Proudfoot
Posts: 319
Joined: 13/4/2009
|
quote:
MarieMJS Well you are right in the middle of the problem, "it's essentially an animated film", and I say no. Motion Capture is NOT animation. It's Motion Capture, it's a technology that captures people moving in a green space, it's not animation, and I wish the movie websites could repeat that a bit more often instead of calling everything 3D "animation". Spielberg has an animation studio, it's called Dreamworks, and he had a way to do it as a real animation project. He also has actors hired to play the roles and could have done a live movie. Instead, he just jumps into the craziness of Mo Cap, and I can already see how they will call it "its first animated movie", when it's not. It's like when they tried to put Boewulf in the line for best animated feature film, I wanted to cry, it's my whole industry which was offended, even Pixar began adding a small thing in their credits :"“Our Quality Assurance Guarantee: 100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film.” Geez, I guess it was too complicated for him to do a Pixar level movie animated à la mano by a studio of animators and make a REAL animated movie, eh... This plus Indiana Jones, I can no longer admire him like I used to, and it makes me really sad... You are of course right and all that, no doubt. But let's not forget the stylistic similarities that can show up, especially in a case like this, where realism isn't the main goald I presume, and the fact that an intricate part of mainstream animation, at least to my knowledge, is the kind that used rotoscoping and real life foootage to achieve a realism in character i.e. Disney's classic nine ol' men figures. I'm just saying... It's an honest mistake to make, and there are similar traits.
< Message edited by Proudfoot -- 20/4/2009 11:52:03 PM >
_____________________________
"We must never forget that we are human, and as humans we dream, and when we dream we dream of money."
|