I just watched “Ratatouille” for the first time. I’ve been just a bit slow to fully accept these 100% computer-animated films. Part of it is just nostalgia for the classic methods. I love, for example, the 1940 “Pinocchio” film.
But I watched this Ratatouille movie on my 10-year old 27inch, non-high-def TV set and I just can’t believe how good this computer animation stuff has gotten. I mean, I’ve been really impressed with the technical accomplishments up to this point. I’d been able to watch previous all-computer movies like “The Incredibles” and marvel at what they could do, but this is the first time I’ve thought that the technology produced something that’s really beautiful to look at. The other thing I admire about the animators of this film is that there’s nothing showy or self-conscious about it. There’s no “look how beautifully we can do this shot now.” Every frame (do they stlll have frames) is completely devoted to telling the story well and not whiz-bang and show-off. And, I like the way they do the humans here. They’re not really done to look photo-realist. All the humans are stylized so that you’re always clear that it’s still an ANIMATED film.
Yes, it is still based on deceiving the human sense of sight into perceiving motion when 24 frames per second (film) or 30 frames per second (tv broadcast dropframe) goes flashing past our eyes. And I agree that film was very satisfactory on many levels.
computer generated films are really getting into their stride now. the technology is at the point where its a common enough tool that they can concentrate on the story rather than the CGI aspect. most CGI films have commentaries or behind the scenes stuff that go into some detail on what they did and why.
dunno how your TVs hooked up but if you can go with at least S-Video or Component cables youll be amazed how nice a decent non hidef TV can look.
if you havent seen Cars, Hoodwinked or Open Season, those are really good too. all story telling, the CGI format was just a way to show what otherwise couldnt be filmed.
Daughter #1 and I just watched The Incredibles which she’d somehow never managed to see before. It’s a goodie. I actually prefer it to Ratatouille*, but I think I understand the point about the artwork.
Highly recommend Wall-E.
*I don’t think any expressions have crept into our family vernacular from Ratatouille (though we liked it,) but we do enjoy saying: Monsieur Incroyable!
I don’t know…something amazing, I guess…
and I’ve still got time!
I still get a laugh out of Chicken Little. There’s no way children are going to clue in to half of these jokes. I hope to check out Wall-E later this week. If it says Pixar on it, you are usually looking at some of the best.
I agree. WALL-E was cute, and the animation was superb, but it wasn’t as satisfying as Ratatouille or The Incredibles (my two favorite Pixar flicks… so far).
I liked Ratatouille a lot, too. My son sits on my husband’s shoulders and does the same thing with the hair pulling to show which way he wants him to go.
But here’s what I don’t get: Beowulf didn’t need to be animated. The people were so photo-realistic, it would have been so much better with the monsters animated and the rest live action. The sort-of-animated look was distracting to me. What was the point?
