THE PACK Message Boards

PariahPoet wrote:Well the reason he looks that dopey is because I'm pretty sure I see a tranquilizer dart on his butt. I'm guessing he just got tagged and is in the process of going under in that frame.

Hm. Didn't notice that at first, but it still doesn't excuse the fact that it looks like one of Barbie's animal friends from one of the aforementioned toy commercials clumsily disguised as a movie.

Even the movie Hoodwinked had better graphics than that. . . Not by much, but still better. True, animating anything with fur in CG is a total nightmare. Squaresoft greatly reduced Red XIII's role in Advent Children for this reason. Hell, even Pixar wound up developing a program to animate fur automatically so they wouldn't have to do it themselves in Monsters Inc. But still, even a half-rate CG movie can usually fudge its way around this dilemma without looking too horrendous. When your CG characters look like they're made out of plastic, that's never a good sign.

Oh I totally agree with the awful style. Was just offering an explanation for the vacant expression at least.

I don't like how the fur textures seem to stop once they get to the wolf's face...

Hopefully it will look better when we get to see them animated rather than stills.

Well there's still like what? a whole year left maybe it will get better....personally I at least hope it does despite the weird look the wolf has I think it will be okay, if it happens to come out in theater's I may just sneak in rather then pay for it or wait to see it on youtube I suppose all we can do is wait for a trailer.

WolfeGuardian wrote:Well there's still like what? a whole year left maybe it will get better....personally I at least hope it does despite the weird look the wolf has I think it will be okay, if it happens to come out in theater's I may just sneak in rather then pay for it or wait to see it on youtube I suppose all we can do is wait for a trailer.

Pixar and Dreamworks have both made a practice of releasing trailers (not screen shots, trailers) as early as a year in advance. If this movie really is only a year away, that probably means the texture isn't going to get much better than that. Either their budget ran low and they deliberately half-a**ed it, or they got frustrated trying to make it work and decided that was good enough.

They can't be making the finishing touches on the movie just days before it hits theaters. This is the time period where they should be adding the finishing touches so they can bring in an editing team to cut the first teaser trailer.

So I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's as good as it's going to get. If it doesn't look good now, it won't when it comes out either.

Terastas wrote:

PariahPoet wrote: CG just rarely pulls off the style and charm of traditional animation.

Er. . . That's a whole different rant altogether, but I'll try to sum it up as best I can: Try to keep in mind that, before CG came to be, there were some utterly crappy hand-drawn movies being made left and right.

But don't take my word for it. Let the Nostalgia Critic (warning: profanity galore) tell you all about:
Titanic
Ferngully
Rock-A-Doodle

Did these movies have any "charm" to you?

Terastas wrote:CG did to hand-drawn what digital photography did to flash photography; it did nothing to take away from the true artists, but half-rate photographers couldn't get by doing portraits or product shots anymore. The same is true of 2D animation -- the art itself did not go away, but the 2D artists weren't being commissioned to do thirty-minute toy commercials or crappy Nickelodeon movies anymore.

Kay, I'm quoting this one for two reasons.

1) I just saw yesterday a commercial for a direct-to-DVD Disney movie that I originally mistook for one of the Barbie movies. . . Reiterating my point that CG has only killed off 2D's involvement in cheap crap movies.

2) I found another N.C. video: We're Back (warning: contains profanity and a dinosaur humping Spider Man)

Enir wrote:

MattSullivan wrote:ffurries are something like.....0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.2% of the world's population.

There are more of us out there than you realise Matt. And as far as iam conserned about this rather disapointing ( ) movie.This movie is some what of a drag. Ill probably only see it when my mother buys it for my sister or someone buys it for me because they know I like wolves. And Homeward Bound 1,2,&3 have used the whole "got to get back " plot way to many times. However sadly this movie will probably sell.

O and one reason I probably won't watch it is because it is an overused plot and it dosen't do justice to wolves. This movie is more for disney characters. And anyways wolves in real life wouldn't have diff. pack members mate with the enemy to keep from fighting. They would either move on to a new place or rip out the throats of there enemy.

indeed, there are plenty of furries out there, its just what "grade" of furry are you talking about. furries come in all shapes, sizes, and habitual behaviors.

and yeah, yer right, wolves wouldnt marry between packs. Its just not done. They make it sound like the alpha are like royalty and being alpha is passed down genetically. In reality, its a mental state. When the wolf reaches a point where it not only can manage a group of other wolves and maintain its position as alpha, then yes, it has become an alpha. Omega wolves can become alphas, but only once they have risen above omega, into beta, and then they either have to exert their dominance or move on and create a new pack to lead.

It sounds like a cute story idea though. The only problem is, yes, its too frackin cuddly for my tastes. Ill probably pick it up and watch it if i was bored, but other than that, Ill probably avoid it.