The Adventures of Tintin (US - DVD R1 | BD RA)
We've updated our news item with the full disc specs for the animated feature
Title: The Adventures of Tintin (IMDb)
Starring: N/A (Animation)
Released: 13th March 2012
SRP: $29.99 (DVD)
Further Details:
Paramount Home Entertainment has announced DVD ($29.99), Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($39.99), and Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($44.99) releases of The Adventures of Tintin for March 13th. As far as we know, no extra material will be included on the DVD release. The Blu-ray releases will include a number of featurettes ("Toasting Tintin: Part 1 & 2", "The Journey of Tintin", "The World of Tintin", "The Who's Who of Tintin", "Tintin: Conceptual Design", "Tintin: In the Volume", "Snowy: From Beginning to End", "Animating Tintin", "Tintin: The Score", "Collecting Tintin"). We've attached the package artwork below:
News by Tom Woodward
Starring: N/A (Animation)
Released: 13th March 2012
SRP: $29.99 (DVD)
Further Details:
Paramount Home Entertainment has announced DVD ($29.99), Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($39.99), and Blu-ray 3D/Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($44.99) releases of The Adventures of Tintin for March 13th. As far as we know, no extra material will be included on the DVD release. The Blu-ray releases will include a number of featurettes ("Toasting Tintin: Part 1 & 2", "The Journey of Tintin", "The World of Tintin", "The Who's Who of Tintin", "Tintin: Conceptual Design", "Tintin: In the Volume", "Snowy: From Beginning to End", "Animating Tintin", "Tintin: The Score", "Collecting Tintin"). We've attached the package artwork below:
News by Tom Woodward
Advertisements
Existing Posts
best animated movie in a long time . def loved this movie.
moviewizguy wrote: stevepulaski wrote: For animated films, $360 is a pretty meager gross. Like superhero movies, a good performance is around $500 million at least. According to my knowledge, no animated film made close to that this year, which is why the "Best Animated Feature" nominations are all very mixed. I missed this in theaters, sadly. Didn't seem to be out very long at all.
Ummm, no. Think again. "Kung Fu Panda 2" made $665.7 million worldwide. "Cars 2" made $559.9 million, "Puss in Boots" made $506.8 million, and "Rio" made $484.6 million. Regardless, how much a film makes in the box office isn't a good indicator on its quality.
+1 here on that one.
I wish this motion capture stuff would be a bit more smoother myself...they seem to do ok with the 'traditional' computer animation...
Ummm, no. Think again. "Kung Fu Panda 2" made $665.7 million worldwide. "Cars 2" made $559.9 million, "Puss in Boots" made $506.8 million, and "Rio" made $484.6 million. Regardless, how much a film makes in the box office isn't a good indicator on its quality.
+1 here on that one.
I wish this motion capture stuff would be a bit more smoother myself...they seem to do ok with the 'traditional' computer animation...
Mike D wrote: Filligan wrote: Are 3D blu-rays really getting the best cover art now?
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
I'm quite sure the 3D version is the director's intended version. It was always envisioned as a 3D film, so why shouldn't this version get the better cover art? Besides, you could always buy this and watch the 2D version only... but you'd truly be missing out, because the 3D was fantastic in this. And fad? Do you see in 2D or 3D? I'm quite sure your eyesight isn't a fad sir.
Yeah, Avatar was intended for 3D as well, but as a home medium it's still a fad. I could buy this version, but why? I'm not a fool willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to accommodate 3D films and then pay $40 for one single movie. That makes it a sad fad. Hell, it's really a fad in theaters too. It can be retro-fitted onto anything (and in most cases is) and makes people pay an extra $3 to gain absolutely nothing spectacular from the experience. I do see in 3D, but I need special glasses to watch films in 3D. I mean, this is the most asinine form of reasoning... shouldn't all my games and books be 3D as well then? Oh, and why the heck don't they make prints of photos in 3D? Why aren't the words in my newspapers literally jumping off the page? I mean, I see in 3D, so what gives? What is wrong with everyone's eyesight?!
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
I'm quite sure the 3D version is the director's intended version. It was always envisioned as a 3D film, so why shouldn't this version get the better cover art? Besides, you could always buy this and watch the 2D version only... but you'd truly be missing out, because the 3D was fantastic in this. And fad? Do you see in 2D or 3D? I'm quite sure your eyesight isn't a fad sir.
Yeah, Avatar was intended for 3D as well, but as a home medium it's still a fad. I could buy this version, but why? I'm not a fool willing to shell out ridiculous amounts of money to accommodate 3D films and then pay $40 for one single movie. That makes it a sad fad. Hell, it's really a fad in theaters too. It can be retro-fitted onto anything (and in most cases is) and makes people pay an extra $3 to gain absolutely nothing spectacular from the experience. I do see in 3D, but I need special glasses to watch films in 3D. I mean, this is the most asinine form of reasoning... shouldn't all my games and books be 3D as well then? Oh, and why the heck don't they make prints of photos in 3D? Why aren't the words in my newspapers literally jumping off the page? I mean, I see in 3D, so what gives? What is wrong with everyone's eyesight?!
My friend and I went to see this film because nothing else was playing. I was REALLY impressed. Reminded me of the kind of movies I liked as a kid. I have really bad ADD during movies (even though it's my passion) and I was engrossed the entire time. Animation was great. Felt like I was part of the movie.
Filligan wrote: Are 3D blu-rays really getting the best cover art now?
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
I'm quite sure the 3D version is the director's intended version. It was always envisioned as a 3D film, so why shouldn't this version get the better cover art? Besides, you could always buy this and watch the 2D version only... but you'd truly be missing out, because the 3D was fantastic in this. And fad? Do you see in 2D or 3D? I'm quite sure your eyesight isn't a fad sir.
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
I'm quite sure the 3D version is the director's intended version. It was always envisioned as a 3D film, so why shouldn't this version get the better cover art? Besides, you could always buy this and watch the 2D version only... but you'd truly be missing out, because the 3D was fantastic in this. And fad? Do you see in 2D or 3D? I'm quite sure your eyesight isn't a fad sir.
Missed it in 3D, saw it only last week in 2D, which probably helped me to evaluate the movie per se. Totally bleh... It's incredible how nowadays seeing that a movie is directed by Spielberg means next to nothing...
Are 3D blu-rays really getting the best cover art now?
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
...Really?
Somebody kill this stupid fad.
Wouldn't mind to own the blu-ray, the movie quite worked for me, having grown on Tintin's adventures on paper as a boy. I didn't think they went too far the other direction and made many great decisions for this first movie. Can't wait for the sequel and to see the new characters introduced. I'll be there.
This was okay, don't need to see it again.
Absolutely adored the film! People can say what they want, but The Adventures of Tintin is a full on enjoyable film that really does take us back to our childhood. Spielberg can do no wrong when it comes to filmmaking. I enjoyed the majority of the films he's directed. The man knows the arts. I haven't read the Tintin books, so I'm not going to judge whether he did a good job of interpreting it into the film. He did bring his own flavor into the Tintin world which made me hooked on throughout. You also get that Indiana Jones feeling as well that just makes wou know that you are watching a Spielberg film. And when Spielberg's on board you know John William's isn't far. The music was amazing, it gave the perfect ring to the film. Worth the oscar nomination. Andy Serkis was unbelieveable as Captain Haddock! He nailed that part in every way! The man has pure talent for what he does. Although I'm not a fan of these motion capture animated films, I think they're creepy, I really enjoyed this film. Definitely a buy for me.
What are some of you lot on about?! To clarify a few mistakes above me:
a) A sequel has ALREADY been green-lit.
b) Worldwide box office is currently sitting at $367 million. US box office isn't *everything* anymore. The sequel was green-lit based on the international box office figures ALONE.
c) This was an outstanding adaptation of Tintin. I was thoroughly impressed by the way they managed to combine two entirely individual stories (from the books) and make one seamless, exciting adventure story. Some of the shots in this movie were almost completely identical to those seen in the 90s television series.
I'll be picking up the 3D version on day ONE from France.
a) A sequel has ALREADY been green-lit.
b) Worldwide box office is currently sitting at $367 million. US box office isn't *everything* anymore. The sequel was green-lit based on the international box office figures ALONE.
c) This was an outstanding adaptation of Tintin. I was thoroughly impressed by the way they managed to combine two entirely individual stories (from the books) and make one seamless, exciting adventure story. Some of the shots in this movie were almost completely identical to those seen in the 90s television series.
I'll be picking up the 3D version on day ONE from France.
stevepulaski wrote: For animated films, $360 is a pretty meager gross. Like superhero movies, a good performance is around $500 million at least. According to my knowledge, no animated film made close to that this year, which is why the "Best Animated Feature" nominations are all very mixed. I missed this in theaters, sadly. Didn't seem to be out very long at all.
Ummm, no. Think again. "Kung Fu Panda 2" made $665.7 million worldwide. "Cars 2" made $559.9 million, "Puss in Boots" made $506.8 million, and "Rio" made $484.6 million. Regardless, how much a film makes in the box office isn't a good indicator on its quality.
Ummm, no. Think again. "Kung Fu Panda 2" made $665.7 million worldwide. "Cars 2" made $559.9 million, "Puss in Boots" made $506.8 million, and "Rio" made $484.6 million. Regardless, how much a film makes in the box office isn't a good indicator on its quality.
mlcm wrote: As a Tintin aficionado who read them en francais, I'm irritated that the dog isn't named Milou. As somebody who dislikes raving fanboys, I'm irritated that I made that criticism. As a fetishist of technology, I'm irritated the general film audience didn't accept the mocap style. As a film fan, I'm irritated with the film's failure with fundamentals.
One can see how conflicted I am with this particular movie.
I can perfectly understand your mixed feelings. I have the collection in English, so the dog is always Snowy for me! I think it was pretty nice and I did enjoy the animation. It allowed for shots that would have looked too CGI if they were shot in live action.
I am happy if there is a second movie, especially if Peter Jackson is directing it. I am sure that Caculus will make a wonderful addition to the series. Soon they will introduce Rastapopulous and we will be up and running!
One can see how conflicted I am with this particular movie.
I can perfectly understand your mixed feelings. I have the collection in English, so the dog is always Snowy for me! I think it was pretty nice and I did enjoy the animation. It allowed for shots that would have looked too CGI if they were shot in live action.
I am happy if there is a second movie, especially if Peter Jackson is directing it. I am sure that Caculus will make a wonderful addition to the series. Soon they will introduce Rastapopulous and we will be up and running!
Fun movie but a tad long. I think i even prefer the 3d cover art, but not sure. I like both covers though. I'm not sure if i'd buy this but it is worth seeing once.
$360 million isn't small for a movie gross at all. The bottom point is if they decide to go ahead and make a second film. Some big movies flop really big and i say this one is probably just in the middle somewhere between failure and big success.
Epic cinema experience!! I hope they make more.
Steven Spielberg has never liked commentaries unfortunately. I think it is apart of him being such a purist.
Steven Spielberg has never liked commentaries unfortunately. I think it is apart of him being such a purist.
I was planning on seeing this Wednesday in theatres.
I've liked Tintin since I was a kid but I'm mostly only aware of the only four books I own (all in English) and the animated series that I greatly enjoyed. Hell I think I'm going to go watch it now.
I've liked Tintin since I was a kid but I'm mostly only aware of the only four books I own (all in English) and the animated series that I greatly enjoyed. Hell I think I'm going to go watch it now.
I'm guessing the special features will be scarce and unrevealing until the trilogy is complete to make every body who loved the series double-dip...
I wonder if Spielberg will allow Peter to do a commentary track for the film. I'm guessing not.
As a Tintin aficionado who read them en francais, I'm irritated that the dog isn't named Milou. As somebody who dislikes raving fanboys, I'm irritated that I made that criticism. As a fetishist of technology, I'm irritated the general film audience didn't accept the mocap style. As a film fan, I'm irritated with the film's failure with fundamentals.
One can see how conflicted I am with this particular movie.
One can see how conflicted I am with this particular movie.
I dunno. This looks very fun, but I still can't get over that creepy, awkward and generally hideous animation.
For animated films, $360 is a pretty meager gross. Like superhero movies, a good performance is around $500 million at least. According to my knowledge, no animated film made close to that this year, which is why the "Best Animated Feature" nominations are all very mixed. I missed this in theaters, sadly. Didn't seem to be out very long at all.
I thought it was very enjoyable, and a good first effort.
The 2nd film is already confirmed by Spielberg and Jackson I believe, and I'd hardly call the current $360 million box office return peanuts.
I'll look forward to the next one.
The 2nd film is already confirmed by Spielberg and Jackson I believe, and I'd hardly call the current $360 million box office return peanuts.
I'll look forward to the next one.
This film has nothing, nothing to do at all with Tintin.
As nice and fun –even impressive in some ways– this movie was by itself as a piece of animated entertainment, I guess it was a badly misguided adaptation of the source material, clearly alienating a huge chunk of its potential target audience.
Those already familiar with TINTIN felt underwhelmed by an unrespectful adaptation that had really not much to do with the spirit of the original, while those not interested in TINTIN remained, well, uninterested.
So, in a sense, they had it coming.
Hollywood should learn once and for all to stop rehashing and reheating trite adaptations and sequels, and start giving us again new, original offerings. Something tells me this movie would have performed much better if it had been produced and presented as that, just an adventure movie with original characters and story, free of any adaptation trappings and limitations.
Those already familiar with TINTIN felt underwhelmed by an unrespectful adaptation that had really not much to do with the spirit of the original, while those not interested in TINTIN remained, well, uninterested.
So, in a sense, they had it coming.
Hollywood should learn once and for all to stop rehashing and reheating trite adaptations and sequels, and start giving us again new, original offerings. Something tells me this movie would have performed much better if it had been produced and presented as that, just an adventure movie with original characters and story, free of any adaptation trappings and limitations.
I really enjoyed this movie, despite all the changes made from the actual story. I think that was inevitable.
Still, not word on the special features. I guess the non-performance in the US would limit an elaborate release and also prevent the sequel from being made.
And strictly speaking, the movie seems to have gross under $300 million worldwide as well, so not a real big hit at all.
Sad really.
Still, not word on the special features. I guess the non-performance in the US would limit an elaborate release and also prevent the sequel from being made.
And strictly speaking, the movie seems to have gross under $300 million worldwide as well, so not a real big hit at all.
Sad really.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Unseen Reviews
Doctor Who: Scream of the Shalka
UK - DVD R2
Stuff, The
UK - BD RB
Capricorn One
UK - BD RB
Massacre Mafia Style
US - BD
Manchurian Candidate, The
UK - BD RB
Hot Articles
Star Wars: The Changes - Part One
DVD | BD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Four
DVD
Subwoofer Group Test - £250 to £350
DVD
Star Wars: The Changes - Part Three
DVD
The Matrix Visual Comparison
DVD
New Editorials
David Hayter
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
SXSW Film 2013 - Part 1
US - DVD | HD | BD
Will streaming kill physical media?
DVD | HD | BD
Gabe's 2012 Wrap-Up
DVD | BD
Netflix Reviewed
UK - DVD | HD | BD
Most Talked About
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Big Hero 6
US - BD RA
Imitation Game
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Birdman
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Taken 3
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
