OK, I was visited by the curse of the trailer for Ice Age, and the subsequent clips of it I saw but to be fair I have heard very positive things from from my sisters and their kids so will I stop being silly and rent it.
it is what i said in my first post. eugene quoted the grosses for toy story, toy story 2, and monsters inc. and i added that most of the tickets bought weren't regular priced tickets.
That's why I didn't respond initially, because your post didn't really seem contentious...the core audience remains the same, so your post and mine don't really cross each other up.
The only change is the release date. All four of the previous Pixar movies were released after Thanksgiving, a less appealing window for pure money-making...reserved for Oscar contenders and seasonal flicks.
All things being equal, Finding Nemo should do better than any of the previous films, but I'm not one for bold predictions.
That's why I didn't respond initially, because your post didn't really seem contentious...the core audience remains the same, so your post and mine don't really cross each other up.
The only change is the release date. All four of the previous Pixar movies were released after Thanksgiving, a less appealing window for pure money-making...reserved for Oscar contenders and seasonal flicks.
All things being equal, Finding Nemo should do better than any of the previous films, but I'm not one for bold predictions.
oh i'm never contentious.
i think it will fall between toy story 2 and monsters inc.
how much did "a bug's life" do? i can't ever find grosses anymore since imbd started its premium service.
What totally blows me away is the rendering that they are doing "underwater", which they probably had to write their own software for---kinda like they way they had to do with Sulley's "hair." If I'm not mistaken this is another tour de force for at least the guys on the rendering farm.
As for the story----who knows----but it's gonna look like million dollars.
underwater is far easier to render convincingly than anything except space
limited light source and expected depth cues underwater (ask a diver about visibility limits) mean you don't need to render everything compared to a shrek or toy story full of distant leaves on trees and a vanishing perspective which still demands detailed city models
i don't doubt pixar has written some brilliant new shaders for texturing, and probably coded some sharp new volumetrics and flocking systems for particles as well as fish, but all in all an underwater film is a lot simpler to pull off than an atmospheric flick
No way. This is guaranteed to be huge. There is a vast market for these types of movies. It just can't possibly fail...
Agreed. Besides the terrific animation, Pixar's movies are great because they are story-driven. There are a lot (most?) of R-rated flicks that can't make that claim.
Pixar makes movies for everybody. Kids'll bug their parents to see it and parents will be more than happy to oblige. The writing is sort of like Rocky and Bullwinkle in the way it embeds humor aimed at the grownups in the audience. And I can already hear my 5-year-old niece getting all mushy over Nemo...
underwater is far easier to render convincingly than anything except space
Is that true? I imagine that while you have relatively simple atmospheric perspective to deal with and more background in the air, in water, you have very different light refractions, space warps for simulated water currents, bubbles, and of course how water filters color, at least if you want to get nit-picky about it.
Is that true? I imagine that while you have relatively simple atmospheric perspective to deal with and more background in the air, in water, you have very different light refractions, space warps for simulated water currents, bubbles, and of course how water filters color, at least if you want to get nit-picky about it.
little known, but most PhotoShop filters work perfectly if you load them into After Effects
of course, Pixar would be using Shake, but the effects are the same...
motion blur of a volumetric water current can be visually represented as linear displacement of semi-transparent foreground pixels, gaussian as...
raytracing the actual light behaviour is possible (but costs more render time)
and if your eye can't spot the difference, why render it?
case in point:
the original Jurassic Park render tests for the first appearance of dinos, a Brontosaurus near a tree, were produced at 4000 lines and 2000 lines as two separate clips for preview audiences. note that render time between the two is not double, it's squared. audiences couldn't quantify the difference between the two scenes (impressed equally by both, or not "better by the square"), so the production decision was made to keep the 2K rendering threshold as adequate. had they chosen the 4K level, the post production would have taken another 6 months and probably added more than $10 million to the cost of the film.
people were gobsmacked to see dinos, and weren't inspecting them with frickin' jeweler's loupe's, so the decision to 'make do at 2K' was wise
Pixar probably has enough computing power to do fully raytraced underwater scenes, but if the render time is prohibitive and the average consumer can't tell the difference in a fast-moving scene full of visually distracting background fish elements, why pay double or do it the hard way?
purely from a graphics technological-envelope-pushing position, I'd love to see just how much they're capable of, but it's unrealistic to assume that the commercial film-making-for-profit decision would jive with this option.
saw the movie tonight, and thought it was good. i'd certainly see this one twice before Matrix Reloaded.
I went with him, and totally agree with him. Great story line, and it's always interesting how many more people stay through pixar's end credits then any other movie.
I'm under the impression that $20 Million is good for one night, especially because kids get in cheap so it takes a lot more tickets to add up to that number. An equivalent number of full priced tickets would probably be closer to $30 Million.
Comments
Originally posted by Alex London
OK, I was visited by the curse of the trailer for Ice Age, and the subsequent clips of it I saw but to be fair I have heard very positive things from from my sisters and their kids so will I stop being silly and rent it.
if you don't, well then......doom on you!
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
it is what i said in my first post. eugene quoted the grosses for toy story, toy story 2, and monsters inc. and i added that most of the tickets bought weren't regular priced tickets.
That's why I didn't respond initially, because your post didn't really seem contentious...the core audience remains the same, so your post and mine don't really cross each other up.
The only change is the release date. All four of the previous Pixar movies were released after Thanksgiving, a less appealing window for pure money-making...reserved for Oscar contenders and seasonal flicks.
All things being equal, Finding Nemo should do better than any of the previous films, but I'm not one for bold predictions.
Originally posted by Eugene
That's why I didn't respond initially, because your post didn't really seem contentious...the core audience remains the same, so your post and mine don't really cross each other up.
The only change is the release date. All four of the previous Pixar movies were released after Thanksgiving, a less appealing window for pure money-making...reserved for Oscar contenders and seasonal flicks.
All things being equal, Finding Nemo should do better than any of the previous films, but I'm not one for bold predictions.
oh i'm never contentious.
i think it will fall between toy story 2 and monsters inc.
how much did "a bug's life" do? i can't ever find grosses anymore since imbd started its premium service.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
oh i'm never contentious.
i think it will fall between toy story 2 and monsters inc.
how much did "a bug's life" do? i can't ever find grosses anymore since imbd started its premium service.
A Bug's Life grossed $163M domestically...and that's probably why we haven't heard anything about a sequel.
I plan to see it soon after it opens
Originally posted by ena
What totally blows me away is the rendering that they are doing "underwater", which they probably had to write their own software for---kinda like they way they had to do with Sulley's "hair." If I'm not mistaken this is another tour de force for at least the guys on the rendering farm.
As for the story----who knows----but it's gonna look like million dollars.
underwater is far easier to render convincingly than anything except space
limited light source and expected depth cues underwater (ask a diver about visibility limits) mean you don't need to render everything compared to a shrek or toy story full of distant leaves on trees and a vanishing perspective which still demands detailed city models
i don't doubt pixar has written some brilliant new shaders for texturing, and probably coded some sharp new volumetrics and flocking systems for particles as well as fish, but all in all an underwater film is a lot simpler to pull off than an atmospheric flick
Originally posted by dstranathan
As long as there aren't any fart-bubble jokes I will be happy. (sigh)
I think there is one. Heh.
Originally posted by BRussell
No way. This is guaranteed to be huge. There is a vast market for these types of movies. It just can't possibly fail...
Agreed. Besides the terrific animation, Pixar's movies are great because they are story-driven. There are a lot (most?) of R-rated flicks that can't make that claim.
Pixar makes movies for everybody. Kids'll bug their parents to see it and parents will be more than happy to oblige. The writing is sort of like Rocky and Bullwinkle in the way it embeds humor aimed at the grownups in the audience. And I can already hear my 5-year-old niece getting all mushy over Nemo...
Originally posted by curiousuburb
underwater is far easier to render convincingly than anything except space
Is that true? I imagine that while you have relatively simple atmospheric perspective to deal with and more background in the air, in water, you have very different light refractions, space warps for simulated water currents, bubbles, and of course how water filters color, at least if you want to get nit-picky about it.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Is that true? I imagine that while you have relatively simple atmospheric perspective to deal with and more background in the air, in water, you have very different light refractions, space warps for simulated water currents, bubbles, and of course how water filters color, at least if you want to get nit-picky about it.
the blur tool is your friend
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Blur tool?! This ain't photoshop !
little known, but most PhotoShop filters work perfectly if you load them into After Effects
of course, Pixar would be using Shake, but the effects are the same...
motion blur of a volumetric water current can be visually represented as linear displacement of semi-transparent foreground pixels, gaussian as...
raytracing the actual light behaviour is possible (but costs more render time)
and if your eye can't spot the difference, why render it?
case in point:
the original Jurassic Park render tests for the first appearance of dinos, a Brontosaurus near a tree, were produced at 4000 lines and 2000 lines as two separate clips for preview audiences. note that render time between the two is not double, it's squared. audiences couldn't quantify the difference between the two scenes (impressed equally by both, or not "better by the square"), so the production decision was made to keep the 2K rendering threshold as adequate. had they chosen the 4K level, the post production would have taken another 6 months and probably added more than $10 million to the cost of the film.
people were gobsmacked to see dinos, and weren't inspecting them with frickin' jeweler's loupe's, so the decision to 'make do at 2K' was wise
Pixar probably has enough computing power to do fully raytraced underwater scenes, but if the render time is prohibitive and the average consumer can't tell the difference in a fast-moving scene full of visually distracting background fish elements, why pay double or do it the hard way?
purely from a graphics technological-envelope-pushing position, I'd love to see just how much they're capable of, but it's unrealistic to assume that the commercial film-making-for-profit decision would jive with this option.
maybe they'll also ship a Nemo reel to SIGGRAPH
As for blurring the 'front' of a rendered scene, it looks like crap compared to blurring the full depth of the screen. Just my two cents.
Originally posted by alcimedes
saw the movie tonight, and thought it was good. i'd certainly see this one twice before Matrix Reloaded.
I went with him, and totally agree with him. Great story line, and it's always interesting how many more people stay through pixar's end credits then any other movie.
Pixar has a real knack for developing characters and storytelling. So enjoyable to see their films.
Glad the movie is good.