the Tintin Reader

[Commander Roj]

Yes, I definitely understood the "uncanny valley" complaints, but I felt it was a solid film and a serviceable film treatment, which is a lot higher praise than I give to most film adaptations of books, I must say. Especially considering how something as dear to me as Tintin (I would actually be understating things to say that discovering Tintin at an early age defined a great part of my life) would be held to an even higher standard than usual.

Don't get me wrong, I would go and see another Spielburg effort despite the uncanny valley aspect, but it wasn't what I had hoped for.

[Idle Doodler]

I haven't seen the Spielberg picture, but can imagine the problem. It's a shame they didn't take the same route as that taken making the latest Asterix film, which was to embrace the more cartoon-y side of things, but doing so in such a way that the slapstick and overall style didn't detract from the subject material.

I think my first Tintin was the Castafiore Diamond, so struggle to get my head around all the action in the few other ones I've read. I'm getting there though!

And as a direct relation of this thread, I've gone and bought the 3-in-1 book with The Broken Ear, The Black Island and King Ottokar's Sceptre. I'd read none of them, and am really enjoying it!

[Arundel]

Sorry to be that guy, but what is the "uncanny valley effect?" 

[Plynkes]

It's an effect when computer graphics (or mannequins, or any representation of a human, really) reach a point of accuracy and realism that they provoke a negative reaction from people. They are almost real enough to convince you that you're looking at a real person, but not quite. Something is off. And that "not quite" produces feelings of revulsion or unease. An image that is obviously created (a cartoon or painting) produces a positive emotional response, as does a real person. But if you are slightly short of the latter you fall into the uncanny valley.

[Arundel]

That's an excellent definition, Plynkes. Thank you!

[Hammers]

The film wasn't quite the Tintin from the books but it very rarely is with book to screen adaptations. I liked it though and would definitely like to see more.

Too much of a mashup.

[secharles]

....fall into the uncanny valley.

welcome to my world!


(great explanation, too)

[Elk101]

Too much of a mashup.

That was it's biggest drawback,  unlike the Hobbit where they managed to make one book three films, this was trying to squeeze as many books as they could into one film. It was almost like they thought "we're only going to get to do this once so let's throw all our favourite bits from the books in." I'd still watch another one though, especially if they were a little more patient with the storyline.

[Commander Roj]

That was it's biggest drawback,  unlike the Hobbit where they managed to make one book three films, this was trying to squeeze as many books as they could into one film. It was almost like they thought "we're only going to get to do this once so let's throw all our favourite bits from the books in." I'd still watch another one though, especially if they were a little more patient with the storyline.

Definitely. I watched it for only the second time the other day, after reading this thread. Too much of an attempt to make his own story out of original parts by Spielburg. While not my favourite story, a more faithful adaptation of Crystal Balls/Prisoners would be a good source for a film. Rewatching, the uncanny effect wasn't so bad, except for characters with exaggerated features. I found the Thompson in particular quite freaky!