Oddworld Forums

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)
-   Oddworld Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Would you see an Oddworld movie? (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=13266)

Fuzzle Guy 01-29-2006 09:54 AM

2 years if it was live action. it's the animation that takes up all the time.

Nate 01-29-2006 09:58 AM

It doesn't take 6 years to animate a film unless it's one guy sitting alone in his basement. Really, the toughest thing for Lorne right now is probably getting money rather than anything else.

Kamille 01-29-2006 10:07 AM

An oddworld movie sure but more then anything else I would want it to be like AO

Xavier 01-29-2006 10:59 AM

I agree with NDW... actually a lot of the pre-production stuff is allready done.
the only think that's left is to finally make the models, the animations and the shots...

that can't be 6 years

monkeybait 01-29-2006 11:56 AM

6 years would be crazy anyway... I dont think Lorne would be able to keep a strong fanbase for that long...

Fuzzle Guy 01-29-2006 12:04 PM

Toy Story: 5 years animation
Antz: 4 years animation
Shrek: 6 years animation

The Thing that takes the time is the animation, not the design, believe me. If anyone tries to say anything else then I'll let them believe what they want.

Pluss, for proffesional productions, it takes 1 hour to render 1 second of CG film, imagine a 90 minute film. That'll take up a lot of time. Not really that much but I figured it out. Figure it out and you'll see it takes a while.

metroixer 01-29-2006 03:04 PM

Heh look at the votes. 1 "no" and 32 "yes" :D.

Nate 01-29-2006 03:30 PM

:

Toy Story: 5 years animation
Antz: 4 years animation
Shrek: 6 years animation

Please give us sources for that that prove we are talking about animation and not total production.

:

Pluss, for proffesional productions, it takes 1 hour to render 1 second of CG film, imagine a 90 minute film. That'll take up a lot of time. Not really that much but I figured it out. Figure it out and you'll see it takes a while.

But what you're forgetting is that they don't render the whole movie in one big block when they finish animation; they do it in bits as they go along. In any case, that is a massive generalisation. Rendering time depends on the complexity of the scene. A scene from Finding Nemo set on a reef with huge amounts of coral and hundreds of fish, with complex lighting and water effects would take hours. A scene from Toy Story with Woody walking through the bedroom would take considerably less time.

Fuzzle Guy 01-30-2006 09:30 AM

I give up. Lets talk about the Oddworld movie.

I wonder who put no. Some Oddworld fan they are.

Leto 01-30-2006 01:04 PM

What a pointless thread.

You're on an Oddworld forum, and you ask oddworld fans if they would like to see an oddworld movie.

What a stupid and attention whoring thread this is. If anyone votes no: "Some Oddworld fan they are".

What is this, Nazi Germany?

OANST 01-30-2006 01:07 PM

Yes. Yes, it is. Now get back in line. That furnace won't burn all day.

used:) 01-30-2006 01:52 PM

:

What a pointless thread.

You're on an Oddworld forum, and you ask oddworld fans if they would like to see an oddworld movie.

What a stupid and attention whoring thread this is. If anyone votes no: "Some Oddworld fan they are".

What is this, Nazi Germany?

Agreed, this thread is just a load of bullshit.

Look, I know the forums needs activity, but that doesn't mean you go making stupid threads whose answers will be pretty obvious. Sheesh.

monkeybait 01-30-2006 02:52 PM

:

Yes. Yes, it is. Now get back in line. That furnace won't burn all day.

just to add to pointlessness

Ahem

OMH!!1 thts teh funyzorr!!!11!!!!!!1 ^^

That is all...

Nate 01-30-2006 04:36 PM

Well clearly this thread is not 100% centered around the original question. The topic has meandered to being that of what we expect the movie to be like and as such is a legitimate topic, if one with a misleading subject line.

If it really were a pointless thread, it wouldn't have gotten to three pages. So you can keep your vaguely superiour, snide remarks to yourself thankyou very much.

Leto 01-31-2006 01:06 PM

I aint no superior being, lowly shrews. I just point thems as I sees 'em.


WHALE BIOLOGIST

Dipstikk 01-31-2006 03:02 PM

:

I aint no superior being, lowly shrews. I just point thems as I sees 'em.


WHALE BIOLOGIST

"Anything else?"
"Yeah. You're lumpy and you smell awful! Whale biologist!"

LOL TV REFRENCES : D

used:) 01-31-2006 03:06 PM

Okay, I'm filling this thread up some more spam to get it closed.














Garbanzo beans...

Slaveless 01-31-2006 04:11 PM

I'm surprised at you guys. You tell spammers to shut their yaps and now this! Like Kimon said "It's better to post only when you have something meaningful to say as opposed to shitting spam everywhere you go." If you want this topic to be elimated, just stop posting and let a moderator lock it!

used:) 01-31-2006 04:25 PM

Well look at the thread, IS there really anything meaningful to be said here?

"HEHEH! WOULD YOU SEE AN ODDWOILD MOVY?? HEH! I MAYK A THWED!"

Simple concept, simple conversation, thats Chicago. And God save Illinois.

Xavier 02-01-2006 03:02 AM

I'm sorry used, monkeybait, Dipstikk and Super Munch but I can tollerate this behavior.
Next time it will be a warning.

Slaveless 02-01-2006 03:07 AM

Nothing should be said here. You're right. But that doesn't mean to make this a spam-a-roma topic.

Abok 02-01-2006 03:36 AM

In my opinion the main question of this thread wasn't smart. But later there was some interesting discussion between Fuzzle Guy, nate_doog_woof and few other people about movie :)
About question: "HEHEH! WOULD YOU SEE AN ODDWOILD MOVY??" I answer "SURE I WOULD!" :)

Leto 02-01-2006 01:52 PM

Honestly, Xavier. **** you.

My opinion is justified by this threads lack of a point. I could give you an essay explaining all this, but it's such an overly stupid subject to begin with.

Why the hell are you still a moderator?

Nate 02-01-2006 02:16 PM

Because he doesn't flame up when someone disagrees with him?
Because he doesn't whinge and whine when something is not 100% pleasing to him?
Because he doesn't fill threads with pointless spam just because he doesn't like them?

Are those enough reasons for you?

Leto 02-01-2006 02:54 PM

Not at all.

:

Because he doesn't flame up when someone disagrees with him?
No, he just warns them.

:

Because he doesn't whinge and whine when something is not 100% pleasing to him?
No, he just warns the displeasing object/person.

:

Because he doesn't fill threads with pointless spam just because he doesn't like them?
No, he just 'walks by' and warns the 'spammers'.

He has one mode of attack, and I think some ****ing maturity needs to be injected into his system.

used:) 02-01-2006 04:25 PM

I agree with Super Munch. Since I have been here Xavier has done a fair job as a moderator, not good, fair. From what I have seen, all he has done to solve problems has slapped warnign son them without actually trying to fix the problem.

Dipstikk 02-01-2006 05:35 PM

:

I'm sorry used, monkeybait, Dipstikk and Super Munch but I can tollerate this behavior.
Next time it will be a warning.

Yeah, I figured. Sorry, Xav.

Nate 02-01-2006 08:00 PM

If he really followed your modus operandi you would all have been given warnings already. I don't know what you expect the guy to do. He made it clear to you that spammy behaviour is unacceptable and that if you do it again you'll get warned. What more do you want Xav to do - come and write your posts for you?

Leto 02-01-2006 08:38 PM

His definition of spam is a broad one. As stated many, many times before, there is a difference between spam and conversation.

OWF has grown tiresome, and is reduced to a puddle of crapulance.

No, no. Don't let me interupt your Xavier cock sucking.

G.A.Pster 02-02-2006 12:58 AM

.........
 
Yeah, I would definitely. But I’d like a game to go along with it.