Josh on Wed, 15 May 2013 1:26am
It's a stretch to call this a "short"! Well done visuals though. I feel that I agree with RobSanta AND Brad (to a degree). I think this clip is an example of animation for animation's sake. It doesn't have a good story, and it doesn't have a point. At the same time, it was a beautiful example of fluid animation, stellar rendering, etc. if you are looking for demo reel filler, this is great! If you are trying to tell a good story, stop watching "Kill Bill", and go back to the drawing board. Just my opinion.
RobSanta (Forums) on Tue, 14 May 2013 3:43pm
Harsh much?There was a demonstrated degree of creativity and calculated choreography to this scene. Generally speaking, setting the key beats, getting the timing down, and angles just right on something like this is not easy. I do feel that this was fairly well executed. Perfect? No. Adequate? More than. I'm sure that we've all seen far worse in commercial products.The so-called "ultra-violence" on display here really doesn't bother me. I've seen worse in Robert Kirkman's comic "Invincible" or Starz "Spartacus". This is rather tame. I'm not saying that I'm desensitized, rather that I fully understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I would not even attempt such horrific behavior in real life. Visceral action, such as you'd find in horror flicks, really is an acquired taste. However, taken for what it is (a diversion), it's entertaining. For the average, non-disturbed viewer, this is harmless fun.My first criticism here is that, while entertaining, this is not so much a short as it is a scene. Even considering the brevity of the clip, the three act narrative here is pretty loose. This scene would be much more at home as as part of a series of cinematics, such as you'd find in a game. It's really not whole unto itself. If anything, it really leaves you wanting more. Being all action, there's just no story or characterization to back it up or to justify the carnage. My other criticism is the anticlimactic resolution. This whole time, it seemed as if there was a "big boss" fight coming. Instead, it's all ended in an abrupt decapitation. Savor the moment. Draw the viewer in. With the final baddie, make her fight for it even harder. Humanize her. Give us the sense that the protagonist, however formidable, isn't invulnerable. It's the difference between John McClane in Die Hard 1 vs Die Hard 4.Overall, I'd give it 7.5/10. Visually, it's creative and entertaining. However, the stuff that keeps it from achieving greatness is what should've been sorted out in pre-production. Short & sweet is fine, but make every second of that story matter. You have to go beyond the visual.
Brad on Mon, 13 May 2013 6:54pm
Another vacuous, fatuous, pointless exercise in CG show-offery, featuring viscous, blank-faced, mindless CG autonotoms. Thanks to these "artists" for thoughtlessly polluting the world with more violent, polluted, empty culture frosting