I wrote this at the same time as Mondrian was posting his post above. So if I seem to be repeating much of what he's said (only less succinctly as usual!) that's why.
After all she doesn't shatter the windows of Marlinspike while singing in "Emerald", does she?
No indeed. I believe a really strong singer can break a wine glass if she sustains a really pure note at the exact modulating frequency of the glass, but to have all the glass in the place smash as she's warbling around all the different notes at the end of song looked a bit silly and contrived - as you say, mct, more the sort of over-the-top cartoony gag you might get in an Asterix book than a Tintin one. If the human voice could do that so easily, it kind of negates the entire plot of The Calculus Affair.
I'm guessing that the film makers were inspired by the little visual gag in King Ottokar's Sceptre, where Tintin glances nervously at the safety-glass symbol on the car window as Castafiore sings. (We get a similar close up of just such a symbol on the glass case in the film, a few scenes before the concert, which gives a hint at what Sakharine's plan is.) But whereas Hergé makes a passing gag about glass shattering (and whilst you could just about imagine Hergé showing a glass actually shattering during a concert as an inconsequential background gag), the film writers use it as a major plot point. Sakharine is so certain that she'll shatter the glass during a concert that he's constructed his whole plan around this fact, and that's what feels so wrong and so un-Hergé-like about the scene.
Apart from the poor physics and the silliness of it, she'd presumably be famous for shattering glass at every concert she gave in which case surely Ben Salaad would know about it and have moved his glass case elsewhere.
There quite a few scenes which strike a similar wrong un-Tintin note to me, and most of them come after this point in the film: Haddock's self-help pep-talk to Tintin; the way no-one seems to have anticipated that Sakharine will simply pull a gun on them when they try to arrest him; the Transformers-like crane fight; the slightly awkward way they shoehorn in both the ending from Red Rackham and then the ending from Unicorn into the same film (ie: having them find what is surely quite enough treasure in the globe, but then, rather greedily, wanting to go off on an underwater treasure hunt in the next film to find the entire haul); and Tintin's cheesy final line to Haddock: "How's your thirst for adventure, Captain?"
Like others, I'm split on my reaction to the film. On on hand, I think it's a great adventure movie, which I enjoyed, as did my ten-year-old son and his pal, hugely so in their case. And great to see Spielberg really enjoying some creative camera work, lighting effects, etc.
On the other hand, I think the visual style, script and story has completely missed the point of much of what's most important about Hergé's art and writing. But as Jock keeps saying, we still have the books and I guess this doesn't detract from them. My son seems to have been inspired by the film to get more interested in the books than he was previously.