Animated?
why is this movie animated?
shareIt's actually called "rotoscoping" in this case.
share
MovieChat Forums > A Scanner Darkly (2006) Discussion > Animated?
Good question. I think it was probably to hide Keanu Reeves usual wooden performance. If so, it didn't work.
There was probably another reason. I really think if this movie wasn't rotoscoped its rating on this site would be between 3.0 and 4.0, and nobody would be gushing about it or even defending it. The animation fans go crazy, or affect craziness, (I can't tell which) over animation used for any serious theme. If this movie weren't tooned up, that crowd wouldn't care about it. The pro- and anti- drug crowds wouldn't remember it if they saw it, and the Philip K. Dick fans (a lot of crossover with them and the animation crowd) would consider it a total misfire, worse than Screamers. (Anyone remember that P.K. Dick adaptation? I think it was actually better than this.)
In fact, the animation doesn't do anything here than muddy the view up and interfere with any rapport between the audience and characters. I'd like to see what Ralph Bakshi would have done with it.
No, I really didn't like this movie.
Given the movie content, rotoscoping seems perfect for it. It's like how Psycho in color sucked, despite the fact it's a great movie. This is (personally) a great movie to me, but it would probably suck without the rotoscoping effect.
share[deleted]
Director Richard Linklater stated himself that it was simply because he felt there was not enough mature adult oriented animation out there for the consumer. He simply wanted to provide the animation world with a gritty, realistic film as opposed to another family oriented feature. The material and animation worked together splendidly, in my opinion. His earlier work on Waking Life may have the same answer - that the animation industry could use more adult, intellectually focused features, or it may have been an entirely different reason. Also, Linklater is from Austin Texas and casts native Texans in cast and crew positions as often as possible. The animation studio, Flat Black Films, is located in Austin Texas. So, perhaps he experimented with them on Waking Life and really wanted to work with them again on the premise that they yielded good work before, and helped to represent the place he calls home. That might be more of a "why Flat Black Films for animation?" answer than a "why animation in general?" answer, but, you know.
share>He simply wanted to provide the animation world with a gritty, realistic film ...
That is a pretty lame reason. I would hope there was a more fundamental and artistic reason that actually had to do with the film content.
It's yet another Blade Runner wannabe. I'm a big fan of Blade Runner, but I find this one gimmicky more along the lines of all the 3D movies. The thing with visually aggressive techniques is they have to be used conservatively or they become tiresome.
shareby AvengingTilde (Mon Apr 16 2012 16:29:15)
It's yet another Blade Runner wannabe
Sorry but this is an utterly retarded comment! Despite the Philip K Dick connection, this movie has few connections to Blade Runner. They are two completely different stories, told in different styles with different tones. The acting is different, while one is science fiction and the other is a fantasy drama. The comparisons pretty much end there. Oh, and A Scanner Darkly was more faithful to its original source than Blade Runner was. share
Lol you probably don't even know where Blade Runner comes from so let me lay it out for you:
? Blade Runner is a VERY loose adaption of a Philip K Dick novel "do androids dream of electric sheep." While some othe themes stay intact, many of them got lost in translation, resulting in an entertaining and visual stunning movie, but also a relatively shallow (compared to the book). However, the directors cut does bring it back to the roots a little bit.
? A Scanner Darkely is a fairly close adaption of the novel (also by Philip K Dick). All the themes remain and the thematic subtext is still very present.
? Having read both novels and seen both movies, they couldn't be any more different. Like seriously, there are no similarities once you get past all the superficiality. So calling it a blade runner rip-off is not just inaccurate, it's completely ignorant, and hense your points already become invalid.
? Both movies are masterpieces, but whereas blade runner could have been better in a lot of ways, a scanner Darkely was near perfect.
Pretty much every character in this movie is suffering from the effects of Substance D, they can't quite tell what is reality and what isn't, and neither can we (the audience), as all reality has been painted over.
Pay attention to the dialogue and think about the themes presented throughout the movie, it will make more sense.
..or at least I think so lol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXVnoEAWNN4