fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4612 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4612 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #660.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

12. https://i.imgur.com/PyiBwKh.png

They needed to at least make the human nose look like a cat nose. Just a single effort, and it wouldn't nearly be so bad.

...why? That'd make it weirder.

Idk, I was just thinking about the little upside down triangle of face paint on the nose that's usually done for kid's Halloween cat costume.

In what way do the "iconic" costumes look the same? Sure, they're both "humans who look like cats", but in the stage version they're clearly far more stylized, which pushes them away from the uncanny valley effect while also doing a great job of differentiating the characters, often by silhouette alone. In the movie version, as far as we've seen, they all seem to be designed /exactly/ the same way, which lends itself even more towards being unsettling.

Yeah, no. The CGI still creeps me out in a way the costumes don't.

And I don't get how anyone can look at those pictures and say they're the same.

Thank you to the secret maker for using images that showed the secret text is absolute bullshit. Good job!

Yup. I didn't even have to try to find images that differed radically, just Googled "Cats movie + [character name]" and "Cats musical + [character name]).

I don't even particularly care about either but the costumes look like people in fun cat costumes, while those things in the movie look like disgusting naked failed genetic experiments.

I saw someone talking about this movie mention The Island of Doctor Moreau, and that's definitely the vibe I get!

I'm baffled at all the upset and drama this is causing. I think both looks are interesting, neither are creepy, and am baffled at the furious insistence of either camp.

It's just...so very *eh*.

I know that many people don't have the same issues with CGI that I do (visuals from Polar Express and Avatar range from making me cringe to making my skin crawl), but when I look at the pictures on the left, I physically draw back from them. To me, they look so wrong it is upsetting and uncomfortable. The pictures on the right just seem like elaborate Halloween costumes or enthusiastic cosplayers.

That's too bad. Some CGI stuff is really amazing. Some is really obvious. None of it is upsetting to me just as CGI.

I think the only thing that ever got to me, CGI-wise was that recent movie with the robot girl? Because they used a person and just made her have really weird, big eyes. That was bizarre. But mostly it's just...a movie, yay!

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-23 01:29 (UTC) - Expand

tabaqui - 2019-08-23 01:31 (UTC) - Expand

(Anonymous) - 2019-08-23 01:47 (UTC) - Expand

tabaqui - 2019-08-23 01:52 (UTC) - Expand

To me, the essence is the same. I'm surprised people are going all out insisting that obvious wigs and costume makeup somehow change the fact that it's cat-flavored humans prancing around in skintight costumes. I literally don't know what else the movie was supposed to do, and at any rate, Cats is nothing if it isn't meant to be weird.

They literally just made an animated movie with talking realistic cats so I literally know what else they could do..,

nayrt but LOL, +1.

Okay, but now imagine those dancing like a person. Doing ballet. Tap. All that fun stuff.

It wouldn't work.

Right now, the movie is people in costumes with CGI fur overlaid and seams removed.

The essence is that it's cat-flavored humans in costumes. The two realities of how that's accomplished are different. Kind of like how a ham sandwich and a burger are both in essence protein between two pieces of bread, but nobody with any sense is going to claim they're the same thing.

Re: Cats, I don't think anyone's claiming that one is normal and the other isn't, only that the CGI version is weirder and strikes an uncanny valley note for many people. I don't mean to be rude here, but if you're seriously looking at those images in the secret and thinking they're the same... there's something off about that. Some people are face blind. Is that a possibility?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia

No one is saying the stage version looks more like real cats, just that the way they dressed humans like cats was less unsettling.

I’m sure MANY people who hate the new looks are familiar with the old costumes.

Love how these picture's completely contradict the secret. I agree with the last Cats secret, if you have eyes you can clearly see there is a distinct conceptual separation between the the film and the musical. I would say the musical is less uncanny and more kooky, it is very well know for it's costumes. The film looks like it showed up at a furry convention and decided, how can we make this look any more uncomfortable than it already is. They are nothing alike.

Cats is just plain weird, so I don’t understand people being so upset about this remake. XD