Crafting Pinocchio-Guillermo del Toro's Stop-Motion Masterpiece! 

stop motion is an art in itself

Check out the LAIKA Studios' channel. They have tons! of short behind-the-scenes of many aspects of stop motion they have done. So informative, eye-opening, and astonishing the incredible amount of work, time, and effort that goes into stop motion.

It is likely to become a traveling exhibition, we're told.

@@tested if not, hopefully you can find a way to add it to your collection! Better in the hands of a maker than the ones of a destroyer

The majority of stuff from the big stop motion movies gets destroyed and put in the trash unfortunately.

@@tested It's going to the Portland Art Museum next

It's how movies are, stop motion to full live-action and everything in between. As much as you want to keep things you just don't have the space for all of this. At best the main models may be stored or sold but as they say, a lot of this stuff breaks down if not stored properly. So again the space you would need its just not possible. Everything else is trashed or reused.

MAYA, we can do this better now, Autodesk !

You mean gris grimly

@@MephProduction You meant ???? You, who ? Pinocchio ? Who old are you ?

@@lucasRem-ku6eb The film is based on Gris grimly's Pinocchio book, lots of people keep giving Toro credit for someone else's designs

The puppet metaphor also works in the movie’s political context, where everyone under Benito Mussolini’s fascist rule over Italy is a puppet (ironically except for Pinocchio himself). 😊

Yeah, i have a colleague that collects all kinds of Pinocchio memorabilia, he would have a heart attack and probably an emotional breakdown if he entered that room, haha

True

I’d be careful lumping practical effects from this movie and VFX such as the CG effects in Avatar together. It’s a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

Uh, no.

@@Unifiedesign Well idk, visual effects choices can work or they don't, the fact that something is stop motion or digital itself shouldn't matter as much. There's more labor in practical effects, but they don't always look better, and vice versa, sometimes a simple physical prop can be more realistic than some elaborate digital additions. My point is though, i don't think it's unfair or uneven to put these in the same category of Visual Effects, because that is still what they are, it's about how the effects are used. From a movie like Avatar, you expect the CGI to be good, because it fully relies on it, so there is also a lot that can go wrong. I do think it gets tricky when you want to categorize some movies, like, i remember having a discussion about the movie Gravity, because i was of the opinion that about 90% of the movie was CGI, it might as well also get an additional "Animation" label, because there was more animation and green screen going on than in Space Jam or Roger Rabbit. A Scanner Darkly is considered to be animated, even though it was recorded fully in live action but adding animated effect afterwards, but there was more live action recording than for Gravity. So i think they either have to keep it like it is, or split up the categories for specific techniques used. Kinda like what is happening with the other categories on the Grammies, or with labeling in general. The more you zoom into the labels, the more you find to distinguish from, but yeah, how far do you wanna go? I haven't kept up with most of the newer music genres, or social labels, i am fine with simpler umbrella terms.

For anybody confused by the first comment I’ll clarify. What hes really saying is….I prefer practical effects to computer generated effects. Obviously Avatar Way Of Waters effects are a staggering achievement of digital effects and can’t really be compared to practical effects in any shape or form due to the differences in technology, Two very different disciplines. But for people like dude above, CGI effects don’t really do it for them. And that’s totally ok. I personally enjoyed both films and i was blown away by the effects of both.

Hah, yeah, i haven't watched it, but yeah that is my main peeve with trying to rewatch some of the movies i liked as a kid. I already wasn't into most of the musical stuff in the movies anyway, but sitting through them now is worse. And it really puts me off going into new movies(or shows) when i know that singing is going to be a part of it, i mean, the last musical i watched was Mama Mia (2008) because i was on a date, but otherwise i avoid them. Which is a pity, because i kinda want to watch Little Shop of Horrors again, but i'm not sure i'll enjoy it as much as when i was a kid. Mel Brooks gets a pass though, his movies are always a hoot, and i actually like Madeline Kahn's "I'm Tired" in Blazing Saddles. ... i just zoned out for a sec and imagined a Star Wars musical (not that that hasn't been done already), but i mean, what if it was always a musical and Luke would start singing passionately into the double sunset... would i still actually like the movies as much as i did? Somehow i don't think that even a singing Darth Vader & The Stormtroopers could've put me off. But i would definitely not get into a musical of Star Wars at this age (39), musicals are big nostalgia breakers for me i guess.

The difference in light might just be be fstop on camera.

@@PizzaHawks yeah I'm sure it was a technical choice

We didn't bring in lighting ...

@@tested hope you got to see the exhibit lighting when you weren't filming! Very moody, like the inside of a giant dogfish