Bricks in Motion
We are a friendly filmmaking community devoted to the art of stop-motion animation using LEGO® and similar construction toys. Here, you can share your work, join our community of other brickfilmers, and participate in periodic animation contests!
A place to discuss, share, and create stop motion films.
Ad
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/ … lego-movie
This article talks about the upcoming LEGO movie and how it'll be a CG film.
Thoughts?
As someone who does CGI "brickfilming", I'm disappointed. There is nothing better than an actually well done Brickfilm, CGI can't compete. I think CGI is for when resources are limited...
I'm also not surprised, LEGO does most of its animation in CGI. Commercials, TV shows, DVDs, almost all CGI.
Sounds... interesting. I'll try not to get my hopes up for this one, because with such a subject there is plenty of room for it not to pan out to my own desires. I would have preferred a Stop-Motion film, however I am glad that they say the film will have "the purposefully hand-crafted feel of stop motion animation." It could be done really well and I hope that it is.
Well, that's certainly disappointing.
It really bugs me how CGI and VFX are taking over the world of brickfilming. It used to be just a simple camera, microphone, and editing system, but now, everyone's interested in buying expensive-as-heck equipment (i.e. an expensive camera and a number of desk lamps, instead of just one) and computers. Why CGI? That's my question. Why can't it be more Robot Chicken-esque stuff and animated Lego movies? This is just sad.
This doesn't phase me at all. I mean, when was the last time a LEGO movie wasn't in CG?
However, I am a bit disheartened by the hate of CGI in brickfilms. I don't think just because you use CGI means you have a lack of resources, nor do I think CGI is much simpler to do compared to brickfilming (As a matter of fact, it's much more difficult IMO). It is overused, yes, but if you (Talking about us amateurs) are skilled at CG/VFX why kick those skills to the curb to preserve the 'traditional' brickfilm look?
That being said, I am a bit disappointed by the fact that it isn't a brickfilm, as overall I do prefer brickfilms over CG.
There's no doubt it's going to look amazing.
Which do you think is cheaper?
The computers and processing and costs associated with cg films.
Or the lego brick and time required to make the stop motion film.
There's no doubt it's going to look amazing.
Which do you think is cheaper?
The computers and processing and costs associated with cg films.
Or the lego brick and time required to make the stop motion film.
I'm pretty sure Lego would provide the bricks for free for this kind of project. It's a huge ad for the company. So I have no doubt simple stop-motion animation is cheaper and both CGI and stop-motion consume a lot of time not a big difference between those two.
I think we already had this kind of discussion in another thread some months ago.
With CGI you can do things otherwise impossible or really difficult to make with actual stop motion. Say, you want your leg to bend. Can you do that with a normal minifigure? Not that I know.
Untill it's just a short, you might not need it, but in a long feature movie you might want to have a bit more of freedom with the animation and expressions.
After all, a stop motion project would be nice, maybe look better than CGI. But you have to consider these things.
Frankly, I think having it CG but with a stop-motion feel is a great compromise. I doubt they would have been able to sell a stop-motion with actual LEGO, especially with how limited LEGO mini-figures are.
Also, if it's coming out in Summer 2014, I might be able to see it in theaters. W00t.
P.S. CGI is NOT easier than stop-motion.
I would have LOVED to see a brickfilm in the theaters, but as Littlebrick said, CG with a stop-motion feel is not to bad of a compromise.. I will probably be able to see this in theaters. 
P.S. CGI is NOT easier than stop-motion.
Especially if one is trying to replicate a real world environment (lighting, texture, etc.)
Yes they are both very hard to do if you want to produce something really good. IMO CGI is harder, I'm very aware of many stop-motion techniques but CGI stuff to me seems very confusing 
that's why I think CGI is harder.
That's too bad. I would have loved to see an actual brickfilm make it into the theaters, but perhaps not. Also, how do you think they will show that it's LEGO, when it's CG? I mean, the whole purpose of LEGO is how it's a plastic, versatile toy. Without the realism, it's not LEGO. I don't know how they're going to pull it off.
This is kinda old news. While CGI might not be easier than stop-motion, it seems like it would probably be easier to create with the large production teams that work on such movies.
I wasn't sure until now that it was cg because of their phrasing - using the words brickfilms and stuff.
But I think it'll be SUPER easy to do with cg because there aren't any complicated surfaces or textures or curves really. It's all uniform squares and stuff so that might make the cg really easy.
It would be really cool to see it if it was real LEGO. That would be something worth seeing in the theatres
I don't understand. CGI costs WAAY MORE than stop-motion! It may take a little longer, but it's not like you'd be doing animation on their expressions! THEY HAVE ONLY ONE.
I can see how they would go with this choice since eeverything is CGI now, but this is still such a bullcrap route.
CGI doesn't get better with repetition. Nothing does.
I don't understand. CGI costs WAAY MORE than stop-motion! It may take a little longer, but it's not like you'd be doing animation on their expressions! THEY HAVE ONLY ONE.
I can see how they would go with this choice since eeverything is CGI now, but this is still such a bullcrap route.
CGI doesn't get better with repetition. Nothing does.
In this case, I definitely think going CGI is justified. LEGO Mini-figures are not the most expressive characters, as you pointed out yourself. CGI or stop-motion, they'd need something a lot more flexible, and plasticine doesn't look very LEGO-y. And as much as I believe they'd love to make their film 100% stop-motion LEGO, I doubt there are many people besides us brickfilmers (and maybe even including some of us) who would shell out $10 for it.
And I'm sick of people bashing on CGI. Sick, sick, sick of it. Sure, I love hand-drawn and stop-motion as much as anyone else, perhaps even moreso, but I also — equally — love CGI. No form is superior to the other; each has pros and cons, places where it does work and where it doesn't work. What you should be hating on is all the terrible stories that are told using CGI; The Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Hop, Mars Needs Moms, etc.
And why is it the only argument people have against CGI (at least that I've seen) is that "everything is now CGI?" If that were a reasonable argument, I could argue that live-action is dumb because so many films are live-action, or that hand-drawn animation is dumb because most animated films up until 1995 were hand-drawn.
[/rant]
Stop-motion animators bashing CGI animators in a stop-motion forum while CGI animators bashing stop-motion animators in a CGI forum.
We're in the wrong forum 
.
But note, I have the utmost respect for the skilled stop-motion animators. You have more patience than I do.
Well, I guess the stop-motion animators feel that both options are ok. It's just, an original brickfilm is made out of pictures of actual LEGO and not CG. However, if they can convey the fact that the subject is LEGO with CG, then good for them.
NOTE: I am not against CG. Just cowboys.
Last edited by Eddie (March 14, 2012 (04:01am))
Posts [ 1 to 20 of 22 ]
