Call me unartistic, but doesn't making an animated movie where the characters look like the voice actors sort of miss the whole point of bothering to animate the movie instead of just doing it in live action?
it's rotoscoped. the whole film was shot and edited in live action and animation was done over top of the live action shots.
as for the question of why to make the movie rotoscoped instead of live action, there are various elements in the book that would be hard to create in a live action film, but can be pulled off in an animation. using rotoscipic animation helps preserve a sense of realism while allowing the surreal and bizarre effects needed for the story.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
OH MY GOD
Date: 2005-02-25 11:18 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-25 11:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-26 01:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-26 01:36 am (UTC)I don't think that invalidates my statement all that much.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-02-26 01:37 am (UTC)as for the question of why to make the movie rotoscoped instead of live action, there are various elements in the book that would be hard to create in a live action film, but can be pulled off in an animation. using rotoscipic animation helps preserve a sense of realism while allowing the surreal and bizarre effects needed for the story.
Did you see?
Date: 2005-02-26 12:26 pm (UTC)It's done by the same director in this same style.
Wow
Date: 2005-02-28 03:38 pm (UTC)looks very cool though.
what was the release date?