Would you see an Oddworld movie? -

Fuzzle Guy · #61 01-29-2006, 09:54 AM

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

***Nate*** · #62 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 · #63 01-29-2006, 10:07 AM

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

***Xavier*** · #64 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 · #65 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 · #66 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 · #67 01-29-2006, 03:04 PM

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

.

***Nate*** · #68 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 · #69 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 · #70 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 · #71 01-30-2006, 01:07 PM

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

used:) · #72 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 · #73 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*** · #74 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 · #75 01-31-2006, 01:06 PM

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

WHALE BIOLOGIST

Dipstikk · #76 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:) · #77 01-31-2006, 03:06 PM

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

Garbanzo beans...

Slaveless · #78 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:) · #79 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*** · #80 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 · #81 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 · #82 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 · #83 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*** · #84 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 · #85 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:) · #86 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 · #87 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*** · #88 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 · #89 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 · #90 02-02-2006, 12:58 AM

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