WOW! Have you guys seen this shit?
Other urls found in this thread:
lovingvincent.com
twitter.com
I wanted to but tickets werre sold out
Wow holy shit that's REALLY impressive.
That's going to win a bunch of awards probably.
I've been waiting for a while to take my gf to the cinema for this one. It's not being shown anywhere near where we live yet, but today there's 1080p torrents out. I don't fucking get it.
dude Waking Life but with oil paint.
...
Heard about it for a while now. Seems like the type to win a lot of Oscars but I don't know if an animated film could do it.
shitty gimmick
Interesting. Something different at least, makes me have more hope for cinema.
hehe you did it
just shut up you fool. lame attempts at generating buzz such as this will only become more common.
>The FIRST movie ENTIRELY done BACKWARDS
Totally the exact same thing.
It requires a similar amount of planning and effort, yes. Or are you implying that tracing is hard.
>Each of the film's 65,000 frames is an oil painting on canvas, using the same technique as Van Gogh, created by a team of 115 painters.
Fuck me, I just thought they used one of those Google algorithms or something similar. That is seriously impressive.
I see you've already given up. Weak.
>hurr let's make a movie about the life of a painter and because he likes to pain a lot we should paint the movie in the style of some of his paintings It's like poetry!
Given up what? You're an idiot if you think this is impressive at all.
>more hope for cinema
As opposed to something like Norte getting universal acclaim and an international release. Stupid twat.
dude fuck art amirite
Bait quality dropping faster than TWD episodes.
Has anyone watched it?
You think a oil painting movie this good looking is not impressive?
>someone says something I don't agree with and I call it bait
Is that the essence of your argument?
>getting this angry over a neat movie
wew
style over substance
also focusing on only the meme stories about van gogh
gimmick garbage
I think the gimmick will wear off in like 20 minutes if the story isn't interesting.
There's nothing to argue about, fishing for replies isn't an argument to begin with.
>also focusing on only the meme stories about van gogh
are there any others?
>style over substance
Why not both? Have you actually seen the movie?
Its not oil painting though, it looks flat like digital illustrative work does. Its a brush mimicking oil. It looks awful.
There's no point in arguing with someone impressed with cheap parlor gimmicks.
>hope in cinema restored!
Did you say that about Boyhood, I wonder?
It's pretty, pretty good.
Who are you quoting?
this guy
Loved the film. It was very emotional.
If only Vincent could see how much of an influence his art became.
a movie about an oil painter, made using oil paintings. cool, i guess.
but did it take 12 years to make?
painted in Poland
Wow Scanner darkly looks like *THAT*?
Vincent was an autist. I don't anyone outside of socially retarded losers understand what he went through.
wtf this looks like an extremely low budget movie with a shitty phone app filter
FUCK OFF SHILLS
Seems pretty gimmicky because it was first shot on film with real actors and the painters just painted on every frame of the film.
Yes it's a remarkable achievement, but in the end you are getting just a film made by the director, the painters here are not the artists, they are the medium.
>2D image looks flat
>wtf this looks like an extremely low budget movie with a shitty phone app filter
Oh well, it's not. Its painted, look
>the painters here are not the artists
Except they're mimicking van Gogh's art style in every scene. It's not just painting over footage. They're transforming the rotoscope footage into van Gogh art.
I wanted to but I have already missed the last screening I can go.
Besides I didn't really try to see it. because I believe oil painting is not supposed to be used in animation. It's a waste of time and achieves poor quality.
eleanor tomlinson? please yes
>DUDE EVERY FRAME IS A PAINTING
>BUT INSTEAD OF GOOD PAINTINGS LIKE REMBRANDT LETS BASE IT OFF SQUIGGLY ASS VAN GOGH
Basically pic related but more pretentious
Every frame a painting - literally!
*looks directly at camera*
*slide whistle*
I'd like my cheque now, Mister Stoklasa
>i don't like what they like, they must be shills
oh you
i think it looks great, heard about it last year
>45 replies
>21 posters
>only 1 guy has actually seen the film
dude let's make a movie about walt disney's life only let's animate it like an early walt disney cartoon lol
dude let's make a film about John Conway's life but animate it with sprite art generated from the Conway's game of life
It's like poetry! It rhymes!
It's shown in a place near me for two weeks but I don't want it to have my money so no
I hate people saying that I should sponsor "arts"
>Vincent
I'd be pissed off if I was Vincent (or Tesla or any of the other people who became famous after they died a crappy death and had people profiting off their name).
Convince me why should I watch this film which has no diversity.
how can you possibly know that
yawn. Call me when David Lynch does it
I'm gonna see it when it opens here
I hate that it is advertised as "the first painted movie" how the fuck do they think animation was done before computers?
looks like shit
t. patrician
>>The FIRST movie ENTIRELY done BACKWARDS
that was MEMENTO and it worked
Saw a screening of this in Norway last month, I liked it. The music was great too.
Don't really get the hate for it 2bh.
Do people really say that? I don't really care 2bh, my girlfriend is an art fiend and I thought I'd surprise her with movie tickets but apparently I'm out of luck.
Yes, and that's not making "art" per se, they are not expressing themselves by painting, they are merely copypasting images which the cinematographer and the director made, and copypasting it by trying to mimmick Van Gogh's style.
I know it's an overused buzzword, but it is kinda gimmicky
>gimmicky
Anons don't understand that Vincent's story wouldn't work otherwise. Painting is all he did and it's how he wanted his story to be told, through his paintings, therefore they made this film with his painting style(there were also actual paintings of him in the film). It was beautiful.
Don't they give art history classes in high school anymore?
People here are just hating because that makes them look cool
>Don't really get the hate for it 2bh.
You get a lot of replies by posting something contrarian. Then you can keep on replying with more extreme views to keep the replies coming until you get the illusion of having a conversation with somebody.
It definitely will. Just like Hardcore Henry's 1st person perspective. But it might be an interesting watch though. At least it's trying something different
Looks boring. Another depressed white man killing himself the movie
no we just think it looks like melodramatic, gimmicky shit and that you people are easily impressed idiots with bad taste in movies.
what's the budget of this movie and how desperate and hungry were the artists enough to work for the little amount they got paid.
Where did you see it?
>If only Vincent could see how much of an influence his art became.
that feel
>bad taste
He thinks objective taste exists.
Since most movies have a shitton of "diversity" nowadays, having ones that with none contribute to diversity as a whole. Take a step back and look at the big picture!
>it's how he wanted his story to be told, through his paintings
Yes, through HIS paintings, not through a live action reenactement that was later "van goghified" by painting on top of those already filmed frames.
It was sponsored by a bunch of foundations and partially funded by the EU. They could afford Clint Mansell. I'm sure they were paid properly.
I saw it last month and it was good. I'd recommend it to everyone, especially the people that are just now getting to know van Gogh and his art.
Anyone has the van gogh version of CIA?
>they are not expressing themselves by painting
>they are merely copypasting images
How are these two mutual exclusive? They don't just copy paste shit with a van Gogh filter, they are reinterpreting the footage into something resembling Vincent's style a d animating it along the way.
they got £53,292 from kickstarter to do it
Have you seen the movie?
Autistic dcuck
>plebs here actually think this looks good
aren't the Blade Redditors supposed to have scurried back to r/movies by now
>arthouse movie about art
Literally for soyboys
People bitter and insecure about not being famous filmmakers hate seeing effort and hard work being rewarded. It's obvious this project took a lot of time and collective passion, and even if the plot may lack depth, the obvious draw of the film is its visuals.
>Literally for soyboys
i doubt Sup Forums leave their mom's house enough to go to the movies user
It isn't about his death, really, it's about understanding him. Every character has a completely contradictory Rashomon idea of what Vincent was as a man. The main POV character starts of thinking he's a lunatic not worth thinking anout and his mission from his father to deliver one of Vincent's undelivered letters is complete waste of time.
soyboy isn't even a Sup Forums term. also
>paying to see movies
kek
>when you call in the flight plan
who is the Van Gogh of directors? Dare I say, Nolan?
Sauce now plz
Dog fucking cunt, Vincent is /ourguy/.
What, no caped heroes? No over the top villain? NO QUIPS!?
I'm not paying for this.
>How are these two mutual exclusive?
Because the framing, composition, performances, blocking is all already done, the painters can only "express" themselves by maybe using more intensive colors or strokes while painting on top of that, but even then they are constricted by the fact that they need to make it look like Van Gogh made it.
retard
Sup Forums are the most soy of all boys though, it's an apt term
concept looks neat but why did they choose such a lame story with that disgusting britbong chav cunt
OI GUVNA I GOTS A LETTUH FOR YA
this can't be real
this single image has more artistic merit than the entire film
Fucking normies never give you the respect you deserve when you're alive and as soon as you die and your work become profitable, they shower praises over your name.
This movie is stupid
1. So you draw 24 frames and flash them in a second so they look as if the painting is moving. This is called animation not painting. Painting don't move. Painting is composed and designed to be looked at without moving.
2. Perspective is the second problem. Movies uses photography. Animation can choose to imitate photography or imitate painting. Using painting to imitate photography is just dumb.
3. "We are going to show you the way Vincent Van Gogh saw the world". Pretty sure he didn't see the world like this. Painters see the same world as everyone and they create the painting.
4. so much time is spent painting one frame.
The only practical way to make animation is to find a method to paint with speed. So you end up distorting the technique of painting for your animation purpose
On the other hand: is painting a good medium to make animation frame? Is it fast enough even in its distorted form? Is it easy to be photographed? Does it bring texture and details that help animation to look better? No. it just takes more time to make less effects.
Too long don't read: it's a waste of time and paints