Robert Zemeckis' Yellow Submarine is Sunk

[Christopher]

But the Beatles actually appeared in live-action at the end of the film. I remember Paul reprising the "I've got a hole in me pocket" gag.

Yes but that's basically a cameo.

But it does constitute some involvement in the film.

Not sure why this is such a point of contention, but wikipedia does seem to back me up that the Beatles had little to do with it...

Because "little to do with it" is not "nothing to do with it." What you said before is that you thought they had no involvement at all, and any involvement is more than zero.

Forgive me. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Guess I was thinking they could somehow use motion-capture in 2D animation, but now thinking on it, it sounds really silly.

They've been doing 2D motion capture since the earliest days of animation. But they did it by hand and called it rotoscoping. And I've always thought it had the same problem as modern motion capture. For cartoon characters to move like living people just looks wrong. Rotoscoping can be good if it's got enough artistic intervention to smooth it out and add some cartoony qualities to it, but if it's done too slavishly, like in Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, it just looks ugly.

Great comments about animated characters btw. I find it interesting that in doing what they did, they actually made the classic characters more marketable, whereas the more modern versions are basically a wash. I honestly can't see the more modern versions be more popular than their classic counterparts.

Well, "modern" is relative. 1947 Daffy Duck, for instance, was pre-Chuck Jones Daffy Duck. He was more of a goofy lunatic a la Woody Woodpecker, and Jones hadn't yet developed his more successful persona as the vain incompetent whose arrogance was his downfall. Similarly with Bugs -- Jones refined his personality and made him less a nutcase who did randomly mean things to people and more of a comic hero who only struck against those who mistreated him or others, but struck with ruthless wit and took total control of the situation. And their modern character designs are basically the ones perfected in the '50s alongside their personalities. So their 1947 versions hadn't yet matured into their most successful incarnations, the ones that have defined them for well over 50 years now.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Forgive me. Don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. Guess I was thinking they could somehow use motion-capture in 2D animation, but now thinking on it, it sounds really silly.

They've been doing 2D motion capture since the earliest days of animation. But they did it by hand and called it rotoscoping. And I've always thought it had the same problem as modern motion capture. For cartoon characters to move like living people just looks wrong. Rotoscoping can be good if it's got enough artistic intervention to smooth it out and add some cartoony qualities to it, but if it's done too slavishly, like in Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, it just looks ugly.

Ahh right, now I remember. I guess that method has died out of use. It was a formidable idea that looked good on paper, but not so much on screen. Yeah, I gather a rotoscoped Roger Rabbit would just be wrong

Well, "modern" is relative. 1947 Daffy Duck, for instance, was pre-Chuck Jones Daffy Duck. He was more of a goofy lunatic a la Woody Woodpecker, and Jones hadn't yet developed his more successful persona as the vain incompetent whose arrogance was his downfall. Similarly with Bugs -- Jones refined his personality and made him less a nutcase who did randomly mean things to people and more of a comic hero who only struck against those who mistreated him or others, but struck with ruthless wit and took total control of the situation. And their modern character designs are basically the ones perfected in the '50s alongside their personalities. So their 1947 versions hadn't yet matured into their most successful incarnations, the ones that have defined them for well over 50 years now.

And here I thought you meant the 90's modern version of the characters. Those were a travesty. Though I do remember early versions of Bugs where he was just mean and nasty. I guess it's a similar situation with Sesame Street's Big Bird. At the start, he was rather a mean bird lol. Quite frightening, actually. Looking back at those, one has to wonder what what they were thinking when they made the characters that way. Just what were they trying to teach kids?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Not sure why this is such a point of contention, but wikipedia does seem to back me up that the Beatles had little to do with it, and certainly my recollection of when they talked about the movie on the Anthology video was that they liked it but weren't really involved with it (except for submitting the 5 songs for it, and adding the cameo at the end).

All of that is true. That's not to say that the Beatles weren't interested in the film, because they were.

Let me turn to Mark Lewisohn, the world's foremost Beatles scholar, and his Complete Beatles Chronicle. Page 276:

Yellow Submarine was a magnificent work of animation, achieving the aim detailed right from the very first screenplay outline: "The goal should be nothing less than to take animation beyond anything seen before in style, class and tone, but avoiding the precious and the pretentious." That outline, dated November 1966, was prepared by writer Lee Minoff with direct co-operation from Paul, so it's clear that the Beatles, at some stage, were prepared to be involved in the production. But as it swung into action through 1967 Yellow Submarine became something of an irritation to them, irrelevant to their present-day lives and output, like a relic from the days of Beatlemania. (Which, in a sense, it was, since the film followed on from a US TV series of Beatles cartoon adventures launched on 25 September 1965, made by the same company, King Features, a division of the Hearst Corporation.)

I don't see Lewisohn as being incompatible with your take, LitmusDragon, but "the Beatles had little to do with it" isn't quite true. At one time, the Beatles were a little more involved, particularly Paul at the early going. But after November 1966, not really. They shot the cameo on January 25, 1968. The new songs were all cast-offs, usually knocked off in a single session and the recordings were treated perfunctorily. The last song to be recorded, "Hey Bulldog" on February 11, 1968, was recorded only because "You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)" wasn't done in time for the animators. (Yes, there's an alternate universe with "You Know My Name" in Yellow Submarine. Probably the same alternate universe where Star Trek and Daleks aired back-to-back on NBC.)

 

[LitmusDragon]

Because "little to do with it" is not "nothing to do with it." What you said before is that you thought they had no involvement at all, and any involvement is more than zero.

Look, I can see how semantically if you take certain words or phrases I used and turn them a certain way, you can end up with the conclusion you reached. It certainly was not my intention however.

My intention was to emphasize the contribution of the animators- fans of the Beatles- who built these amazing animations to fit the music they were given. I did not mean to imply the Beatles had nothing at all to do with the film. Though, I did certainly mean to imply they had nothing to do with the animations in the film. They contributed a cameo, and some songs, and the animators did the rest.

I really don't want to argue with you, I actually kind of like you and certainly envy you your profession.

 

[Samurai8472]

This is a relief. Zemeckis's obsession with motion capture has ruined him as a filmmaker. He used to do terrific stuff, but now he's settled in the Uncanny Valley and it's not a pretty sight.

Like George Lucas, he seems to have lost his way

Lucas- CGI

Zemeckis- Mo cap

 

[JarodRussell]

This is a relief. Zemeckis's obsession with motion capture has ruined him as a filmmaker. He used to do terrific stuff, but now he's settled in the Uncanny Valley and it's not a pretty sight.

Like George Lucas, he seems to have lost his way

Lucas- CGI

Zemeckis- Mo cap

Cameron - CGI and MoCap

Box office win!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Beat me to it, Starbreaker. I just saw this news and you can't imagine how relieved I feel right now.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Using 3D in Roger Rabbit 2 might work if it's actually part of the plot. Instead of avoiding "the dip", they could be trying to avoid 3-D conversion...

 

[Owain Taggart]

Using 3D in Roger Rabbit 2 might work if it's actually part of the plot. Instead of avoiding "the dip", they could be trying to avoid 3-D conversion...

Yeah, something like the villain threatening toontown with a 3D conversion? Then a resistence lead by Roger Rabbit is formed when they realize what it really means; that toontown as it is would cease to exist. Similar to the ink blots in Da Blob (who turn everything grey in the game) could be the villain's henchmen and would be slowly taking over the city. So, very briefly, it could happen, but with 2D triumphing in the end. But yeah, it should never be a major component without being part of the plot. This way, it would essentially become a very real statement about 2d animation vs 3d animation. Ironically, this would oppose the 3D that Zemeckis has been dabbling in

 

[JarodRussell]

Is this also the end for Spielberg's/Jackson's Tintin?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Is this also the end for Spielberg's/Jackson's Tintin?

Nope. The first one's coming out this fall.

 

[Christopher]

This way, it would essentially become a very real statement about 2d animation vs 3d animation. Ironically, this would oppose the 3D that Zemeckis has been dabbling in

I couldn't get behind that. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with 3D animation per se; it's as valid an art form as any other, and can produce great, gorgeous results like most Pixar films or Tangled or Kung Fu Panda, when its creators embrace its potential for being cartoony. The problem with Zemeckis isn't that he uses 3D animation, but that he relies on motion capture instead of key-frame animation, and that he tries to use animation to replicate live action and ends up with a result that isn't good at being either. It's not the medium that's the problem, it's the way it's being used.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Lucas- CGI

Zemeckis- Mo cap

Sorry, but nothing Lucas has done wrong has anything to do with CG. He just makes crap movies.

Using 3D in Roger Rabbit 2 might work if it's actually part of the plot. Instead of avoiding "the dip", they could be trying to avoid 3-D conversion...

The problem there is that the toons lose in the end. What fun is that?

 

[Too Much Fun]

Lucas- CGI

Zemeckis- Mo cap

Sorry, but nothing Lucas has done wrong has anything to do with CG. He just makes crap movies.

Yeah, his movies would suck with or without the excessive CGI, but it certainly doesn't help. When I watched "Revenge of the Sith", I was seriously shocked at the awful CGI. I literally thought to myself, "am I watching a movie or a cut scene from a computer game?".

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The model work in Return Of The Jedi doesn't wow me much these days either. So nu?

I don't think I've ever disliked a movie because of the effects work.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The problem with Zemeckis isn't that he uses 3D animation, but that he relies on motion capture instead of key-frame animation, and that he tries to use animation to replicate live action and ends up with a result that isn't good at being either. It's not the medium that's the problem, it's the way it's being used.

That's a very good description of the problem. I'd have liked Beowulf had the film been live-action. (I'd have liked it a lot more had it been anything like the low-budget, grungy movie that Roger Avery and Neil Gaiman wrote, but that's an issue for another time.) Or if it had tried to be more unrealistic. But falling where it did, Beowulf was disconcerting to watch and that kept me at a distance from the film.

I wasn't interested in The Polar Express or A Christmas Carol, so I saw neither.

 

[Owain Taggart]

This way, it would essentially become a very real statement about 2d animation vs 3d animation. Ironically, this would oppose the 3D that Zemeckis has been dabbling in

I couldn't get behind that. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with 3D animation per se; it's as valid an art form as any other, and can produce great, gorgeous results like most Pixar films or Tangled or Kung Fu Panda, when its creators embrace its potential for being cartoony. The problem with Zemeckis isn't that he uses 3D animation, but that he relies on motion capture instead of key-frame animation, and that he tries to use animation to replicate live action and ends up with a result that isn't good at being either. It's not the medium that's the problem, it's the way it's being used.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm not saying there aren't good uses for 3D animation. But in the context of Roger Rabbit, like it has been said earlier in the thread, it belongs in 2D. Basically, some things should just be left the way they are rather than adding 3D to them. I love 3D animation. There's some awesome stuff out there, but I do think that sometimes studios will get out of hand with it, a bit like a painter who adds too much to his painting, that not everything needs to be 3D just because it's around. It's not about 3D being good or bad in the face of 2D; I meant it in the sense of old vs new, that new in certain cases isn't always the best. That was pretty much the sum of my comment. I agree about Zemeckis. He seems to have misguided thoughts. I feel like maybe he's trying to position himself in having a unique style and look for his animation but that it isn't quite working out. I wish he would stick to more traditional ways of 3D animation, without excessive use of mo-cap. So, in the case of my Roger Rabbit idea, it was more in the way of having a villain who represents the excessive use of 3D, strong-arming it into places it doesn't belong, with 2D representing traditional animation, but then again, I guess that's a bit too black and white.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

LOL Got me thinking... and this would be cool... what if Zemeckis realizes the error of his ways..

And then HE would be the villain in the next Roger Rabbit movie

 

[Expo67]

Lucas- CGI

Zemeckis- Mo cap

Sorry, but nothing Lucas has done wrong has anything to do with CG. He just makes crap movies.

And I suppose someone like you could do a better job? Bailey, you are no George Lucas. Especially after you rewrote your own original work just so that it would fit in TNG format. To be honest, I really liked the original 1979 novel that you and David Bischoff wrote. You really should not have tarnished that story by remaking it into something that should not have been remade in the first place. It was fine the way it was.

All that aside, what the hell is so bad about George Lucas and his films? Granted he could have come up with a better subtitle for Episode II and not tampered with the scene where Greedo shoots first instead of Han Solo. Let alone not created a Howard The Duck movie and Indiana Jones IV. But other than that, there was nothing wrong with the Star Wars prequel trilogy and the special editions of the original Star Wars trilogy.

Aside from those two things, I never had a problem with the prequel trilogy or the special editions of the original. If that was the way he originally envisioned them, then more power to him. They are his films and he can do whatever he wants to do with them.

 

[Expo67]

Well gee, Trek is an elaboration of Forbidden Planet, which is an adaptation of The Tempest. Where does that leave us?

Up the creek as far as artistic integrity, quality, and originality are concerned.