RichWS Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'd go with a 260-270M final number. Monsters U numbers basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 Interesting technical tidbit from the blogger conference going on right now: There's over 900 shots in the movie, which is double the average Pixar film Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Terrific Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Err... So, that means... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichWS Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Err... So, that means... Bay and his army of editors have taken over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'm going to prefer to assume it means a significantly longer runtime /Yes, I know the two aren't mutually exclusive, but the movie certainly does not look like a Michael Bay product Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MovieMan89 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 If you said that back in May I would completely agree, but per word of God this will be pretty slow paced at times. Just wondering whether all the families looking for a light hearted romp will respond well to watching a kid and dino silently bond for 10-15 minutes at a time with brief spurts of action and dialogue in between Again, it sounds like WALL-E 2.0. Which quite frankly I'm ecstatic about. Especially if they're brave enough to maintain that the whole film instead of just half of it like with WALL-E. It will also mean though that kids interests in it will be minimized for an animated film, and it will need to live more off of the older audience. Which is possible for Pixar, but probably not all the way to 300. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Regarding that shot thing I'm not sure they were talking about what we typically consider "shots". Looked them up on Cinemetrics and most Pixar films apparently have over a thousand of those. The tweet was in the context of visual effects and I think there's a difference between "VFX shots" and "movie shots" Edited October 1, 2015 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoguy Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Compared to Frozen that's a lowball. What? Have you READ the first few pages of the Frozen topic? People were saying Under Tangled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 What? Have you READ the first few pages of the Frozen topic? People were saying Under Tangled. I meant Frozen's actual. My point was Blank's predict for legs wasn't that outlandish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Dat BB-8 movie though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojoguy Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I meant Frozen's actual. My point was Blank's predict for legs wasn't that outlandish. TGD doesn't have any of things that made Frozen so appealing to the public. I'm sure it will do fine, but not record breaking. What's the budget for this thing? It has to be near Tangled, since they restarted production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Interesting technical tidbit from the blogger conference going on right now: There's over 900 shots in the movie, which is double the average Pixar film Maybe they're including all the shots from... The first time they made this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 They also used 10 times the data they used on Monsters University. One has to admire the sheer determination Pixar has had to get this film made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 They also used 10 times the data they used on Monsters University. One has to admire the sheer determination Pixar has had to get this film made. they pratically made two films, so that's understandable in some way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 They also used 10 times the data they used on Monsters University. One has to admire the sheer determination Pixar has had to get this film made. That's not altogether surprising, given technical advances available. Moore's Law and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 That's not altogether surprising, given technical advances available. Moore's Law and all. Yeah, I bet data increases amazingly with every film. Cause Pixar...they've earned the right to keep upping the ante. Even if many of the audience won't even realize the technical genius going on is happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted October 2, 2015 Author Share Posted October 2, 2015 It's posted on IMDB but I don't think it had been mentioned here yet that Meg LeFauve is a credited screenwriter, who also worked on Inside Out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadAtGender Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Yeah, I bet data increases amazingly with every film. Cause Pixar...they've earned the right to keep upping the ante. Even if many of the audience won't even realize the technical genius going on is happening. Wasn't there something about how they were worried they wouldn't be able to render the racing sequences in Cars because the hardware couldn't handle it? (Iffy movie, Cars was, but, yeah, those visuals were nice.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Yeah, I bet data increases amazingly with every film. Cause Pixar...they've earned the right to keep upping the ante. Even if many of the audience won't even realize the technical genius going on is happening. Yep, that s a very interesting statement. People don't see the difference between a Pixar & a Minion now because the eye is saturated with CG in today s world but the difference is definitely there if you have a bit of a trained eye. Dreamworks has also done incredible work in their last big films, visually the second Dragon movie was absolutely breathtaking, insanely detailed rendering & animation there, the Croods was great too, technically. Dreamworks are VERY advanced too, they do some shit Pixar doesn't (dat volumetric smoke in Croods for example) It s even more interesting when you consider VFX & CGI, sometimes I watch VFX houses demo reels and it boggles the mind what they can do, people have no idea the insane level of complexity of modern CGI, since the first Transformers, 2012 & Avatar, we ve entered a new era. The second Weta Digital Apes movie was , holy crap ! The Age of Ultron credits are ridiculous : there are hundreds of CGI artists on this movie, it s insane. Edited October 2, 2015 by The Futurist 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinaTakla Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 As crazy as this sounds, I am thinking this won't be Oscar nominated for animated feature. Am thinking 230m for it DOM and 500 million OS for a total of 730m (MU numbers) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
