Go to Spungella for new posts.

> academyanimation is no longer active and serves as archives

Monday, November 5, 2007

Performance Capture is not animation

Zemeckis has been quoted as saying that he doesn't see performance-capture movies as animated films. "To call performance capture animation is a disservice to the great animators," he said at the International Broadcasting Convention in September.


found through a Cartoon Brew comment @ Yahoo! News

If you want to have a good time then head over to that post on Cartoon Brew. Some of the comments are just too funny.

A few gems:

"Animation, it's giving life to characters." - Uhm, okay, sorry to be dismissive but the characters in the Ten Commandments movie are as dead as some of the Beowulf characters, but it's okay to call THAT animation?

Or (about mocap):

"Animation does not factor into it at any level. Mo-cap is not a frame by frame process, and by definition it is not animation." - That person clearly hasn't visited the mocap data wrangler nor the animators that work with mocap.

But there are good comments after all:

"Those sea monsters looked more alive than anything else in the film. I think Zemeckis hasn’t hit the strengths of mocap as a tool yet. Beowulf had the potential to have a stylized look, but I don’t think it got there. It’s just a muddle." - Absolutely.

But then it goes back to:

"And by the way “C” we 2D “purists” at least have talent. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to manipulate a few IK handles, or to rotate a manipulator." - Wow, that person has no idea about 3D animation...

But I like Floyd's answer to that: "It doesn’t take any effort to make marks on paper, either."

Good times, the endless debate over the merits of mocap. Strangely enough no one complaints about the use of simulations of Massive in movies...

6 comments:

Brett said...

ha ha ha ... that's good stuff. Great read. Of course in terms of what Jose Manuel said at the top of the page ... we've already had our dark day in animation history. That piece of trash Happy Feet won the best animated feature Oscar last year. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

Jean-Denis Haas said...

Happy Feet wasn't THAT bad, plus not everything was mocap. The general public is very quick in labeling performances as mocap-only (like LOTR, Kong, Monster House), even though most of the animation was done by hand.

jeffffff leee said...

Plus~ just because something wins an oscar doesn't mean jack. Happy feet won because there was nothing else to go up against. It's like being the smartest person in a room full of retards. (excuse my french) Not saying that Cars or Monster House sucked.

And look at Scorsese. He won a pity award for a remake movie. =P

Jean-Denis Haas said...

yeah, it was a pity award and that's why The Simpsons movie will win next year.

I was actually rooting for Monster House.

Jean-Denis Haas said...

Btw. here's an early positive review:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34678

Brett said...

I didn't think Happy Feet was horrible in terms of animation, it was the fact that it was a bait and switch movie. It presented the underdog, attain your dreams, be who you were meant to be premise, but then gave you an 80 minute PETA announcement that said to hell with plot the minute Happy Feet started talking about aliens. Lame.

And yeah, the Oscars, have been a broken arm pat on the back for ages now. But I'm finding out that at the school I'm one out of every 10th person that seems to have enjoyed cars. And yes, part of it comes from the fact that my hometown is in it. :D

But I would have liked Monster House to win too.

Banner