Tintin Forums

Latest entry from Melbourne-based journalist and author Jim Schembri's entertainment blog, CineTopia, gives 10 reasons why Alvin 3 is better than The Adventures of Tintin - The Secret of the Unicorn:
Why Alvin is better than Tintin
What do those who have seen the new Tintin movie think?

I'll start this off with point #10: Motion Capture. Schembri says, and I quote,

"...the task of making animated human characters behave and move like their real-life counterparts is simply less demanding for animators than imbuing those same characteristics into non-human characters. And the Chipmunks have to pull double duty, exhibiting both human and chipmunk traits."

As little as I know about animation, I would argue that the task of animating believable human characters is more difficult than creating believable anthropomorphic chipmunks. We see real humans on a daily basis and will readily pick up on any unrealistic actions by animated humans. On the other hand, I doubt many of us see talking chipmunks in real life very often. The characters in Chipmunks don't have to be either human or animal; they don't have to be realistically human because they're animals, and they don't have to be realistically animal because they're anthropomorphized.

CC

Wow. That's completely ridiculous. Schembri's article is just laughable.

My take.

10. Motion capture.
True, Alvin 3 has pure animation but motion capture isn't the easy option. The actors have to work their butts off doing it. The work is extremely physical. Also, motion capture is a very difficult form of animation to pull off well and with Tintin they accomplished the impossible.

9. Creating an alternate world.
Yes, the chipmunks of Alvin 3 need to blend seamlessly into the real world but they've already done that for two other movies, I'm not impressed. With Tintin, on the other-hand, they recreated the look and feel of Herge's adventures and made the characters look great in motion-capture. Now, that's a difficult task.

8. Editing.
I don't feel the editing in Tintin broke the tension but I do believe the movie would've benefited from stopping to 'smell the roses' every now and then.

7. Higher stakes.
It's true that despite all of the danger in the Tintin movie, it feels less suspenseful than the TV series but Alvin 3 (if it's anything like the others) doesn't have higher stakes. Besides Tintin is meant to be the tabula rasa, the blank slate into which the viewers project their selves.

6. Use of humour.
Not having seen Alvin 3, I can't be absolutely sure but judging by the reviews the humour was dire. Tintin on the other hand, while not always as funny as Herge's albums, still had some excellent moments of humour.

5. Girl power.
The Chipettes aren't characters, they're just love interests for the chipmunks. Tintin doesn't have many female characters but at least it doesn't have pointless female characters, that's even more insulting.

4. Camera placement.
No dice. Spielberg filmed Tintin as he would film a live-action but he let loose in some scenes where you couldn't do them in real life. It's his prerogative. It's not entirely Herge-ian but I don't think it broke the movie.

3. Character vs non-character.
No doubt Tintin isn't very interesting as a character, it's the supporting characters that flesh out his world. Also, Alvin 3 is no Shakespeare. Again, Tintin is tabula rasa. Imagine you're Tintin and you'll have no problems with that part of the movie.

2. Brevity.
So a short movie makes a better one? Whatever. Tintin is longer but it has more of a story to tell, certainly one more worth telling.

1. The eyes, the eyes.
The dead eyes problem doesn't feature in Tintin. They have been fixed. I'm not sure how some people 'see' them and most don't but I thought the eyes in Tintin were highly expressive and helped lend soul to the movie.

It's stupid to compare the two movies, they're very different properties. This article isn't a high-point in Australian journalism.

0.0 ... XDD

American audiences might be critically challenged on high quality animation nowadays, but any sane person can see that virtually ANY modern-day animated feature beats that God-awful Alvin and the Chipmunks franchise! Having Peter Jackson, John Williams, and Stephen Speilburg ALONE trumps any credibility the Chipmunks franchise has with being a good film.

I'm not laughing at you; I'm laughing at the author of that article.

First of all, what is their "fair measure". I've taken plenty of classes on film. I can tell you that there is no completely objective way to measure how good a film is.

10. Motion Capture- The chipmunks were animated, not mo cap. The humans were not animated. They were doing cartoonish animals. Tintin was trying to achieve a look of the real world while still feeling a bit cartoonish. It used mo cap well to do it.

9. Creating an Alternate World- Once again, it's a matter of goal. Tintin is not meant to look completely realistic.

8. Editing- I have not seen Alvin 3, but I had no problem with the editing of Tintin.

7. Higher Stakes- Tintin was never about having high stakes. People love Tintin for the sake of adventure. And by the way, the characters are in peril in Tintin.

6. Use of Humor- I have not seen Alvin 3. I will say that Tintin has good humor. Its humor is based on the quirky characters who hang around Tintin, the straight man.

5. Girl Power- Who cares that there are no girls in Tintin? The characters are just fine the way they are.

4. Camera Placement- I had no problem with the camera placement in Tintin.

3. Character vs non-character- Once again, it's a matter of goal. Tintin is about adventure. He represents our desire to have an adventure. The other characters are there to make it interesting.

2. Berevity- The story in Tintin gets you carried into an adventure.

1. Eyes- The comics did not have large eyes either.

I wonder if this writer is writing this to get attention.

That article is ridiculous. Tintin and chipwrecked are two movies that shouldn't even be compared.
The point about there being no women in Tintin is just stupid, why would they add something that wasn't there to begin with and, most likely, completely ruin Tintin?
And girls need something to relate to? Not true, I'm a girl and I found plenty of things to relate to, even before I read all the original comics.

He definitely wrote that to get attention. :/

Something tells me that the guy who wrote that hasn't read a single Tintin book, I'm sure his opinion would be different if he had!

(if he has, he probably didn't like them either "where are the flying men in colorful spandex suits with capes? Call this a comic?" - or something like that...)

Oh and yeah, Reagan, you're right, it's a ridiculus comparison.

One reason why Tintin is better:

no characters that speak in an annoying, high-pitched voice!

Alvin and Chipminks movie utter utter garbage.Lets move on.

Oof. Just because Tintin's world is in the 30s/40s doesn't means that it's an "alternate" world, by any means; part of Tintin's charm as a series was how Hergé set each one in whatever era he was writing them in; we get a very nice collection of period pieces.

And Tintin doesn't have any humor? That's laughably un-researched, pun intended!

What's also laughable is how the writer of the article complains that there are no central female characters as though it was a bad thing. I'm a woman; as a girl, I grew up with Tintin and loved watching him and his companions going on adventures. I always prefer reading about male friendships anyway--fire-forged brothers to the end (and one thing I really admire about Hergé was his strong stance on anti-romance; there's far too much mushy stuff out there--I'm trying to write a novel, and I know that Hergé is definitely one of my main influences in my wanting to focus on male friendships. Well, that, and surreal dream sequences!).

And as for Tintin's characterization, well, that's how Hergé wanted him to be portrayed--which is why he has a colorful cast of characters to interact with. And I find that to be part of the charm of the series, too.


Actually, this is a valid point; I'm a very auditory-oriented person, and those squeaky Chipmunk voices really do grate on my sensitive ears. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.