Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creative Commons Video Challenges Hollywood's Best

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the no-giant-rabbits-in-this-one dept.

Movies 455

Supercharged_Z06 writes "A short film entitled Sintel was released by the Blender Foundation under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (YouTube link). It was created by an international team of artists working collaboratively using a free, open source piece of 3D rendering software called Blender. No Hollywood studio was involved in its making. Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent. If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road."

cancel ×

455 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That is fucking awesome! (4, Informative)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33772642)

Holy crap!

Yes but... (4, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33772692)

Will it Blend?

Re:That is fucking awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772704)

What Hollywood produces, on the other hand, is unholy crap.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33772760)

Yeah it is good. But why's it all pixelated?

Oh wait. That's because the tropical storm killed my DSL, and I'm stuck on dialup. :-| Anyway... I bet it looks fantastic in HD - as good as Final Fantasy Spirits Within. The software they used is called "Blender"? What other open source software exists for development? Like, is there a OSS clone of PaintShop or JPEGedit?

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

QuantumLeaper (607189) | about 4 years ago | (#33772870)

They have a listing of the software the project used in the Credits at the end.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33773040)

Thanks.

I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

jesset77 (759149) | about 4 years ago | (#33773070)

I see GIMP, Mypaint, Alchemy, Inkscape, Python, Subversion - did I miss any? Which one of these can handle GIF (jif) and JPEGs?

The GIMP is an image editor roughly comparable to Photoshop and Paintshop Pro. It can view and edit GIF, JPEG, and a myriad other static image formats.

ffmpeg and mencoder are also important and powerful open source projects for video work including encoding, muxing and compositing. I'm not sure if those were either listed or used for this specific project.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (2, Funny)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33773030)

It looks good. So I guess it's great publicity for Blender. But the directing is laughably cliche. The running montage made me pause and return to slashdot to rant.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

tverbeek (457094) | about 4 years ago | (#33773322)

The technical capability is only a fraction of the challenge in making a good film. Writing, directing, acting (however that's implemented), costuming (ibid), etc. I know, I know, it's fun to mock Hollywood's creativity, but there are some incredibly creative people working within the machine there, which is why many studio-made movies turn out to be watchable diversions instead of utter crap. And let's keep this technical accomplishment in perspective: this is impressive for a CGI film hanging out on the Pac-Man side of the Uncanny Valley. Drinks all around for the folks behind this, but in many ways it's still far short of what Hollywood can do.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773206)

Yeah it is good. But why's it all pixelated?

I'm kinda wondering why they opted for 2k, 720, and XGA video but no 1080p (aka what the whole friggin world has been pitched)? Y'know, not complaining or anything, but if you're going to use a commercial encoder (DIVX) why not render in the (significantly) most common HD resolution?
Nice job on the short, still can't find the "donate what it's worth" button on the homepage though...

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1, Troll)

Shikaku (1129753) | about 4 years ago | (#33773238)

Because someone patented that resolution, and it's not free.

(I wish I was joking. I really really wish I was.)

Re:That is fucking awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772812)

More 'sad' the 'awesome' really. I cried at the end :(

Re:That is fucking awesome! (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33772950)

I don't get it, why? The story is pretty terrible and there were plenty of independent movies in history, not like it's a first at that. It's well done for a short story on private time and with limited funding on a computer. Is that the part that's so great about this movie?

Really, I am not certain what exactly I should be applauding to:
1. Pretty bad story?
2. Creative Commons license used?
3. Computer generated animation?

? Not totally sure.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

Elbereth (58257) | about 4 years ago | (#33773064)

#2 would be my guess.

Also, the fact that open source software was used, which is pretty much just #2, again.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (3, Interesting)

UnderCoverPenguin (1001627) | about 4 years ago | (#33773122)

Yes, #2. And I agree that the story is terrible. But the main goal of the project was to demonstrate the capability of open source tools. Of course, the really big cost is not the tools, it's the efforts of the team creating the movie.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (3, Interesting)

SerpentMage (13390) | about 4 years ago | (#33773232)

This is what I REALLY don't get anymore with the open source community. Open Source in the beginning was a great way to empower the individual and small users. I myself use Open Source all the time.

However, to YET AGAIN demonstrate the power of tools is missing the point. I know Open source is great. I am very very aware of that fact. Yes Fact!

But when will there be a real movie? Here is the thing. A mock movie while great is not getting the voice of the paying public. As one individual says. Giving away software is a good feeling. But getting people to part with their money and give it to you is an even better feeling.

So what I would like to see is a movie that people are willing to pay for and watch...

Until then what's the difference between this movie and Numa Numa guy (YouTube). And this guy has a network, etc, etc... While the Numa Numa guy might add questionable value to the overall scheme of things he probably is getting people to part with money to pay him...

Get my drift?

The physics model is terrible! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | about 4 years ago | (#33773210)

The gravity was obviously not anywhere near realistic, from the individual characters walking, to pretty much everything else.

If they were trying to say "this is the future of movies" they failed. It looked like a game trailer.

Star Wreck - In the Pirkinning [starwreck.com] was WAY better.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773082)

Because it doesn't blow as hard as Avatar? And it's not 3 hours of "now isn't that pretty?"

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33773098)

Is there anywhere on an earthlike world where a desert, a dense jungle, and snowcapped mountains are within hiking distance? And where everyone speaks the same language?

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33773150)

well, on that point you should note that it was not a simple hike, it's obvious that the journey was long, the dragon grew up and the 'girl' had a head of gray hair on her and she looked older.

The animation was OK, but it looked like some Anime type of story, because clearly this was a girl, right? Over the years shown her figure didn't change at all, she still stayed looking like a teenager, except for her face and hair.

Clearly a bunch of guys who love Anime were doing this.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

wardred (602136) | about 4 years ago | (#33773178)

Did you notice the timescale? She goes from a young woman to having gray in her hair. Given enough time you can hike pretty much anywhere that isn't separated by large bodies of liquid water. Even today people hike across the United States. I'm pretty sure that's true of Europe, Asia, and Africa too. All these places have regions that match up roughly with what's in the movie.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 4 years ago | (#33773192)

While I agree the story wasn't all that great, the idea was that they weren't hiking distance. She traveled for decades. Hence the grown up dragon and her being old. How you can travel for decades and not realize it, how come there are villainous marauders lurking in mountains so inaccessible that no caravan or other objects of value would ever get there (and why he was alone), and what the old man was doing up there are all better questions in my opinion.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

AJWM (19027) | about 4 years ago | (#33773196)

Yes, depending on what your definition of "hiking distance" is. Consider Peru, where you can go from desert across the Andes to the Amazon basin in a couple hundred miles -- a week or two hike for someone in good shape. Plenty of other places too.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | about 4 years ago | (#33773346)

California comes close... except for the language.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1)

RCL (891376) | about 4 years ago | (#33773336)

There are plenty of independent movies but I usually couldn't care less about them. This one was brought to my attention by being created with open source (and even free) tools. I watched it only because of that fact, otherwise I would have missed it as I miss a lot of other human activities. It is natural that you appreciate it differently when it's 1001th indie movie you watched this month and when it's your first indie movie watched this year.

Re:That is fucking awesome! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773038)

WTF? This comment isn't informative. It's completely worthless.

Not the first (0, Flamebait)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | about 4 years ago | (#33772646)

Is this really that different from Elephants Dream?

Re:Not the first (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772684)

Is this really that different from Elephants Dream?

Well they replaced over-repeating the name "Emo!" in dialog with over-repeating the name "Scales!" so that it grates in your ears hours later.

But seriously, this one had the best story in the ED/Big Buck Bunny series.,, though it took a little while to get going and I wish the "twist" was a little clearer. Even a line like "My God. How long have I been..." trailing off would have made it more understandable.

That said, I think it was a technical and creative triumph. There's some real talent out there and I look forward to the next one.

Re:Not the first (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33772782)

There's no need to use a sledgehammer. Heck, I think the scar on the wing was even a little too blatant.

Re:Not the first (2, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33772828)

Funny, I had to go back to that scene to see the scar you mentioned. I think the GP is right, the story gives no idea of the time scale.

After you realize it, she does look older in the final scenes, though.

Re:Not the first (4, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33772852)

Have you considered that you might be the problem? Maybe you're a little too dependent on Hollywood spoon-feeding to be able to actually pay attention to something?

Re:Not the first (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33773124)

I saw it coming the instant that it was clear she'd be squaring off with the dragon. Completely obvious. And then they flash the shoulder scar for a full second in clear focus. Who is their audience, green bell peppers?

Re:Not the first (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | about 4 years ago | (#33773134)

This is what I'm saying. It was a good story, but not as delicately subtle in execution as it really could have been.

Re:Not the first (4, Interesting)

wardred (602136) | about 4 years ago | (#33773198)

Without the scar, there's nothing to differentiate this dragon from any other. If you didn't expect the results by the time the fight paused we get a big hint it's her dragon when he sniffs her. Even then we might not be sure it's her dragon until you see the scar. *shrug* I think they pulled this one off really well. Maybe it wasn't a GREAT tragedy, but it was certainly decent, especially given the time frame. My props to the team. I liked this movie a lot better than Big Buck Bunny or Elephant's Dream - that one would've been a lot better had one of the characters not been named Emo.

Re:Not the first (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | about 4 years ago | (#33773220)

No, I meant at the beginning of the fight you can see the scar clearly.

Re:Not the first (1)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33773174)

Maybe you're a little too dependent on Hollywood spoon-feeding to be able to actually pay attention to something?

Or maybe I haven't been watching so many Hollywood movies that the whole storyline is evident to me at the first scene.

Re:Not the first (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 4 years ago | (#33773036)

I felt really depressed after watching it...

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772678)

Troopers.mov didn't save Star Wars.

Torrent plx (0, Troll)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | about 4 years ago | (#33772688)

Oh wait, that's covered already. Checking it out now.

Or not. Idiots. I've got Big Buck Bunny downloaded, though. I hope it's good.

Legal? (5, Funny)

RockMFR (1022315) | about 4 years ago | (#33772714)

Is this legal? I thought the MPAA cartel automatically owns the copyright to everything. These pirates should pay some sort of fine for attempting to subvert our capitalist democracy. Maybe send them to gitmo.

Re:Legal? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772732)

I seriously hope you're aiming for a +5 funny, otherwise you should have your brain checked out.

Re:Legal? (5, Funny)

roman_mir (125474) | about 4 years ago | (#33772960)

You must be a real joy to hang out with.

Re:Legal? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772808)

It's not the MPAA it's corporate America. I made a theatrical animated film by myself and had it stole by a couple of guys calling themselves a corporation. I'm being literal when I say stole they took it from my house when I was asleep. We had a 2,700 theater release with MGM, a historic first for a film made by a single guy to get a big budget release. I'm still fighting to get my film back. My "ex-partner" recently signed over control of his corporation to a lawyer at MCA Universal so he wouldn't have to return the film. They are refusing to honor contracts so I finally sent off a complaint about his actions to the California Bar over conspiracy and fraud. Why the case is of interest is this new corporate lawyer CEO essentially told me artists don't normally have rights which is why he wasn't honoring the contracts. The fact I wrote, directed, designed, animated and produced the film as well as putting up part of the money made no impression on him he keeps trying to call me a director for hire. I'm also preparing criminal charges as well as I'm attempting to sue them over the breach of multiple contracts but I can't aford a lawyer so it's tough to sue them, how ironic.

I just ask that you support the filmmakers and not corporate America. They are the greedy ones not the artists.

If anyone is interested here's a link to my web site with some stills and a history of the project. It's all a 100% true and I even still have the e-mail address of the head of MGM. If you can click on the "save the" link at the top and request the news services carry the story, links are on that page, it'd be a massive help. Public opinion may be the only weapon I have at my disposal.

http://www.fftheuntoldstory.com/

Re:Legal? (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | about 4 years ago | (#33772978)

Sorry, but I completely cannot believe that MGM would ever commit that to 2700 screens or even act like they did. They would never commit that kind of money for such a ridiculously primitive-looking movie. Could be fun straight to video or something like that, but the CGI is far too basic to ever hit theaters.

Re:Legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773066)

cool story bro

Re:Legal? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#33772904)

Funny?
Reality:
http://www.google.com/search?q=mpaa+sues+ [google.com] "open+source"

Different how? (2, Insightful)

Lando242 (1322757) | about 4 years ago | (#33772758)

And this film is different from the dozens of award winning independent films produced outside of Hollywood every year how? Hollywood has a monopoly on "dedicated, creative talent" these days or something? Thats news to me, most of the stuff they make is crap IMO. Kudos on making it with open source software, double kudos for licensing it under CC but otherwise its nothing special.

Re:Different how? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 years ago | (#33772822)

What's remarkable is that unlike Avatar or Pixar's latest and greatest is that this is a CG movie that doesn't involve giant expensive renderfarms and really brings CG techniques to the masses of amateur film editors.

Sure, there's a lot of crap independent art(film, music, still visuals, etc), but, this empowers the possibility of a CG equivalent of Clerks or The Blair Witch Project

Re:Different how? (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 4 years ago | (#33772890)

What I find really remarkable is that it seems to demonstrate all the features of blender in one neat piece, which is opensourced, so people can learn from it.

As a piece of, well, cinematography, this sucks balls though. Still miles ahead of that crappy "Sorry Ass Elephant" from a few years ago though.

Re:Different how? (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 4 years ago | (#33772902)

What's remarkable is that unlike Avatar or Pixar's latest and greatest is that this is a CG movie that doesn't involve giant expensive renderfarms and really brings CG techniques to the masses of amateur film editors.

You've never needed renderfarms, the limiting factor is time.

Sure, there's a lot of crap independent art(film, music, still visuals, etc), but, this empowers the possibility of a CG equivalent of Clerks or The Blair Witch Project

I thought the whole reason those were "good" is because they accomplished so much with so little... Would "Blair Witch" have been worth your time if it had a CGI witch, or "Clerks" if it actually had a scene of two plumbers arguing on the Death Star? Those films got attention because they were so cheap, and were basically a novelty act, "Blair" in particular.

The primary constraining factor on good motion pictures is the relative scarcity of good writing. The fact that CGI is commoditized is nothing new, thus we have stacks of terrible CGI movies with bad plots, or standard dramas and comedies with dozens of seamless CGI shots (to change eye color, remove wrinkles, add mattes etc.)

Re:Different how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773374)

The Blender Institute rents a server farm to do that actual rendering. It's cheap (relatively) compared to owning all the hardware, and anyone could use the same service the Institute uses, but it's not like this movie was rendered on some guy's laptop.

Blender Foundation helps our community. (4, Insightful)

jbn-o (555068) | about 4 years ago | (#33772840)

You minimize the ways in which it is different with your hard to take seriously "kudos". I can share Blender Foundation movies with everyone I wish. I don't recall being able to share copies of Hollywood movies or most independently made movies without risking litigation. When the Blender Foundation makes their movies they improve Blender and show off its capabilities to inspire others to use the program. Few Hollywood movies have that result for FLOSS. The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well. There is no such similar inspiration for Hollywood movies or independent features; I'd like to contribute to more documentary filmmakers but movie makers that let me share the work (even verbatim and non-commercially) have set the bar high enough where I can quickly exclude the vast majority from receiving a donation from me. On the other hand, I'll be ready to buy a credit or a gold sponsorship for the next Blender Foundation movie depending only on my personal finances. Blender Foundation has developed a reputation for helping our community in significant ways. These are big efforts in themselves and should be sufficient to answer your question.

Re:Blender Foundation helps our community. (2, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 4 years ago | (#33772962)

The Blender Foundation raises its money from us, the viewing public, who is inspired to buy their stuff because they treat us so well.

I don't understand, how is this different from selling tickets? Or going to see a film directed by Darren Aronofsky, without necessarily knowing ahead of time wether it's good or bad, because you like his work?

Films are funded on the basis of demand for ticket sales. If "Hollywood" doesn't think something will sell tickets, it isn't getting money. I think the problem with a lot of slashdotters/creative commons types is that they think moviegoers are rational in just the way they are, therefore any movie that doesn't meet their particular expectations is evidence that Hollywood is corrupt.

The truth is, in fact, Hollywood gives people exactly what they ask for, with the scientific precision that only the free market can provide. The fact that people want visionless, unchallenging dreck, and that foreign audiences will pay good money to watch anything (no really, anything) as long as it has an American movie star, is beside the point.

Re:Different how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772892)

Because this looks like a cut scene from a video game. Actually, I couldn't get past that to watch the whole thing. They did the silly-but-required dramatic soundtrack with deep bass and reverb thing going, which is good -- sound is much more of a cue for quality than many people appreciate (poor sound can even be mistaken for poor acting).

As far as non-Hollywood animated short films go, I'd much rather be watching old Wallace & Gromit.

A few years down the road? (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | about 4 years ago | (#33772850)

A short film entitled Sintel was released by the Blender Foundation under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (YouTube link). It was created by an international team of artists working collaboratively using a free, open source piece of 3D rendering software called Blender. No Hollywood studio was involved in its making. Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent. If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road.

So which trends are we supposed to extrapolate out a few years?
Dedicated, creative talent?
Free and open source software?

Sorry, I just don't get the point of this. International, collaborating teams of dedicated, creative people can do amazing things with their bare hands, but I'm not dreaming of a bare hands movement taking over the world. Am I looking at this from the wrong direction? Is the story about amazing free software that brings non-dedicated, non-creative people
to par with creative professionals using their own tools of the trade? No, because that would be a lie.

Some talented people did something interesting with some easily accessible tools. Great job guys and gals, seriously, but I'm not thanking the software.
I'm not imagining a world where access to free tools is locking up boundless potential, sorry. Keep on dreaming, /. headline writing hippies.

It's all in the past already (1)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33772910)

I'm not dreaming of a bare hands movement taking over the world

Well, you don't need to dream, it has already happened.

Ever heard of this "internet" thingie? A "bare hands movement" [apache.org] is what keeps it moving [netcraft.com]

Re:A few years down the road? (1)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about 4 years ago | (#33772922)

Keep on dreaming, /. headline writing hippies.

My newest most favorite thing ever said on /.

Kudos to you sir or madam.

Wow (1)

Dr. Sp0ng (24354) | about 4 years ago | (#33772856)

That was very well done.

Talent (3, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | about 4 years ago | (#33772874)

Pretty remarkable what can be generated these days with open source software and some dedicated, creative talent.

Yes, yes... but what can be generated with open source software WITHOUT any dedicated, creative talent? Isn't that the more important question here? Creative people can produce works of genius with no technology to speak of, so who cares about that. ;-P

I hate creative people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772898)

They are.. they.. they make me hate them.

Talent needs tools (5, Insightful)

mangu (126918) | about 4 years ago | (#33772970)

what can be generated with open source software WITHOUT any dedicated, creative talent? Isn't that the more important question here?

The question here is that talent alone cannot create anything without the right tools. Artists shouldn't have to sell their souls to buy their supplies.

Van Gogh had to make his own paint because he was so poor he couldn't afford to buy it. Blender is Van Gogh's paint.

Re:Talent (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33773028)

If you don't have creative talent, you'll not produce a good movie, no matter if your tools are open source programs or million-dollar rendering farms.

My name's in the Credits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772934)

Ethan Anderson. I helped make this happen :D

Re:My name's in the Credits (1)

LOLYouAreWrong (1724080) | about 4 years ago | (#33773320)

im sure you did, "Ethan".

Theatrical short? (5, Interesting)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | about 4 years ago | (#33772936)

I own and operate a movie theatre. I wonder if these folks have considered making a 35mm version of their short for theatres to play before the main features.

It would be a way to gain a lot more exposure and publicity than they will get otherwise.

Re:Theatrical short? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772966)

I own and operate a movie theatre. I wonder if these folks have considered making a 35mm version of their short for theatres to play before the main features.

It would be a way to gain a lot more exposure and publicity than they will get otherwise.


While I think that's a great idea, don't be surprised if you find out you can't legally show it before another movie if you're charging money for admission, or making money from the event in any way. I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be surprised if I'm right.

Re:Theatrical short? (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 4 years ago | (#33773152)

While I think that's a great idea, don't be surprised if you find out you can't legally show it before another movie if you're charging money for admission, or making money from the event in any way. I hope I'm wrong, but I won't be surprised if I'm right.

The CC-attribution license (mentioned in TFS) is pretty much what you'd think: it requires only attribution. In other words, you can do whatever you like with it, including modifying it, provided you don't remove the credits or claim it as your own work.

Re:Theatrical short? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773344)

That would be bizarre. You can put "let's go to the lobby", "please turn off your cell phone", and whatever other ads or trailers you want in front of a movie, so why wouldn't this be allowed? In Oakland, up until a year or two ago there was a movie theater (parkway speakeasy) where I once saw a movie that was preceded by
  • random blaxspoitation trailers
  • a black and white stag reel where a spacewoman was on the moon, and took off her clothes in order to stay safe from aliens (whose only visible parts where glowing eyes on springy stalk)
  • an episode of Wonder Woman
  • a raffle drawing
  • a burlesque troupe dancing

I'm pretty sure that a theater owner can show pretty much whatever the fuck they want in before a movie.

Re:Theatrical short? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773020)

I pretty sure the premier was displayed using 35mm, post the question on blender.org, you will get a reply

Re:Theatrical short? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773026)

It is licensed as Creative Commons-Attribution. They made a 35mm print for the premiere at the Dutch Film Festival. You're also perfectly free to make your own or show it on a 2k digital cinema projector. You don't even need permission to show it thanks to the cc-BY license, though films like Nina Paley's Sita Sings the Blues (under a similar cc-by-SA license) have done quite well this way by allowing theaters to show it. Audiences frequently appreciate knowing if a certain film like this is receiving a certain portion of the proceeds, even when it's not legally required.

Re:Theatrical short? (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 4 years ago | (#33773340)

If you do show it in your theater, I would suggest perhaps pledging a small percentage of concession sales as donations to the Blender Foundation, since it is doubtful that after paying the big studios their enormous cut of the ticket sales, there wouldn't be much left from that to allocate to Blender.

Re:Theatrical short? (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33773032)

Omg, that would be amazing -- ask them!!

Re:Theatrical short? (1)

am 2k (217885) | about 4 years ago | (#33773060)

Maybe you should talk to them instead of posting on a random website about it...

Re:Theatrical short? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773102)

http://www.sintel.org/sharing/ [sintel.org]

The results of the Durian Open Movie project are being licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. This includes all the data we've published online and on the DVDs, and all of the contents on this website. If any content on this site is not licensed as such, it will be clearly indicated.

In short, this means you can freely reuse and distribute this content, also commercially, for as long you provide a proper attribution.

The attribution is:

a) If you redistribute or screen or broadcast the movie itself: include the entire credits scroll.
b) In all other cases, attribute it as:
(c) copyright Blender Foundation | durian.blender.org

Excluded from the Creative Commons is: all logos on this website (including Blender logo, Durian logo, Creative Commons logo) and associated trademarks. Excluded is also material that's clearly not resulting from the Durian project, such as magazine covers.

For questions about licensing rights of Durian content you can email foundation at blender.org.

A bit cheesy... (1)

Timmmm (636430) | about 4 years ago | (#33772974)

It started off a bit cheesy - way too many Hollywood clichés - but it was pretty good in the end. And the graphics are pretty stunning - easily on par with Hollywood.

Well done guys!

Re:A bit cheesy... (1)

lavagolemking (1352431) | about 4 years ago | (#33773338)

Meh, I thought the ending was rather sad. If it had a happier ending, I'd have liked it a lot more. Graphics weren't bad though.

Looks like a Game intro (1)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | about 4 years ago | (#33772984)

I'm not really seeing what's so extraordinary about this or how it's connected to "open source" outside of some tortured link with Blender.

Using MPAA's tactics to minimize the creative output of actual professionals seems like a dumb argument which amounts to "see, they can do it without major financial backing." When it comes to entertainment out in the real world, it so happens that most artists just aren't willing to donate their free time for some illusory cause.

The article title is your standard linkbait bullshit. "Challenges Hollywood's Best"? Hardly.

Re:Looks like a Game intro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773046)

most artists just aren't willing to donate their free time for some illusory cause

Then they're not really artists, are they? More like content manufacturers.

Re:Looks like a Game intro (1)

wardred (602136) | about 4 years ago | (#33773290)

I don't get the attitude that certain people excelling in their professions should be happy about excelling and that that satisfaction should be enough. That expecting monetary recompense is somehow a gross dereliction of the duty of the starving artist. Why should artists or musicians not get compensated if they create a great recording or movie?

How is saying that artists aren't willing to give up their work for free any different than saying "Most doctors aren't willing to perform surgery without being getting a salary." and then replying "Then they're not really doctors are they?"

Now, if you were being clever with the word illusory, then you can paint a big whoosh above my head. The attitude that certain professionals should simply do what they do for the love of it and not expect some sort of monetary recompense, or worse, should get said money from some other career bugs me. How is an artist going to be a great artist if their most productive hours are spent doing something else? (To a lesser extent teachers and a few other professions have the same "low pay" stigma attached to them.)

That's not to say every artist is great. If one can't make one's way making recordings, doing paintings, or whatever creative endeavor they're undertaking, they may have to work as something else to make ends meet, but for those who are great musicians, artists, or what have you, and can find people willing to pay them for their work, why shouldn't they expect to get paid be that pay an up front lump, royalties, or whatever other method they've come up with?

Re:Looks like a Game intro (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773084)

I wouldn't call the link "tortured." The Blender Foundation made this film as part of an effort to improve Blender. This project improved Blender's rendering engine, sculpting, volumetrics, fluid simulations, and made Blender 2.5 production ready. The creation of a high-quality short film is actually secondary in importance. The source files for the film (everything needed to recreate it) will be released very soon under the same license, so it is very much an open source film.

Re:Looks like a Game intro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773094)

Explan how the link to blender is "tortured". These projects exist in order to improve Blender, with blender developers being involved in order to provide the film side with the tools they need.

Re:Looks like a Game intro (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 4 years ago | (#33773112)

I'm not really seeing what's so extraordinary about this or how it's connected to "open source" outside of some tortured link with Blender.

The "tortured link" with Blender is that it was produced in Blender, as a project initiated by the Blender Foundation to promote Blender, demonstrate what Blender can do, and stimulate Blender development.

The open source angle would be that Blender is open source, and so is every other bit of software used to create the film (GIMP springs to mind).

Read the "About" page. [sintel.org]

Re:PLEASE don't confuse (1)

symbolic (11752) | about 4 years ago | (#33773156)

...art with entertainment. Art is about passion, entertainment is about money.

Re:Looks like a Game intro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773160)

Huh? Are you suggesting this isn't in the real world?

You have the most annoying attitude an "artist" can have. People who call themselves "artists" think they are so special that they should be given special treatment. Now, more and more hobbyists are producing art all around the world, so the "artist" title doesn't seem so special any more, thus now the special "artist" people are calling themselves "professional artists" to differentiate themselves from the unwashed hobbyists. Pathetic.

Word to the wise, Mr Artist: more and more hobbyists are going to produce art, and once they find ways to organise in larger numbers online, their projects will be bigger and better than anything we've seen before. This is only the beginning, so bide your time.

The movie itself is open source (5, Insightful)

Xtifr (1323) | about 4 years ago | (#33773204)

They're going to be distributing not just the movie, but everything you need to re-create the movie (or a derivative work). The movie itself is only 14 minutes long, but the full distribution takes 4 DVDs! All under a CC license. Hard to see how you could call this anything but an open source movie!

it so happens that most artists just aren't willing to donate their free time for some illusory cause.

Funny, that's what they used to say about programmers! And, of course, no musician has ever put on, say, a benefit concert for charity. Everyone knows that true artists are motivated entirely by money and nothing else.

Unpublished movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33772986)

In some circles, there is the joke that everyone has an unpublished novel in their dresser drawer. (That's probably how it feels to a literary agent at a party.)

Given the way technology is going, the software and hardware to do a full cgi movie will be on everyones desk within about ten years or so. That is sure to lead to ...

Everyone has an undistributed movie in their dresser drawer. ;-)

Re:Unpublished movies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773172)

Everyone has an undistributed movie in their dresser drawer. ;-)

I've got a few of those. And I'm pretty sure the ladies in them would prefer they stay that way...

No need to imagine... (1)

pedantic bore (740196) | about 4 years ago | (#33773018)

People have been making movies without help from Hollywood for years [youtube.com] .

Re:No need to imagine... (3, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 4 years ago | (#33773056)

There is need to imagine, because at that link, I only get the information that this video is not available in my country.
Unlike the Sintel video, which is available, and even in HD.

Re:No need to imagine... (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | about 4 years ago | (#33773062)

Bollywood movies are hardly "independent"...

Rendering alone can't make a movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773108)

Okay, so they used Blender for the 3d rendering.

But what software did they use for the editing the video sequences? What software did they use for the music composition? Did they edit the script in OpenOffice? Did they manage the project using OpenProj?

Re:Rendering alone can't make a movie (2, Informative)

wardred (602136) | about 4 years ago | (#33773144)

I'm pretty sure many of those details are up there on the site. I know that Blender actually has some built in stuff for video editing, so a lot of the editing may have been done in Blender. Check the site for more details, they tend to be pretty open about what they're using.

Re:Rendering alone can't make a movie (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773218)

Did all the network packets generated during the project really only pass through free software servers and switches? Were the mics based on unpatented designs and built in-house? THESE THINGS MATTER!

Imagine if some packet went through a Windows server. The whole project, tainted. Might as well just rm -rf it.

It's like if you said "I wrote this program all on my own" and then it came out that you didn't do the materials science needed to mine the metals you used to build the electronics that is your computer, and then wrote the OS and the compiler and the editor yourself. Clearly, your program wasn't anything special, I'm not even sure if it could be called 'written by you'.

In a few years? (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 4 years ago | (#33773208)

If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road.

Not much better. Blender is a great tool, the people show talent too. But what they lack is budget. That is what will drive that last mile from making a movie with Toy Story 1 graphics to the "I can't believe it's not real life" style of current Hollywood movies. You'll need lots more people, lots more time, and lots more hardware. The basic premise of budget is why the majority of open source projects (and by that I include small apps too) get to the point where it's only just good enough to meet requirements and then no further. This doesn't apply to programmers who have corporate backing to keep working on the code or to people who's lives have been consumed by the desire to contribute.

For the majority of people without funding "good enough" becomes the end of the project. Sure there may be a handful of dedicated people who make a project their life, but for the vast majority who don't get paid they write the app until it works, and then lose the motivation to go further. Others will commit simple changes or may even take over the project but this is not something that will work with a movie that requires full dedication from start to perfection. Otherwise you'll end up with a movie which in the worst case looks like the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but is 5 years behind time, has a development team who is completely fed up and want to get on with their lives and a story that is incoherent.

Someone hire these guys.

This will change nothing (1)

farnsworth (558449) | about 4 years ago | (#33773288)

It's a solid script, and the visuals are great. But it's a shallow rendering of a story, copying all the idioms of Hollywood. My son heard the movie as I was watching it, and he walked in and asked, "Are you watching Narnia?"

If a short film of this quality can be produced without Hollywood right now, imagine what will appear a few more years down the road.

Nothing. Hollywood doesn't fit into this equation. Hollywood deals with talent and business, not software. Hollywood already uses a great deal of FOSS, and I doubt this movie will change a future audience's experience at all.

Kudos to them nonetheless, it's a fun few minutes of flick.

MOVIES FOR NOTHING but are the chicks free? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773306)

I want the chicks to be free!! Damn, I'll pay for the movies if I get the chicks for free !! I mean, really, how many movies can be made when no one pays for anything? So the hoes keep telling me!!

Technically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33773318)

... wonderful. Scenaristically dumb. Still have to work on that skill in order to being a concurrent to known studios.

I also wonder:
- we got the large view of the city;
- we got the running-on-the-ground-with-camera effect;
- we got the oldering of the face;
- but we didn't see any mass moving mob scene. Is Blender able to manage such scenes?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?