don't want to see this film. any film that features scrooge flying over rooftops is not the version of xmas carol i want to see. and you know if it weren't for the 3d thing, there would be no scene of him flying over rooftops.
Yeah, that's sort of what I was thinking too... although the one shot of Scrooge passing over the moon is pretty cool, all that stuff of him being zipped around town by a flying ghost, hurtling towards the screen, etc., seems inserted solely to justify the 3D.
Nachokoolaid wrote:I think the modern sensibilities of audiences (more action) would dictate that the scene would be similar to what we see now, even if it wasn't in 3D.
Ribbons wrote:Nachokoolaid wrote:I think the modern sensibilities of audiences (more action) would dictate that the scene would be similar to what we see now, even if it wasn't in 3D.
You might be right. This doesn't really strike me as an action story, but now that I think about it, there were a lot of scenes like that in Zemeckis's adaptation of The Polar Express.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests