Why hasn't any other film done this before /tv/?

>>84961606
Because rotoscoping takes fucking ages.

You try painting over 144000 pictures of Keanu's face.

>>84961606

Literally waking life

>>84961606
sounds retarded

50 people working 15 months, what a waste of time

>>84961834
also fire and ice and wizards
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz-yLWGaIxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcnQ7Dlk_Ks

and probably a billion others.

richard linklater is so subtly the best filmmaker of his generation that nobody will ever realize it

And no mention of PKD?

>>84962413
I love the Before movies to death but with Boyhood he completely lost me.

>>84962487
Boyhood wasn't bad, I think it was divisive on release because people were expecting more or reacting to the silly critical reaction it was getting.

It was a low budget art project Linklater worked on for a week every year. It was supposed to be called "13 Years" and that's telling of the subject. It's not some revelatory coming of age story. It's experimental film lite. I also think it will make more sense and resonate better the farther we get from the years it covered. There is a kind of time capsule element to the movie that doesn't really work yet.

>>84961606
Oh, you mean like... a filter?

>>84962413
>subtly

>>84962758
it took 15 months for premiere to render the whole movie with the posterized edges effect and 50 people to variously make sure nobody turned the power off

The animation studio doesn't seem to be interested in making films anymore. Probably because of what >>84961801 mentioned.

Now all they do is make Nintendo and iOS apps.

>>84962208
using rotoscopy mixed with traditional animation usually looks like shit, unless there are real pros in charge.

classic disney is possibly the worst offender.

>>84961606
Rotoscoping?

the book is really sad

Aren't they going to release a rotoscoped movie about van Gogh soon?

>>84961606
Because the result of 15 months you got a shitty looking movie when you could have just kept the filmed actors on set.

I didn't watch this movie. Does it actually look good in motion? Because in the stills it looks like the style/technique might actually detract from the movie. It doesn't seem too visually interesting or pleasant and feels like it might just be a distracting gimmick.

>>84961606
Watch a TV show called Trapeze if you want something else like that.

>>84964303
just look at a clip, its interesting to look at and i dont find it distracting.

>>84964303
It works well with the druggie theme and it makes the scramble suit look like something terrifying out of a bad trip

>>84961606
Use commas, you fukctards.

>>84961606
Waltz With Bashir

THE SINS
OF FRECK

>>84964481
not rotoscoped

>>84961606
Because it's shit.

because its a gimmick only used by hacks
>what makes this film so special is the use of an ancient technique that appeals to the tastes of hipsters that are so cinematically illiterate that they think this is some revolutionary invention

>>84961801

I can appreciate that it was done, almost as an experiment to showcase the wastefulness of it.

They literally shot a movie and then rotoscoped over it, essentially making the movie twice for no reason other than aesthetics.

>>84964504
check yourself before you freck yourself

>>84961801
there has to be an Adobe Premiere plugin that does this.

when op said "why hasn't any other film done this", i thought he meant "take a rambling anti-drug diatribe from a speed-freak science fiction writer and make a cartoon out of it".

>>84965825
Let's see all of your novels that have inspired some of the best sci-fi movies ever made, faggot

>>84961606
It took essentially double the time to make the movie. But I do love it

Anyone remember that one short animation of two warriors fighting two other warriors. It looked pencil drawn and really detailed I've been trying to find it but can't remember who did it.

>>84966175
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prologue_(film)

>>84966188
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prologue_(film)
yes, tyvm

>>84965825
slapping on a filter wouldn't have produced the same effect. watch some scenes, it's really impressive to look at.

File: alex jones scanner.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

>>84961606
Was it kino?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN_VBc98dzg

RDJ's best on screen performance.

>>84964142
Yeah...
:,(

>>84967199
I forgot about that scene. Was the film set in Austin?

>>84961606
The guy who developed the tech had a huge falling out with the producers over quality vs. speed of production.

Without that tech, Rotoscoping is un-economical.

Working with the guy who owns the tech is un-economical.

>>84967596
nah nigga LA, you can even see the california flag in that shot
linklater and Alex Jones are just homies

>>84961606
I saw this movie high for the first time on DXM with his friend. We watched a double feature, Strangers with Candy, than this. Strangers with Candy was much better high. Really funny

>>84961606
It takes fucking forever and adds very little to the film. I like Scanner Darkly but the rotoscoping literally did nothing for it, if anything it detracts from it.

>>84968032
I was kind of hoping for a Whataburger or Taco Shack to sneak into the background.

>>84964303
It's the best use of that style there's been but that's not saying much

>>84961606
It has been done, but usually only in some scenes rather than an entire film, and usually as a shortcut rather than a stylistic choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if4WhCzQzyU

>>84961606
This is how they should do an archer movie

>>84961606
I think these days you could get a plug-in in premiere to do this nearly as well. You'd just need a lot of rendering time.

>>84961606
What was the fucking point?