The Adventures of Tintin: Fuck You, Spielberg!
Steven Spielberg explains his rationale for shooting Tintin with motion capture:
It was based on my respect for the art of Hergé and wanting to get as close to that art as I could. Hergé wrote about fictional people in a real world, not in a fantasy universe. It was the real universe he was working with, and he used National Geographic to research his adventure stories. It just seemed that live action would be too stylized for an audience to relate to. You’d have to have costumes that are a little outrageous when you see actors wearing them. The costumes seem to fit better when the medium chosen is a digital one.
Spielberg, go fuck yourself. The only thing you explained is why you don’t think it was a good idea to shoot the movie in live action. Did you even think about doing it as a traditional cartoon? You know, a cartoon; that medium where everything is a two-dimensional drawing. That medium that is a multi-million dollar industry in Japan, and a hot export to America. That medium that has endured for years and is still perfectly relevant, and would sell plenty of tickets, except that cocksuckers like you have brainwashed yourselves into thinking that nobody wants it anymore. You respect the art of Hergé and want to get as close to it as possible? You’re lying through your teeth, you rotten little scumbag! Your decision to use creepy, unsightly motion capture is proof positive that you have no respect whatsoever for the Hergé’s art.
Motion capture is a technology that either has to be done with an extreme degree of photo-realistic perfection, which no one but James Cameron seems willing to go the extra mile for, or you’re stuck with characters who look like deformed freaks; they move like people, but their features are unnaturally perverted. Ever heard of the Uncanny Valley, dickhead? It’s a very real phenomenon. As an animated character gets closer and closer to looking like a human being, we identify with it more and more. But when things get to a certain level of reality — when they are far less stylized but not yet photo-realistic — our identification with the characters drops drastically. We’re comfortable with cartoons. We’re also comfortable with rotoscope. But we know what human beings are supposed to look like, and when most of you fuckers use motion capture, and the movements are almost human but with something unsettlingly wrong with them, and the mouth movements are weird, your characters look like unnatural perversions of the human form. And when you don’t share our discomfort at their unnatural deformity, it becomes creepy.
If you had any respect at all for the original artist, you would have made a cartoon. Tintin was created as a drawing, not a 3D model. Traditional animation is based on drawings. Therefor, if you wanted to get close to the original artwork, you would have made a cartoon: end of story. Tintin used to be a cartoon show. It aired over here on Nickelodeon. It was a good show. That was the kind of thing you needed to do. Perhaps a higher-budget approach would have been appropriate to produce a finer quality of animation, but that’s it. Your decision to use motion capture instead shows nothing but contempt for Tintin and your audience.
The only reasons you wanted to make a motion capture film are because you’re stupid — you willfully ignore people’s readiness to watch traditional animation — and you want to sell people a film that’s in “3-ee-D-ee,” which is 3D as sold by an obnoxious announcer who gets two notes out of each syllable of “3D” because he thinks that 3D technology has X-Treme Attitude.
When are you shitheads gonna get that we don’t want any more motion capture films? You think you can just hold us down and shove motion capture’s 3D dick down our throats? Fuck you! It’s creepy, it’s ugly, we don’t fucking want it. And fuck 3D projection, too; either make it brighter, or don’t ask me to wear sunglasses.