|
Post by 3Dasha on Apr 26, 2009 8:04:51 GMT -5
As I have said in the ''Adding voices'' thread, making the movie definitely like the short, without any changes, will be stupid and just unoriginal. So, I totally in what Shane does, though I don't wan't much Bekmambetov's influence over the artistic medium.
|
|
|
Post by citrus02honey on May 4, 2009 14:10:41 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with everyone here.
The no dialogue approach worked great with the short, but that's because it was only 9 minutes long.
I'm excited to see voices put to the characters, especially because I think they fit well.
WALL-E was amazing.
I love Elijah Wood...
|
|
|
Post by LadyLuminary on Jul 1, 2009 10:39:54 GMT -5
Sam as everyone else: voice actors please. Speech can convey things that simple body language can't (and vice versa)
|
|
|
Post by NightRunner on Jul 1, 2009 11:57:45 GMT -5
I think they should have voices. In the short, the absence of voices was because Shane Acker wanted to make a film that focused mostly on character development and actions, not just speech, but since this is more than a 10-minute film, they should have voices.
[/size]
|
|
|
Post by --[Evayo-∞-Infinity]-- on Jul 1, 2009 14:02:54 GMT -5
Voices, definitely. Because without them... You wouldn't know what the hell's going on. Like, in terms of actual plot and explaining things, not really actions.
|
|
|
Post by Annadesu on Jul 1, 2009 15:47:22 GMT -5
I picked "honestly don't care". Because it's true! I honestly don't. My animation teacher put it wonderfully once, when I was asking him a question about my student film... "It dosen't matter if you have dialogue or not, it matters if you get the point across clearly. If the audience is confused, they are confused. It dosen't matter if that confusion was caused by words, or actions." I don't care how they do it, I just hope they do it right
|
|
WingedBeast
Full Member
133
YOUU LOST MY 9 TICKETS????!!!!!!!???????
Posts: 146
|
Post by WingedBeast on Aug 21, 2009 18:51:33 GMT -5
VOICES totally.the short was amazing without voices but voices will make this movie better!
|
|
|
Post by --[Evayo-∞-Infinity]-- on Aug 23, 2009 16:50:33 GMT -5
I'm actually really glad they made a reference to the short by keeping 9 mute in the beginning... A very wise decision on Shane's part.
|
|
Starry
Full Member
Little dreamer
Posts: 125
|
Post by Starry on Aug 24, 2009 8:47:59 GMT -5
I voted "don't care"--it's like Anna said. As long as it's well-written, voices (or lack thereof) aren't going to make a huge difference.
I could easily sit through 80 minutes of silent film. I was absolutely glued to the short when I watched it, and didn't even think twice about how 9 and 5 weren't talking--or at least weren't talking in the traditional sense--until it was over. They were communicating. I could tell you personality traits and even take a stab at relative age and what they were thinking/feeling, just from facial expressions and how they interacted with each other and the wider world. I'm not going to lie, I really loved the muteness of the short, and I hope the feature won't lose its charm because of the voices.
...But to be fair, I'm not sure how they would have marketed a nine-character movie with a complex backstory and no dialogue whatsoever. It's a promoter's nightmare, especially here in the USA where 9 is going to be difficult to market to begin with. It would have been relegated to the realm of the art-house and experimental...not such a bad place, but certainly not as mainstream as they're trying to go with this thing. I also don't know how they would have set up the plot and characters without dialogue. Had they done it, it would have been amazing...but there's a lot of potential for something like that to backfire bigtime.
Voices do mean more clues as to the roots of emotions, and thus greater emotional range and personality possibilities. Lying, deception, or even simply that deeply human characteristic of denying one's true feelngs, suddenly become possible. With emotional depth, characters' objectives become easier to understand, which means they can also become more complex...which is probably better for a feature-film format.
The bottom line is that the production team did what they thought was right, and they made some really interesting choices as far as voices go. It'll work out.
|
|
|
Post by --[Evayo-∞-Infinity]-- on Aug 31, 2009 11:24:01 GMT -5
...But to be fair, I'm not sure how they would have marketed a nine-character movie with a complex backstory and no dialogue whatsoever. It's a promoter's nightmare, especially here in the USA where 9 is going to be difficult to market to begin with. It would have been relegated to the realm of the art-house and experimental...not such a bad place, but certainly not as mainstream as they're trying to go with this thing. I also don't know how they would have set up the plot and characters without dialogue. Had they done it, it would have been amazing...but there's a lot of potential for something like that to backfire bigtime. Which is exactly why I think it's better to use voices for the feature. The backstory would be too complex to convey without dialogue, and since the film is already so difficult to promote to begin with, well... you know.
|
|
85
New Member
5 = <3
Posts: 29
|
Post by 85 on Sept 17, 2009 1:52:43 GMT -5
Personally, I liked the short without the voices. However, since it has 5 in it, I'd love it if it were voiced. I really do prefer voices for things. Too much silence would put me to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by legi0nn on Sept 17, 2009 9:28:53 GMT -5
I could honestly care... because it depends on the situation. Really, would you have no voices in an 80 min. long film? No, that would be boring. If it were an 8 min. short then sure. Otherwise, I don't really know... it really depends.
|
|
Rigi
Junior Member
Stitchpunk Rock
...And BOOM goes the dynamite!
Posts: 91
|
Post by Rigi on Oct 3, 2009 20:27:54 GMT -5
There's the valid point that all of you are bringing up and supporting rather well that some people simply can't give their attention to a long production without voices, or would lack the proper pieces to put plot and characterization together. Then there's the fact that the stitchpunks probably would like voices to communicate. 2 gives 9 a voicebox/thing because 9 can't explain anything without his voice.
For the most part, it's just a bit of sense that they would have. As for the watcher's point of view, a character is usually more memorable when you can think of what they sounded like. Often a person's voice gives them more personality depending on their speech patterns.
My view is "Yay" for voices. <.<
|
|
|
Post by lololBladeh on Oct 4, 2009 12:48:31 GMT -5
To tell the truth, I felt extreemly attached to 9 until he opened his mouth. I was just like... "FRODO". And I couldn't stop thinking that through the whole movie. >.<
I kinda wish that maybe he didn't have a voice or something, and everyone else did... or... something. XDDD;
|
|
|
Post by icyumbreon on Oct 4, 2009 14:20:20 GMT -5
I agree with Bladeh that 9 was cuter before he started talking. x3 However, I wouldn't want everyone to be mute. I guess I'll vote "yes" for voices.
|
|