Beowulf

[Mark Chance]

In Beowulf, I stand by my statement that the characters looked photo realistic and many of them were indistinguishable from a real actor, except possibly by their movement.

I and my children who watched this with me heartedly disagree. The characters were obviously not real actors even when not moving. The faces and especially the hands and eyes lacked naturalness. Beowulf was little more than a gimmick 3D movie, sort of like a naughty, faux bloodly version of Shrek in which things were constantly thrust at the camera for the "Ooooh" factor.

All in all, it was disappointing and more than slightly dull.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

The characters were obviously not real actors even when not moving...

Well, I didn't think it was dull but I did think it looked plastic. Good, not great. Only pretty.

 

[Meloncov]

They used motion capture. So did the movie Happy Feet, which took home the Academy Aware for best animated movie.

And every animator I know is still pissed about that. While there's nothing wrong with motion capture, it's not animation.

 

[Asmor]

And every animator I know is still pissed about that. While there's nothing wrong with motion capture, it's not animation.

Says who? Why shouldn't it be considered animation?

Not trying to be entirely flippant, mind you. In the most literal sense, live-action movies are still animation (a series of still images shown in rapid succession to create the illusion of movement), so clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. I just don't understand why the use of motion-capture technology wouldn't be considered animation.

I mean, what about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? There were many parts in that movie where robots and such were used (such as when a cartoon had to break real plates over its head), and the animation was drawn on top of that. How is that fundamentally different from creating the animation without a physical frame of reference?

 

[Meloncov]

Says who? Why shouldn't it be considered animation?

Not trying to be entirely flippant, mind you. In the most literal sense, live-action movies are still animation (a series of still images shown in rapid succession to create the illusion of movement), so clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. I just don't understand why the use of motion-capture technology wouldn't be considered animation.

The art of animation is about simplification and exageration, or more broadly speaking, suggestion rather than literal depiction of movement. This can be obvious (i.e. Chuck Jones) or more subtle (Pixar, or even effects for live action films) but it's there in all decent animation. These techniques are either clumsy or impossible when executed by a human in a suit.

I mean, what about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? There were many parts in that movie where robots and such were used (such as when a cartoon had to break real plates over its head), and the animation was drawn on top of that. How is that fundamentally different from creating the animation without a physical frame of reference?

First of all, you can inject, to some degree, the principles of animation into the movie while doing the tracing of the real object (which is theoretically possible for mo-cap, though Beowulf didn't do it much). Secondly, any animation done with rotoscoping or it's modern day equivalent of mo-cap is noticeably inferior (all other things being equal) to pure animation, as it can't truly take advantage of the principles of animation. Sometimes an animated movie will, out of necesity, use these techniques but a film created soely with mo-cap or rotoscoping is not animation.



Though really, the reason Beowulf is reffered to as a CGI movie has nothing to do with the sensibilities of animators. Rather, there is a wide spread, and unfortunate, impression that animation=talking animals while CGI equals monsters and explosions.