Dinosaur CGI error (different topic, not the glitch errors) - Anyone noticed this?

[Czar]

This is NOT another Dinosaur glitch error post but something more along the line of CGI content error.

True, the digital-to-digital transfer of the movie is fantastic (from what I can see of it) and the studio has boasted about its realism.

Maybe I am too detail oriented but has anyone noticed how the dinosaur's feet seem to float about an inch or two above the ground? Also that a several ton dino doesn't disturb pebbles on the ground (or a heard of them for that matter)... and no footprints left in the grass???

And has anyone noticed that when Suri holds baby Aladar fresh from his egg that there is no flesh/fur interaction? Her hands don't seem to hold Aladar (take note especially when she passes him on to Yar) and even though he is supposed to be pressed up against her there are no "pressure points".

The studio spent so much time making each thing look real but forgot to put some time in making each of those real elements interact (blend) with one another better!



[This message has been edited by Czar (edited 02-08-2001).]

[samuelk]

Maybe I am too detail oriented but has anyone noticed how the dinosaur's feet seem to float about an inch or two above the ground

I haven't noticed this. But the dino's weren't a part of the original scene, so it's difficult to match that kind of thing by hand.

Also that a several ton dino doesn't disturb pebbles on the ground (or a heard of them for that matter)... and no footprints left in the grass???

The only times the Dinos disturb pebbles on the ground is during close-up shots of the feet...it would simply take too much time to do that for every step the dinos take on screen. There ARE other details like dust and debris flying into the air that helps to maintain the sense of realism...but for the most part, the feet are too far from the "camera" to worry about it.

And has anyone noticed that when Suri holds baby Aladar fresh from his egg that there is no flesh/fur interaction? Her hands don't seem to hold Aladar (take note especially when she passes him on to Yar) and even though he is supposed to be pressed up against her there are no "pressure points".

There is SOME minor interaction between Suri's fur and other objects/animals, but not all the time. Fur simulation is a monumental task for a computer. I think they did an amazing job on the fur. The technology is still growing. To think that you can almost make out every individual hair on the lemurs' fur is astounding. To then have to do complete physics and collision calculations on each hair would keep the movie in production for a few more years.

The studio spent so much time making each thing look real but forgot to put some time in making each of those real elements interact (blend) with one another better!

Again, it's a complicated process. Each of the dinosaurs/lemurs was animated by hand (no shortcut motion-capture). Things like movement of fur are handled by special procedures in the computer (for the most part). I think Disney did better than anyone else has with computer animation. It's not perfect, but you won't find a better example (at least not with the same long running time -- other animation houses have done more realistic object interaction with 30-second commercials or short films, but nothing on this scale).

Disney never claimed to have reached a state of perfection with this film, so I'd cut them some slack.

Sam



[This message has been edited by samuelk (edited 02-13-2001).]

[Chest Rockwell]

I have to say the animation on Dinosaur was amazing. And although it could be said Czar is nitpicking a bit, I kinda got the feeling that it all still looked a little fake. I guess I have to be a real digital kid to complain about that, when people used to be amazed by the stop-animation in movies like King Kong and the original Lost World. Somehow, though, it all seemed a bit fake.

You know what, though? I don't think its the animation that's to blame. I blame it on the talking. A)The fact that they talked ruined the effect. and B)The fact that they animated speach patterns and human characterizations into the animals, again, ruined the illusion. I think they did a great job doing the human characerizations - but don't expect me to think its real. Film is all about illusion, and they broke it when they had the dinosaurs and the lemurs talk.

I still think the Jurassic Park flicks look far better because A) They mixed CG and live animatronics and THAT added realism. B) They stayed true to the behaviors and physical characteristics of real animals. As much as I hate to admit it, Spielberg is a decent illusionist.

[Lo Pan]

**Sigh** Would you rather that Disney told the story with no dialog at all? Watch Walking With Dinosaurs if realism's your kick, but if you want a Disney movie with dinosaurs in it, then get used to them speaking.

(If you *really* want Dinosaur to have no dialog, then switch to the sound FX track and watch it that way. No dialog, no music...you can't get much realer than that)

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by Lo Pan:
**Sigh** Would you rather that Disney told the story with no dialog at all? Watch Walking With Dinosaurs if realism's your kick, but if you want a Disney movie with dinosaurs in it, then get used to them speaking.

(If you *really* want Dinosaur to have no dialog, then switch to the sound FX track and watch it that way. No dialog, no music...you can't get much realer than that)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it would have been great without dialogue. But it would have been incredibly revolutionary and a little risky(as most great films are), which isn't Disney's strong suit.

And, actually, I did watch it for a while with the SFX only track. I found it to be pretty good. The problems are no music (big disadvantage), and the animals' mouths still move.

Face it, the best scenes were the ones where nobody was talking - and they still told a big chunk of the story. Like the opening sequence for example - you had a protagonist, a villain, a story motivator, a comic relief character, and plenty of interesting extras. You got plenty of character, interaction, and story with no dialogue. I think the whole film could have worked like that.

I think it probably would have been even more succesful than it was that way. Can you imagine the publicity Disney would get off of producing the first major silent movie in over...what?..60 years?

[vinzi]

Chest:

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it would have been great without dialogue. But it would have been incredibly revolutionary and a little risky(as most great films are), which isn't Disney's strong suit.

Revolutionary for what? For an animation movie or for a movie in general to have no dialogue? I could imagine that you meant animation, as the other has been excelently done by J.J Annaud in his movie about the quest for fire (the english title escapes me). And THAT could be made into an animation movie as well




------------------
Vinzi. Directors slain, actresses rescued. Have portable player, will travel.
My DVD Trading Site:

http://www.dvdflixtrade.com

[Taxi]

Wait a minute, you expected the king of anthropomorphism (Di$ney) to make a kids movie about Dinosaurs, and NOT have them talk?

Now that is revolutionary.

------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Forum Administrator

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by vinzi:
Chest:
Revolutionary for what? For an animation movie or for a movie in general to have no dialogue? I could imagine that you meant animation, as the other has been excelently done by J.J Annaud in his movie about the quest for fire (the english title escapes me). And THAT could be made into an animation movie as well

Wow, I'd never heard of that movie. I just looked it up on IMDB, and its English name is "Quest for Fire". Go figure. I'll have to check that out. Sounds interesting AND it has Rae Dawn Chong....

[myiamoto]

I have to agree with Chest on this issue. Have you ever seen Fantasia or Fantasia II? Granted Fantasia didn't do well in the box offices when it was released but that doesn't mean it's not a masterpiece. Walking With Dinosaurs was meant to be a documentary showing details of the life and death of these biological creatures. I think what Chest is getting at is that it should have been more like fantasia... more of an artistic movie with beautiful classical music playing to the movements of the perfectly rendered dinosaurs. It's more like a moving painting where you can sit down, relax, and soak it all in. Now that probably wouldn't fly with the kiddies but...hey...wishful thinking.

[samuelk]

I would love to have seen Dinosaur without any dialogue. It would be a very brave and bold thing for Disney to do, and it might not have had as much widespread appeal, but I would have loved it.

In fact, I'm going to watch the movie with only the sound effects/music track when I get home...

[samuelk]

Revolutionary for what? For an animation movie or for a movie in general to have no dialogue? I could imagine that you meant animation, as the other has been excelently done by J.J Annaud in his movie about the quest for fire (the english title escapes me). And THAT could be made into an animation movie as well

The revolutionary part would be the first ever computer-animated feature-length film with no dialogue!

Seriously, though, it would be a bold step for Disney, because they would have to trust their CGI artists to tell the story visually, without any help from voice actors. I know they could have pulled it off, but like someone said above, it's just not Disney's style to do an entire movie that way. The opening 5 minutes of the film shows that they are capable, though.

[P7A77]

I may have posted this before, but I don't remember... so if I did, too damn bad.

I remember reading an article in Time a while back about how the animators were actually subcontracted by Disney... it wasn't done in house. I can't remember if they approached Disney with the project or if it was the other way around... but either way, they wanted to do it with no dialogue. There were apparently some heated discussions about it, too.

I never saw it. I wanted to, based on the dialogue-free teaser, but once I found out they talked, that was it for me.

[Wesly Moore]

Originally posted by samuelk:
Seriously, though, it would be a bold step for Disney, because they would have to trust their CGI artists to tell the story visually, without any help from voice actors.

Interestingly enough, this is exactly how the Pixar animators describe their character animation process. They animate the large body movements first, then smaller gestures, only finally going on to facial expressions. Their goal is to make the action and story "read" at the larger, broader levels first, because if that works, the facial expressions and dialogue really help sell it.


------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com
My collection...out of control

They mostly come at night. Mostly.

[Wesly Moore]

Originally posted by P7A77:
I never saw it. I wanted to, based on the dialogue-free teaser, but once I found out they talked, that was it for me.

This was precisely my experience. The teaser trailer fascinated me, but when I found out the characters talked, I was turned off. I may have to give it a rental, though, as I'm very curious to see how the animation works.


------------------
Wesly Moore
------------------
weslymoore@aol.com
My collection...out of control

They mostly come at night. Mostly.

[Damian]

The movie is primarily for kids. How long do you think their attention would be held to a movie that has no dialogue?

Not very long I assure you.

As we get older we learn to appreciate the beauty of silence. But at such a young age they can not be expected to sit through a roughly ninety minute movie that has no dialogue.
I think it's just asking too much.

------------------
"They're us....we're them!"
-Damian

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by Damian:
The movie is primarily for kids. How long do you think their attention would be held to a movie that has no dialogue?

Not very long I assure you.

As we get older we learn to appreciate the beauty of silence. But at such a young age they can not be expected to sit through a roughly ninety minute movie that has no dialogue.
I think it's just asking too much.

I think your absolutely right, sir. Here's the risky question, though. Did it have to be a kids' movie?

[clortho]

Actually, I remember as a young child being taken to see Fantasia. No dialogue, and the Dino sequence in that hooked me for life in the interest of these creatures. I'm sure a 'no dialogue' Dinosaur would have enthralled many kids, afterall, there would still be roars, fights, and other conflicts to keep the story moving along.

Clortho

------------------
I am the Keymaster
clortho@hotmail.com

[samuelk]

The movie is primarily for kids.

Well, not ALL kids. It's rated PG, after all.