>unique animated, film where every frame is handpainted
>ignored in favor of 3Dslop
 |
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
>unique animated, film where every frame is handpainted. >ignored in favor of 3Dslop
>unique animated, film where every frame is handpainted
>ignored in favor of 3Dslop
|
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
|
He should have fricked the innkeeper's daughter, she was gagging for it
The casting flattered her. Judging by Vincent's painting, the real girl wasn't nearly as pretty.
Should've just done it with AI lmfao.
Btw, the flick is worthless since it's rotoscoped, they just paid Korean children to "paint" over live footage in a specific style. That's the kind of "art" that AI is perfect for, since it has zero artistic value.
Artistic value doesn't exist. It's what your state funded college professor told you just to make money later off the 'art'.
>artistic value doesn't exist
>movie industry worth $42 billion
sounds like you should have gone to state funded business school
industry worth $42 billion
AI just killed that
Movies are not art. They are entertainment.
Real art has never been tried.
technology removed the incentive for artists to innovate. look how much art changed in the hundreds of years without computers and look what that turned into.
so commercial value is an indicator of, or even equivalent to, artistic value?
Yah its callwd the free market
>movie industry worth $42 billion
Like 50% of that is Disney
some parts are roto scoped, and I hate that, but it was all painted by real artist from Poland
souless. Encanto and Coco have more emotional weight
Theres Chłopi on the way this year, same artists
This did it first and better
?si=CiFKg1zxbz36yp7w
intresting, loving vincent claims to be the first "feature" lengh painted movie, but this one is the same, but only 79 minutes long. is that why?
anyway looks like a 4k restoration is going to be out soon
Each frame in LV is an individual oil painting, Heroic Times is just regular animation.
LV might as well have been a filter because nothing is actually animated, there’s awkward camera movement that’s translated into the art, versus this is actually designed movement and animation done with oil paint
What does this even mean? what difference does it make if the frame is drawn or painted? It’s animated. LV is not animated, it’s shot and then traced over (by Korean slaves but that doesn’t change anything)
I could literally do the same thing in stablediffusion by img2img every single frame
there is no Korean in the Cast & Crew you muppet.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3262342/fullcredits
thank god it came out during that time, right now it would have been made with AI
>every frame is handpainted
It looks cool but the movie itself is boring. The gimmick wears of quickly
unfortunately this. I was excited for it but couldnt even finish it because of how boring it was. You would think they would have come up with a good script if they were going to go through all this trouble to make it
>It looks cool but the movie itself is boring.
i'm from Poland. I talked to someone who worked on the movie. They told me directors and producers wanted script as safe as possible for obvious reasons. They couldn't risk doing something really ambitious storytelling wise and failing. All that insane amount of work would go to waste so they did something safe as frick and in result they failed. It's like raaaaaain on you wedding day
good lord. give me 5.5m and i will make an AI rotoscoped movie in the style of DOOM, not this pansy slave-labor nonsense
>slave-labor
it was done by over 100 professional painters who painted that shit for 7 years. Not by some korean kids, you moron
they should've gone for the interesting failure approach and let them take a risk with the script... the art is nice but you get "used to it" and still need the film to be able to deliver on the writing too.
>All that insane amount of work would go to waste so they did something safe as frick and in result they failed
and who would've thought, it figuuuuuures?
>directors and producers wanted script as safe as possible for obvious reasons. They couldn't risk doing something really ambitious storytelling wise and failing.
What an ironic mindset when you're making a film about Van Gogh.
look like shit. might as well AI slop it
>”He had a breakdown, it happens to people”
>”weak people”
>“Live longer, you’ll see.”
What did the postmaster mean by that ?
When you're young you think you're invincible. As you get older, you realize how fragile you really are
I mean they made another movie like this to be released this year. So not totally abandoned.
looks more refined
It's based on a different artis's paintings. This time it's Realism.
>record shitty movie
>Img2Img
>MASTERPIECE
I've seen this movie a thousand times already.
It doesn't really seem worth the effort when the painting style is so realistic. It's almost a normal movie with a filter on. The nature shots look really nice though.
i think it is better than a normal movie. it adds soul and meaning to shots and is presumably cheaper if the workflow is really dialed in. but again, you dont need to hire people to paint every frame, just do IMG2IMG
>IMG2IMG
Is that some AI thing?
>Is that some AI thing?
Yeah, you just feed it images and it turns them into a specific style ripped of from any existing artist.
Yeah that really sounds like it would add soul and meaning.
What meaning?
look at 1:12 in
. it looks good. very pastoral without needing to pay $100,000 to fly people out to a location and shoot. get it yet?
No, that's aesthetics, not meaning. I suppose you're not gonna answer me because you don't have an answer.
Just looks like an AI filter. Not adding much to the filmed material.
Because the subject matter is boring.
Nobody gives a shit about the medium, it's all about the content.
I thought it was an alright movie. Plays a little too hard on the Van Gogt tortured artist beautiful soul angle.
I like how they recreated actual Van Gogh paintings during certain scenes, this movie was really something special.
I would love more biopics of artists done in their own style.
>I would love more biopics of artists done in their own style.
Literally singlehandedly ruined "art"
Cope
Eh it's Bronn! That lad does get around.
>I spent a lot of time and effort making this pls give me recognisition
No. Make something I care about and I'll watch it.
Here's your Vincent "Reddit" Van Gogh, gays
And then chuds complain that there are no good artists left. While enjoying lowest common denominator corpor slop.
Yes very nice gimmick, too bad they forgot to put in the movie.
>spend insane effort to hand pain each frame in a very specific style
>decide to make it a fricking biography, the least popular film type
If these morons had made something Ghibli-esque as an example, this would have been a major hit.
What a waste.
>If these morons had made something Ghibli-esque as an example, this would have been a major hit.
It has a potential, they should pick it up again, do something new with that
Saw it in the theater in Amsterdam and it was suprisingly empty. I shed a tear because he will never witness how people all around the world love his art and see him as the father of Modernism.
>it was suprisingly empty
Fitting for a van Gogh biopic
The visuals were amazing, but sadly the movie itself was uninteresting and a bit of a borefest.
Kurosawa did it better in Dreams
It looked beautiful, but shame about the story. Had they bothered to animate a well-written screenplay, it could've been a classic.
I might be too old for this crap but the visuals look like shit and the mythos is trash too, it's some hagiography of a deranged nasty dutchman who didn't actually paint that good