hughpower wrote:
Jimsolo wrote:I don't give a rat's fuzzy tuchus what the animation looks like, I'm far more concerned with the story. They could do it in claymation as far as I'm concerned, as long as the writing is tight, the plot is sound, and the characters are bold as well as nuanced.
Aaron Dembski-Bowden is on board for that particular aspect, so I'm stoked.
If you don't care about the visuals why even bother with the film? Why not just read one of the almost decent black library novels already available?
If the choice has to be between film or novel, I will almost always choose novel. (Unless the film involves something truly spectacular from a visual perspective.) But the distinction between animation? Honestly, one CGI cartoon looks much the same as another to me. Sure, there's a little more detail, or a little better physics rendering, but at the end of the day, your eye still knows at a glance that it isn't real, so I'm not going to quibble over the details, when the story is far more important.
If this film were a novel, I'd already own it. (Unless it IS a novel that I didn't know about.
) And in addition, there are many storytelling techniques that can be employed visually which fail in the text format of a novel. An adept film maker makes use of them, which is part of what makes film a unique and engaging art form, separate and distinct from the novels or games that frequently inspire them. However, very few of them require the animation to be absolutely cutting edge state-of-the-art, when relatively mediocre animation will suffice.
Although, as a side note, the animation I've seen so far looks great!
How is there gonna be a story with a 15 minute movie?
