Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Trailer of Pixar Movie 'Finding Nemo' 220

Posted by michael from the mindless-entertainment dept.
tjansen writes "The trailer of the next Pixar movie, Finding Nemo, is out. Only Quicktime, as usual, so you need CrossOver on Linux machines." Actually's Disney's site has Real and Windows Media formats, so you can pick your poison.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trailer of Pixar Movie 'Finding Nemo' More

Trailer of Pixar Movie 'Finding Nemo'

Comments Filter:

  • Crossover? (Score:1, Troll)

    by sheepab ( 461960 )
    Why does this seem to be a plug for a product? I know of other sourceforge projects that will play Quicktime movies. I dont need to spend money just to watch a trailer. I dont mean to be a troll but I believe I have a point.

    • Re:Crossover? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by carl67lp ( 465321 )
      If you know of other products, rather than chastising the initial post, why not be more informative and actually list them?
    • Well, that's nice, but could you please some links to those projects, or at least their names?

    • Re:Crossover? (Score:5, Funny)

      by cscx ( 541332 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:57PM (#4585519) Homepage
      Projects marked "Stage 1 -- Planning" don't count.

    • Re:Crossover? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Really? Where can I find something that plays the Sorensen codec, and plays is properly? I'm not talking about something that only gives me audio or only gives me video. Until then, I'm sticking with Crossover.
    • Yes, there are many projects working on being able to play all Quicktime movies, but none that I am aware of have yet accomplished this goal. Codeweavers Crossover Plug-in does by integrating the Windows platform viewer with the Linux environment.

      The company itself also contributes code to Wine project, and provides decent support for it's products. It's fine that you don't want to pay money for their product, but there is nothing wrong with those who do.

    • You do have a point, except that you (and the news posters) neglect to keep in mind that you need Crossover to play Sorenson encoded Quicktime movies. There are indeed "other sourceforge projects that will play Quicktime movies" but good luck finding much online that uses an open codec compatible with those players.

  • ..As opposed to..? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:50PM (#4585484)
    The trailer that's /been out/ for a month? There's no reason to mention the release of a new movie trailer. I mean, a star wars or matrix trailer is one thing, but a movie about talking fish just because it's animated using a computer, much like many movies today are? Hey, there's a trailer out for "3, 2, 1 Penguins!" too.

  • Fishy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by D4Vr4nt ( 615027 )
    Toys, Bugs, Monsters.. now Fish..

    I dunno how long they can keep this going. However, I know for one thing I'm not caught into this preview nearly as much as Pixars past works. This movie seems like the little mermaids friends geared towards 5 year olds. Not that I'm saying that's bad or anything; just seems like a huge change of pace from Pixar.

    Here fishy fishy..

    • Re:Fishy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mad_cow ( 152516 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:06PM (#4585548)
      I don't see much of a deviation here. For a kid, the ocean's a pretty cool setting... lots of mysterious creatures and such floating about.


      Don't be fooled, either, Pixar always manages to make their movies interesting to both children and adults. It may look like something that only a 5 year old can enjoy, but I'd be very surprised if that were truly the case.

      • I screened the trailer to my 6 yr old daughter and 9 yr old son last night - both were enthusiastic about going to see the movie. A big plus for me: no visible toilet humor. I'm getting kinda sick of fart jokes. Is it me? or am I just getting old and grouchy?
    • Pixar and Disney will have to renegotiate their contract very soon. What happens between them will determine just who is the most powerful person in Hollywood.

  • Uhh... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:55PM (#4585510) Homepage
    Look, I love PIXAR movies. The CG is always awesome and I usually make it a point to see pretty much any computer animated film . . .

    But what's with the 'Slashvertisements' lately. I mean, it'd be one thing if we had some article here that talked about the tech that went into it or something like that, but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...

    • Re:Uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tjansen ( 2845 )
      but this is just the trailer! Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post?

      So far there has been a slashdot story for every single star wars or star trek trailer and teaser. Finding Nemo is much cooler... IMHO.
    • How can we - people who don't pay a single dime to each use gigabytes worth of Slashdot bandwidth - complain that Slashdot is trying to generate some revenue to pay for what must be a very expensive to run website?

      • Re:Uhh... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kaboom13 ( 235759 )
        "How can we - people who don't pay a single dime to each use gigabytes worth of Slashdot bandwidth - complain that Slashdot is trying to generate some revenue to pay for what must be a very expensive to run website?"

        Although I've seen no evidence that slashdot is being paid to run these stories (clever submitters + lazy editors = advert on front page) even if they were, running ads as news shows a complete lack of integrity. There is a time and place for advertizements. Notice how slashdot blasts search engines which allow companies to buy rankings, but encourages google, who clearly marks their advertizements in a professional manner. It is irresponsible ( and boring) to post stories which are little more then ads. Slashdot should just make these companies pay for banners like everyone else, or at least save this crap for a slashback.
    • Is there something I'm not aware of about this trailer or movie that makes it so special as to justify a Slashdot front page post? Maybe it's just a slow weekend...

      Look at the evidence. Steve Jobs is CEO of Pixar (and Apple). Slashdot, if not VA Linu^H^H^H^HSoftware wants to be bought out by Apple. Think about it: How many Apple articles [slashdot.org] do you see on a daily basis? Why does Apple have its own section, customized [slashdot.org] to look like Apple's website? Why does Apple have eleven (count them yourself) different topic categories [slashdot.org]? (Compared to one for Sun, one for Microsoft, one for IBM, one for Compaq, and *none* for Dell, whose market share is nearly six times that of Apple [com.com])
      • and *none* for Dell, whose market share is nearly six times that of Apple [com.com])

        Wow, there are no categories for McDonalds, who are a much larger company than Dell either. Then again, maybe it's because there's really nothing exciting or newsworthy about Dell. They're a reseller. There's nothing particularly exciting about VA either, which is why we so rarely see stories about them.

        If there were enough worthy stories about Dell, then it would have its own category. But it doesn't really deserve one.

  • Got any alternatives then? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why the big stink about unsupported media formats? I mean, is there a viable alternative format out there? Windows doesn't support DivX out of the box, and it's not mainstream enough to consider releasing in that format. Ogg Vorbis was supposed to be developing an open-standard video codec, but it's vaporware for now. MPEG4 is totally unnecessary for video of this type.

    Repeat after me: "Linux users are *not* the majority." Windows users are. Don't expect corporations to force Windows users to take a few extra steps to watch their advertisements just so that Linux users aren't disenfranchised...

    You probably have a Windows box, or know someone who does, so quit complaining and watch the trailer there. If you don't, then you probably don't give a shit about the movie anyway...

    • Re:Got any alternatives then? (Score:1, Troll)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You sir, are an asshat.

      BTW, mplayer plays DivX just fine...out of the box.

  • Environment. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Trusty Penfold ( 615679 ) <jon_edwards@spanners4us.com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:57PM (#4585518) Journal


    Anyone know how much this advances computer animation?

    The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

    Have these been done before, or has Pixar invented lots of new stuff again?

    • Re:Environment. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Trusty Penfold ( 615679 )


      This paper [u-tokyo.ac.jp] describes ways of doing the lighting underwater.

    • Re:Environment. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by robson ( 60067 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:40PM (#4585876)
      The under-water environment looks extremely well done; the colours, refraction, fading etc. look very realistic.

      This is what continually perplexes me about Pixar. Technically, they seem very geared around the infinitely explanding path toward photorealism. And that's cool.

      Yet, one could easily argue, given the evidence (Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Bug's Life, Monsters Inc, and now Finding Nemo) that Pixar has a clear and deliberately unrealistic style. So you have this bizarre juxtaposition of the big-eyed, cartoony character in Monsters Inc who sported a state-of-the-art hyper-realistic hair (or fur) simulation.

      What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?

      It's almost as if there's a schizophrenia within Pixar.

      • Re:Environment. (Score:3, Informative)

        by ghutchis ( 7810 )
        Hello? So far the feature-length films they've done have been *for* Disney!

        I'd guess that the intent is exactly that--they're currently making movies for kids, particularly Disney movies for kids, so they aim for a particular look.

        I would expect that when their contract with Disney is up, they may move towards other areas.

        -Geoff
        • I would expect that when their contract with Disney is up, they may move towards other areas.

          Cool. I'm keeping my mind open enough to fall back in love with Pixar if they do start taking more chances once the Disney contract is up.

          • Re:Environment. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
            There's also another explanation.

            In the real world it's expensive to do fantastic things and easy to do mundane things.

            In the CG world, it's incredibly expensive to do mundane things, and only slightly less expensive to do fantastic things; because it will cost as much to stage a battle in space as it will in water as in plasma, because the render time is dictated by scene complexity and not by any hard limits of physics, like survivability.

            So all of these advances in *mundane* things like light, shadow, hair, and water, make the fantastic things even more fantastic, like the monsters or the ships or the fish or the whatever.

            If you want photorealistic realism, you may as well use real people doing real things with real objects, like other films.

            If you want photorealistic unrealism, then that's where CG has an advantage over conventional film, so there's no reason not to go full tilt with the unrealism, sorta like Anime does, or sorta like stop motion film.
      • What I'm saying is, why bother with advances toward photorealism such as hair simulation and advanced underwater effects if every one of your characters is designed to look like a stuffed animal or 3d rendering of a Disney character?


        Well, could that that the creative angle they're going for? Having some realistic things in terms of world physics with characters that would be impossible for real actors to pull off?

      • Re:Environment. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by spinkham ( 56603 )
        It's because we're so intimately familiar with the human form that it takes much more for a human form to be believable. Not only does the rendering have to be more correct, with much more involved lighting techniques, but the movements and expressions would have to be that much better too.
        Animation technique that gives us a hyper-realistic monster we would only concieve of as ok on humans in a realistic setting.

      • Re:Environment. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by malducin ( 114457 )
        Because they are making animated movies. They are necessarily stylized. By that logic, why wasn't Ice Age made like Walking with Dinosaurs/Beasts? They make stylized films. Some Japanese animated films dtrive for a lot of realism, why not make them live action instead? Animated films are an art to themselves. Yes of course Pixar, PDI, Blue Sky and many other deliberately goo for a stylized look.

        You also have to remember Pixar's story. Ed Catmull was always interested in making animated films even before founding the Lucasfilm Graphics Group. One reason Pixar was spun-off was because Catmull wanted to make the animated films, while Lucas was interested in using computers to help the live action filming process, mainly for doing Visual Effects (though there were other efforts like the EditDroid and SoundDroid).

        I don't see what the problem is ;-)
        • Because they are making animated movies. They are necessarily stylized.

          Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.

          It's possible that I'm just responding to the difference between the creative division and the PRman division.

          (BTW, my other gripe is that Pixar's style is way too generic and "default" for my taste... it doesn't seem very carefully thought-through. But I suppose that's another rant ;)

      • Re:Environment. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hobbes17r ( 199196 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @10:40PM (#4586273)

        I think the topic you're really getting at here makes actually perfect sense. As we hear so often, Story is always the number one emphasis of Pixar - and they have developed an amazing sense for pushing the tech behind their movies selectively, in a way that technological shortcomings never distract or detract in any way from the story.

        Note how Toy Story timed in nicely with the arrival of solid Phong shading techniques in the CG world - plastic toys. This is a trend in Pixar movies, straight through Sulley's fur in Monsters Inc, hair and fur having become a significant area of advancement in the industry over the past few years.

        In an obvious contrast, Square's Final Fantasy, pushed photorealism on every front at once, and the result was characters that were technologially impressive but awkward to watch as actors - distracting to what little story laid underneath as there was obviously something wrong, constantly stealing the viewer's attention... You don't see Pixar making realistic humans, because they understand that sense of interference.

        As much as shaders and other CG fronts have advanced in recent years, all we have now is a steadily growing library of realistic effects, which, when used selectively, can greatly assist in conveying emotion, story and character. Pixar has made very good stylistic decisions on pushing visuals in the right places at the right times.

        Would realistic fish be fun to watch anyway? Actually, will fish be fun to watch for an hour and a half? A sense of weight is usually key to sucessful acting, so this is in fact a very ambitious movie in terms of animation, to compliment the rendering advancements...

      • Re:Environment. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cruciform ( 42896 )
        In my opinion Pixar is taking the best route, generating breathtaking imagery without straining to reach for the holy grail of photorealism.

        With their stylized characters, they don't have to strive to meet the impossibly high standards created by our exposure to reality every day. When you look at Final Fantasy, it's gorgeous, but the flaws are even more evident because you look at human faces every day.

        When you're looking at what appears to be a living, breathing cartoon the suspension of disbelief lasts just that much longer because there's nothing to compare it to in the scope of your mind's eye.

        It's like a paraphrased quote from a recent cinefx magazine... if you want to make a CG film with characters that all look and act perfectly human, just hire real people.

        • Re:Environment. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pseudonym ( 62607 )

          Ah, but what is photorealism? What does a non-stylised talking ant look like anyway?

          Photorealism is the ability to make it look exactly what you want it to look like, no more, no less.

        • It's like a paraphrased quote from a recent cinefx magazine... if you want to make a CG film with characters that all look and act perfectly human, just hire real people.

          (I'm shamelessly duplicating another reply, but I can't think of many other ways to say it.)

          Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.
      • Because in a CG environment, you can make anything your little heart desires. Why would you go to extremes to make it look exactly like reality, thus turning your renderfarm into an expensive video camera?

        Well, maybe not quite, but since the tech isn't quite up to rendering realistic people (Exhibit A: Final Fantasy), you might as well exaggerate the shortcomings and call it 'artistic license'.

        • Well, maybe not quite, but since the tech isn't quite up to rendering realistic people (Exhibit A: Final Fantasy), you might as well exaggerate the shortcomings and call it 'artistic license'.

          (I'm shamelessly duplicating another reply, but I can't think of many other ways to say it.)

          Right, but you're missing my point -- I'm not saying that their stuff shouldn't be stylized (that's why I went out of my way to suggest that they were doing so deliberately)... my point is that if the tech people and the art people were of one mind, it seems like we'd see more innovations that were focused on enhancing the non-photoreal style that permeates Pixar's films.
      • The real question is:
        why spend millions of dollars researching new technology to create completely perfect photorealistic images, when you can get completely realistic images with a camera?

        The unrealistic style is just that; style - something that's not really possible in live-action movies. If you're not going to have style, then you may as well film live-action.
        • The unrealistic style is just that; style - something that's not really possible in live-action movies. If you're not going to have style, then you may as well film live-action.

          As I've said in some other replies, I'm not suggesting that Pixar should use a more realistic style. I'm asking why their technology seems to be striving for realisim while their art is striving for a clearly non-photoreal style.
  • Is it just me, or does it seem like Pixar, and the other CG film makers, just make a new effect and make a whole movie out of it?
    • It sort of the other way around. Somebody comes up with a movie script (sometimes even a plot too) Then they ask hey can we do this?? The CG/SFX guys go "idonno, let me get back to you." Eventually they figure it out, and low and behold we have something new. The Abyss, the Matrix, most of the Pixar movies, and nearly all the Star Wars movies are good expamples of this. Eventually they what they invent becomes standard tools for the industry
      • umm, the guy that did Toy Story was on NPR and said that they picked Toys because the CG looked plastic. Then went on to do Monster's inc. and said it was because real life people/animals would look awkward (eww Final Fantasy).

        So the setting is matched to the capabilities, though there is most likly some script sriving the FX also.

  • too late (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:58PM (#4585526)
    found him. [slashnet.org]

  • Streaming media... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mitreya ( 579078 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [ayertim]> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @06:59PM (#4585528)
    Which does bring up a question - why is there no mpg file available for download as a rule?

    The order of preference seems to be as follows:

    1. Real player format that can not be downloaded at all

    2. Quicktime file which you can usually download (but I don't like the client :)...)

    3. Some other weird streaming format (windows media? can it be downloaded)

    4. Nice mpg file that I can actually take to my desktop -- even with my Cable connection, my processor just does not handle video streaming very well.


    Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

    • Re:Streaming media... (Score:2, Informative)

      by mad_cow ( 152516 )
      The short answer is Steve Jobs: Pixar is his baby, and Quicktime is an Apple technology, and Apple, of course, is another Jobs baby.
    • For number 2, if you do not like the client make your own, it is not hard or even better use one that is already different than the one that comes with Quicktime as QuickTime is an api.
    • Can someone tell me why this is happening? Seems counter productive - streaming is bad for network if it can be avoided. And this is not premium/paid content we are talking about! This is trailers... as in the stuff that studios should be happy to let us watch for free!

      It's all about content control. They don't want people out on the 'Net to easily redistribute the trailer via unapproved sites or to edit/modify them into derivative works.

      Despite the paranoia of the ex-Napster crowd, this isn't about curtailing free use rights per se. Many corporations view unauthorized distribution as compromising of the PR campaigns they run and worry about "Guilt By Association" if a third party gets publicly identified with the distribution of their work.

  • Some one please help me understand... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:02PM (#4585534) Journal
    I am very confused. I thought that /. disliked MPAA/DISNEY/REAL NETWORKS/WMA (you know companies that support laws like the DMCA)???

    If what they are trying to do is so evil, why does /. run stories about their newest products?

    MPAA BAD!
    MPAA BAD!!
    MPAA BAD!!!
    OH something shinny!!!
  • Pixar is doing a movie in an all aqua element. Excellent! It's like they keep challenging themselves. From Toys to microscopic insect scapes to complicated hair rendering to this.

  • Nemo Slashdotted? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I think their server just went "Dive! Dive!!!"
  • He's working on an open source C# IDE. [icsharpcode.net]

  • Alternate title for the movie (Score:5, Funny)

    by seldolivaw ( 179178 ) <me&seldo,com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:18PM (#4585599) Homepage
    "Pixar makes an underwater filter!"

    (and flogs it to death)

  • Upcoming Pixar Movies. (Score:5, Informative)

    by FrankieBoy ( 452356 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:21PM (#4585606)
    From what I hear the next movie in the hopper is "The Incredibles" which is a story about a super-hero family. Then it's "Ray Gunn" a futuristic film-noir in the vein of "BladeRunner". After that it's "Toy Story 3", yep they're back. Hanks and Allen have already agreed to do the sequel.
    • Heh. I read that as Gay Runn. My eyes aren't doing so well. Maybe I should go for a walk. To much games today.

    • Re:Upcoming Pixar Movies. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Schnapple ( 262314 ) <tomkidd.gmail@com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:02PM (#4585720) Homepage
      Where and when did you hear this? A short while back I read on AICN that the next film was The Incredibles (like you said) but that the film after that was tentatively called Cars and would mark the return of John Lasseter (sp?) to the director's "chair".

      The reason there's not a Toy Story 3 yet is because Pixar is contractually obligated to deliver three films to Disney by 2005 and sequels don't count towards that number. Steve Jobs pleaded with Disney to make a Toy Story exception but they wouldn't have it. If TS3 is indeed already in planning stages then either they have great confidence their new Disney deal will allow for it, or they're sure whomever they deal with next will.

      The part that worries me is that rumor has it Pixar thinks Finding Nemo will be their weakest film and if there's fallout from that they may not be in the bargaining position they would be in right now if it doesn't do so well.

      • The part that worries me is that rumor has it Pixar thinks Finding Nemo will be their weakest film and if there's fallout from that they may not be in the bargaining position they would be in right now if it doesn't do so well.

        Weakest?! Umm... considering that every Pixar film is in the top 100 grossing films of all time (three on the top 50), I don't think there is much for them to worry about it. So they make $250 million this time instead of $260 million *shrug*

        http://us.imdb.com/Charts/usatopmovies [imdb.com]

        Mad Hatter
        • By "Weakest" they meant in quality of story, interaction, etc. And since they now have legitimate competition (witness how Shrek won more awards and made more money despite being, IMHO, inferior to Monsters Inc.) this may wind up translating into less box office money.

          And plus a lot of people (myself included) point to Pixar films as some of the best of all time for all ages - if they do a bad one, then there goes that 4-0 record of theirs.

          Finally remember how fickle the public is. Witness how many people went from being the biggest Star Wars fanboys to wanting Lucas' head on a stick as soon as Jar-Jar opened his mouth. All you have to do is mess up once (e.g., Mariah Carey) and you're screwed.

          All that said, however, I don't see how this could be a bad movie. Perhaps its like comparing cold pizza to warm pizza.

      • Actually it's Disney who wants a TS3. They can argue that it's not art of the deal and sort of get an "extra" Pixar film besides the others they have to do. Yes Jobs wanted the exception, and if TS3 went ahead Jobs would again plead that TS3 count towards their commitment.

        The interesting part will be future negotiations because it has come to a point where it's debatable who need whom more. Pixar needs a studio for distribution, but I don't think finding a new one would be a problem (though going at it alone would be much more difficult). On the other hands Disney's traditionally animated films are kinda underperformers. Pixar is coming to a point of being on a better bargaining position.

        By the way The Incredibles is directed by Brad Bird, who made the very underrated The Iron Giant. Some of those rumors say that about Nemo, becuse rumors have it that everyone wanted to be involved with Incredibles.

        Also interestingly enough, Dreamworks is working on their own underwater movie, called Sharkslayer, which is kinda of a mafia like film.
        • Pixar needs a studio for distribution

          Do you *really* think so?

          Pixar has pumped out the only worthwhile stories/characters/animated films to come out of Disney since Mulan -- and I even give Mulan the benefit of the doubt for the awesome title sequence, the Eddie Murphy casting and the non-Disney ending.

          Between Pixar's clout and their warchest, I'm hoping they go out on their own.

          Honestly, I'm surprised that they've gotten away with as much as they have so far that's completely averse to the Mouse's canon (the ending to Monsters, Inc. is a BIG one -- doing Seven Samurai as 'A Bug's Life?' -- brilliant!).

          To hell with photorealism. We've seen how far we can go that direction [finalfantasy.com]. Pixar, their animators and directors seem to have new -- at the very least -- touching and compelling stories to tell. Which barely any in the market can say now.

          Shrek? How the hell can you go wrong with Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy? You can't? It didn't matter that the film was ugly. It didn't matter that there was a cliché story. It didn't matter if they were pandering more to the adults in the crowd than the kids (which Antz did -- and it was God Awful as a result).

          I couldn't care less if Pixar's films were a flipbook, as long as they're told with style, wit and heart. Oh, AND they manage to be the prettiest thing on the block when they're released even with their aversion to photorealism.

          Y'know what? They care about the STORY -- although I'm a bit nervous about the three new films in three years thing. That's one hell of a lot of manpower.

          Bottom line: Pixar has class, regardless of how you feel about Jobs and Disney. Getting out from under the Mouse's thumb can *only* be good for them. The Mouse is about cash, first, thank-you-very-much. Then critical acclaim/adoring fans.

          I'm still at the point that I've been amazed by Pixar enough to believe the opposite of them. That's (to me) Jobs saying 'I've got money, and the most awesome storytellers there are to buy. So what are you waiting for... tell your fucking stories!'

          --dr00gy
          • Pixar needs a studio for distribution

            Do you *really* think so?

            At the moment, yes, unless Pixar does a lot of hiring for the things that Disney does for them now. It's hard to appreciate the marketing blitz that helped make Monsters Inc an incredible financial success, both in the movie theaters and the home, until you see what a marketing failure can do to a good movie (like the Iron Giant). And when it comes to marketing, really no one is better than Disney.

      • Upcomingmovies.com has some good info on Pixar's upcoming films:

        2003: Finding Nemo [yahoo.com]
        2004: The Incredibles [upcomingmovies.com]
        2005: Cars [yahoo.com]

        Apparently Ray Gunn and The Incredibles were an either/or proposition, and it looks like it's going ot be The Incredibles.

        Here's a good overview [yahoo.com] of Pixars plans.

    • Upcoming Pixar Movies, from the source (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob@bane.me@com> on Saturday November 02, 2002 @08:49PM (#4585912) Journal
      I don't know where you heard that stuff, but a Pixar press release [pixar.com] says the next three films are:

      Finding Nemo

      The Incredibles

      Cars

      Nothing about "Ray Gunn", nothing about "Toy Story 3". What's your source?

    • From what I hear the next movie in the hopper is "The Incredibles" which is a story about a super-hero family. Then it's "Ray Gunn" a futuristic film-noir in the vein of "BladeRunner". After that it's "Toy Story 3", yep they're back. Hanks and Allen have already agreed to do the sequel.

      Links! Where are the links?!

  • DivX Version (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    mencoder -oac mp3lame -ovc lavc \
    -lavcopts vcodec=mpeg4:vhq:vbitrate=16000 -o finding_nemo_trailer.avi \
    mms://wmd31sea.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/f ind ing_nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_750.wmv

  • Exact match of target audience (Score:5, Funny)

    by jukal ( 523582 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:26PM (#4585616) Journal
    Finding Nemo, focus on 6-12 year old kids, slashdot... focus on 6-66 year old geeks.

  • Jaded. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Halmos ( 464196 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:46PM (#4585658) Homepage
    Gee, I'm glad my daughters and I can still enjoy the efforts of creative people. Sorry to be such a downer, but we're excited by the prospect of this flick.

  • Looks nice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:49PM (#4585668) Homepage Journal
    Just saw the trailer and it certainly looks nice. The CG looks like it is going to turn out well. Also, with the track record of Pixar, we are probably looking at another great animation with stuff that can only be understood by the parents. Yep, another great family film. Of course a trailer is nothing to judge the end result by, so like everyone I will have to wait until May 2003.

    BTW Sometimes its just nice to smell the roses and lighten up :) Sure the preview is in QT, Real and ASF, but that was to be expected. Until someone offers a real good open source alternative the film houses are going to stick with the stuff they know and get support for.

    • Until someone offers a real good open source alternative the film houses are going to stick with the stuff they know and get support for.

      It's called MPEG2. If that's not highly-compressed enough for you, there's always MPEG4 in its various forms. Microsoft, DivX, et cetera.

      MPEG2 is my preference because MPEG4 seems to be more encumbered.

  • Until you run your own news slushing website and can post whatever religous beliefs you want, shaddup!

    It's cool. That's what /. was originally all about.

  • no humans for pixar? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by feelyoda ( 622366 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @07:52PM (#4585682) Homepage
    With the bugs, toys, monsters, the lamp, and now fish, pixar seems to be avoiding the truly challenging task of creating life like humans.

    Granted, this is what made final fantasy flawed: humans did look real.

    Looking at this trailer I think, "Well, all this looks real...when will they try humans?"

    Digitized actors that look real enough, combined with the recent handshake_across_atlantic would be nice. A brave new world, 'trip to the feelies' if you will...
    • > Looking at this trailer I think, "Well, all this
      > looks real...when will they try humans?"

      Well, when they can, probably.

      As a budding CG animator, myself, I would FAR prefer to work on a project that can be done exceptionally well than a project that can be done pretty good. As a veteran audience member, I'd much rather see a film that tells a good story and tells it exceptionally well, than to see a technology parade.

      To each: their own.

    • Re:no humans for pixar? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by malducin ( 114457 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @10:25PM (#4586221) Homepage
      I disagree. The humans in FF were close to real but still slighly stylized. I don't think many people were fooled as to believe they were real.

      Second, many people are not interested in making a CG humna. Pixar makes animated films, that are stylized, just like any animated film, be it CG or traditionally animated. People like Lucas, Dennis Muren, Ed Catmull, Ken Ralston and many others aren't interested in CG humans. If you want a human just film it.

      The only use of CG humans now is for CG stunt doubles, where they are far enough that they can pass for the real thing.
    • Granted, this is what made final fantasy flawed: humans did look real.

      Sure they look real, but they still don't act real. That's the real problem.
  • Anybody know if this is the last motion picture that Pixar is contractually obligated to release under the joint name of Disney/Pixar?

    Seriously, these guys do such an amazing job, I would hate for them to be associated with Disney forever.

  • I don't get it. How can you find no one?

  • Direct Movie Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by sexecutioner ( 597887 ) on Saturday November 02, 2002 @09:26PM (#4586026)
    In case anyone wants the file directly the direct URL is:

    http://acw.activate.net/digitalmedia/bvim/findin g_ nemo/finding_nemo_trailer_1500.mov

    Else you can pull these from the HTML source on Disney's page, not hard to do.

Slashdot Top Deals

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Close