Not really; it would be much closer in appearance to the Earth than it would be the moon, if that figure is accurate. But the figure doesn’t really matter: it’s quite clear in context that “low gravity” simply means “lower than Earth’s gravity,” by virtue of everyone moving in a more Earth-like manner than moon-manner.
The source was some Avatar Wikipedia; unfortunately they don’t list a cite.
They can’t do any worse then they did with it in the 1980’s. What an unmitigated turd that was.
On review the phrase “that doesn’t work as well” in my post was just damn sloppy and overbroad on my part, as you point out the objection comes when it is too obvious to the viewer and a well applied rotoscoping is a very valuable tool.
To be fair to TinTin, since I opened the thread I’ve learned that he’s based on comic book character, and, moreover, many of the other characters look considerably more cartoonish than the protagonist. So the overall impression of the film probably isn’t as bad, with regard to the “uncanny valley” as I once thought.
Are you familiar with the Tintin comics? Those characters, specially the ones in the last two links, look exactly like they do in the comics; Hergé gave them those noses and those eyes and that moustache.
The animators had to choose between staying true to the characters or redesigning them; the second option might (but only might) have appealed to those not familiar with the material, but it would have sent those familiar with it into fits of sputtering rage - starting with Herge’s heirs.
Everytime I see a trailer for TinTin it puts me off, as said they look deformed or thats what my brain tells me.
On the other side I can watch Star Wars Clone Wars without a flinch, they wisely went as realistic as possible before hitting creepy and then stopped.
They seem to have gone all-out to make Popeye look grotesque there. Back in the 1970s, National Lampoon did a feature where they rendered several comic characters “realistic” (in the pre-computer era of doing so), and he didn’t look anywhere near that grotesque. I couldn’t find an online version to post.
Heck, Popeye was based on a real-life figure – Frank Fiegle, a balding, thrust-chinned, squinting sailor that Elzie Segar was familiar with (as Bud Sagendorf explained in his book on Popeye). there’s a puicture of him here, looking nowhere near as freaky as the picture you posted (along with photos of the inspirations for Olive Oyl and J. Wellington Wimpy):
http://www.geek-for-life.com/2010/04/popeyes-real-life-inspiration.html
The thing that bugs me about Tin Tin was that they missed a cool opportunity. The defining “look” of Tin Tin is that the characters are simple and cartoony, but the world they inhabit is detailed and realistic. It’s a cool juxtaposition, and totally possible to approach with CGI. Use simpler, cartoonier characters with non-photorealistic rendering in a photorealistic background. Coulda been neat.
I’m totally familiar with the comics. Those pictures still freak me out. It’s the skin textures. Photorealistic skin textures coupled with cartoony features is squick city. In the comics I’m looking at cartoony representations of humans. Those pictures look like people with grotesque features. Huge difference.