Tintin Forums

Having seen the film I left the cinema slightly disappointed. The animation I thought was very good indeed but some of the characters for me didn't seem to resemble the characters in Herge's drawings. I know that the characters were meant to look more human in appearance but Nestor and Castafiore were quite disappointing. The Thompson Twins, although they do have full round heads in the drawings I still thought they looked a bit too fat in the face.

The story was a bit odd too. Most scenes remained faithful to the books but some flights of fancy by the writers were just silly. People have already mentioned the crane fight scene for instance. I do think that overall that the writers fitted the stories within one story quite well. Because Stephen Moffat was involved I thought the writing would be a bit of mess. He writes Doctor Who and I think that this program has got more and more confusing since he started writing it.

Back to the Tintin film. Were the three notes in the masts explained that well? Knowing the explanation I sort of drifted off at that point. In the books one has time to read the notes and take it all in. I'm not sure the significance of the Eagle was explained that well. Perhaps I missed it.

Having read that Red Rackham's treasure was part of this film as well I was sitting there about halfway through thinking when are are they going to sea to embark on the treasure hunt. They won't get time to do it. I was very disappointed that they found the treasure in the globe at the end of the film. This element of the story is the surprise ending of both books. The point of Red Rackham's treasure (in my opinion) is that they embark on the treasure hunt but never find the actual treasure but low and behold at the end of the story it is to be found at Haddocks ancestral home. Almost under their noses, so to speak.

The best bit of detail in the film I thought was Haddocks nose hair. The water was good but when something splashed into it the water seemed too thick, a bit like oil. Not that I'm being picky. From watching documentaries on CGI I realise that water is the most trickiest thing to animate.

I think one reason their heads look the wrong shape is that their bowler hats are the wrong shape - having a sort of flattened hemisphere above the brim, rather than having verical sides below the round top, as with the more normal bowler hats portrayed in the books (or Derby hats, if you're American).



I find myself drifting off in films sometimes; I think it's the distracting effect that 3D has on me! But to be fair to the film-makers, yes the explanation of the three notes and the co-ordinates was properly done, and Tintin's line about the statue being John the Evangalist and him being known as the Eagle of Patros was definitley there, pretty much straight from the book.



Yeah, even if they include the Red Rackham underwater treasure hunt in film two (as the ending of film one suggests they will) they do seem to have blown the whole point of that story too early.


That shows we're all different! For me, that was the prime example of the sort of over-detailing that I disliked and which made me feel that Speilberg and Jackson don't understand the less-is-more point of Hergé's drawing.


Whilst I'm in whinge mode again, the other thing I found really un-Hergé-like was all that stuff with the sleeping crew. Haddock's description of the sailor losing his eyelids in a "what a night that was" sort of way, belonged more to a Pirates of the Caribbean movie than to a Tintin one, as did his leering aside that another old salt was into "animal husbandry". No-one loves a filthy innuendo about sheep-shagging more than I, but it's got to be witty and it's got to be in the right film, and this was neither.

Allan's crew in Hergé's book certainly include some hardened villains, who are prepared to send Tintin to the bottom with a lump of lead, or to beat Haddock mercilessly with a stick. But, like most of Hergé's baddie foot-soldiers and henchmen, they're drawn deadpan, as ordinary working men, not caricatured pirates.

It would be interesting to know the specific scenes that induce cringes in the fans in the audience. I wrote a list of mine, and it has close to sixty moments (although most of them I now realise are a tad unreasonable).

Some of them I will post here:
- Red Rackham threatening to curse the Haddock line, with his angry "I CURSE YOUR NAME AND ALL THAT COME AFTER IT!!"
- Tintin seems a lot greedier than in the original book.
- Haddock's blubbering when Tintin drops into his room in the Karaboudjan.
- Not enough "Blistering barnacles" or "To be precises"!

Well, seeing how this movie ended, I have now a rough idea of how the sequel is going to be.. I bet it will include Tintin and Co. greedily going to search for the "remaining treasure" lying unclaimed at the bottom of the ocean.. and that story will include the whole treasure hunt that was the essence of "Red Rachkham's Treasure", and also Prof. Calculus and his Shark Submarine..I am willing to bet anything you like on this..

It sounds as if when Spielberg made The Secret of the Unicorn, he actually paid more attention to the ensuing sequel, and not to the actual movie he was making!!!

I thought it was an absolutely awful version - a nonsense film that seems as though it was machine-made by the tedious Hollywood machine rather than staying true to the original books.

Story line was ruined, pacing was ridiculous, action scenes COMPLETELY TEDIOUS, ridiculous and over-the-top and finally the crane fight was just a disgrace.

The scripting was very village pantomime as well. Awful corny rubbish.

Very, very poor all in all - just massively disappointing to have Herge mangled by Hollywood executive's unimaginative idiocy.

It seemed as though it was made for the lowest common denominator.

GREAT SNAKES! MERCY, MY JEWELS! TROGLODYYYYYYYTE!!! However much I want to stay calm and not be rude, I must say I disagree most vehemently with your reply. Some parts of the movie did seem a little off, but that's what always happens with movie adaptations. Be glad they haven't fudged it the way they did Percy Jackson, with a totally different plot skewing off in another direction. They only mixed around some parts, put Haddock where he wasn't supposed to be originally, threw in CWGC in a few scenes and did a totally epic job with it. And they pulled it off.
Now I'm not sure I have enough authority, seeing as I'm a new user in the forum and I only have like four Tintin books (I thought I had five) but I think the movie was all right. (To be precise, spectacular.) The cast+crew+Mighty Spielberg and Jackson did great with this one. And it was not 'corny rubbish'.
And yes. I DO belong in the Lowest Common Denominator.

Ginger_Tuft
Don't worry about the authority you have, I believe everybody has the same power on stating their opinion, and I am sure everybody can respect each other opinion :D.

In short, it is an awesome movie, although not suitable enough to be put together with the stories (eg. the comic book, the TV adaptation) we already knew and familiar with :).

Ginger_Tuft
Well, just goes to confirm my opinion.. people who have read only a few of the Tintin books will love the movie..whereas those who are very familiar with each and every book of the Tintin series and have read them nearly 100s of times..well, they will feel cheated watching the movie.. I certainly felt cheated...

The movie in itself is not bad..it is a good movie..but it is absolutely not at all true to the Tintin series..It doesn't respect the beauty of Herge's books and stories..and that is what disappoints the die-hard Tintin fans... :)

Hmm, guess I'll just have to read everything then. Maybe I'm just biased 'cause it's Jamie Bell?

Still a little upset that someone could call a movie like that 'nonsense.'

And to prove snowy_1001wrong, (sorry)I have a friend who's read all the books and she loved it. We were fangirling in our seats at the moviehouse. So I guess it's not just the people who've read only a few books who like it.

Same here! I own all the books, have re-read them countless times, and have been an avid Tintinophile for nearly two decades...and I loved the movie. :D