Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
I recently brought in a film to show the rest of my directing class: The Dark Crystal. It was made in 1982. No computers, bo CGI, no digital effects. Just puppets, costumes, marionettes, and rudimentary animatronics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

It has it's place of course, and at the hands of a capable director such as Spielberg, it can be used to further the story (Jurassic Park) rather than glaze over the lack of one (Van Helsing).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:
I'm as yet unconvinced by the motion capture process. If you're going to match actors' faces exactly then why not just have the actors? I'm unsure of the purpose. It's a little like a painter spending a great deal of time on painting a picture that looks like a photograph...? What's the point?

---

Quote:

---

I'm as yet unconvinced by the motion capture process. If you're going to match actors' faces exactly then why not just have the actors? I'm unsure of the purpose. It's a little like a painter spending a great deal of time on painting a picture that looks like a photograph...? What's the point?

---

Quote:

---

I guess so that it is more "seamless" than mixing human actors with CGI creatures and backdrops.

---

Quote:

---

Plus, you can have actors walking round in the nuddy without worrying about the camera catching an accidental glimpse of nipple (or worse). I don't think Angelina Jolie would have agreed to have her, er, "attributes" surgically removed for her art...

---

Quote:

---

But then if you do that - it surely is no longer the actor. Thereby raising the point of what is the purpose of having the actor at all? If it is for reference then surely any individual would do.

---

Quote:

---

The point is that you can get an actor like Ray Winstone (whose old and paunchy) or Anthony Hopkins (whose just old) or Brendan Gleeson (another heavyset dude) or Crispin Glover (who according to Zemekis has no concept of continuity) to play larger than life characters and have the audience actually buy them in that roles.

---

Quote:

---

It would be hard to buy Ray Winstone as this buff, formidable warrior and legend if he keeps having to suck in his gut

---

Quote:

---

And to tie in to the "paintings that looks like a photo", I think it comes down to artists just wanting to capture real life artistically. I mean, if you were to look at a stunning work of art that looks realistic, and then realize that it's a photo and not a painting, I think you'd be more impressed with the notion that what looks so real is in fact an artist's rendering.

---

Quote:

---

I think motion capture is an aspiration of sorts to that notion. That you can create a world that looks realistic to ours, and that you can throw a monster or a dragon into this world, and make it look like they're truly inhabiting the same space, as opposed to a real life person reacting to an obviously CG creation.

---

Quote:

---

I dunno. I just liked BEOWULF not only for it's technology and artistry, but I also liked it for it's story and meaning behind it.

People don't give a lot of credit to Zemekis, I find. Even though he's as FX heavy as Spielberg and Jackson and Lucas, he's had a more consistent track record. People remember and love his movies just as much over plot and character as they do with the FX sequences. And BEOWULF is no exception.

---

Quote:

---

I can go until I'm blue in the face about the virtues of motion capture.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
About 15 years ago Terminator II was the first movie of it's budget, and you could see all of that money on the screen, the FX flawless I thought.

---

Quote:

---

Thanks. I brought up puppetteering and make-up, because I think those are example of what I think motion capture is, which is basically performance enhancements (of the legal kind, that is). They are tools that are used to enhance an actor's performance. If Boris Karloff didn't have all that make-up on him, then he wouldn't be a very convincing Frankenstein, would he? And although Lon Chaney is the Man of a Thousand Faces, he still needs help getting the other 999 of them to work.

---

That's maybe where Zemeckis is coming from with Beowulf

Quote:

---

You asked the question of "If Ray Winstone didn't meet the physical requirements of the character, then why couldn't they hire someone that did meet them?" Because you're typical 30/40 something bodybuilding actor probably wouldn't have been able to deliver a nuanced and emotional performance.

---

Well that's up for debate. There may well be a bodybuilding actor out there that could deliver were they given the chance. Fact is those actors are established and aside from being accomplished too, they are a huge draw at the box office and that's a factor in a film being given the green light. And I still say it's questionable, if the actors are altered significantly that it is indeed still them up there on the screen. If you are drawing in the crowds wih big named actors you want to know it is them you are seeing and not some cgi immitation. Motion captured exquisitely or not.

Quote:

---

You compare the cast of BEOWULF (Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Brendan Gleeson, John Malkovich, Crispin Glover, Robin Wright Penn, Alison Lohman, Angelina Jolie) to the cast of 300 (Gerard Butler, Lena Hedley, David Wenham, the guy that played Paulo on LOST), you automatically respond more to the former cast because they're all heavy hitters, as opposed to the cast of 300, where the best guy was the guy that played the Friar in VAN HELSING.

---

I actually think Gerard Butler was fantastic in that film. It's very easy to slate the muscle type actors. I actually think they are always given a very raw deal. Being physical as an actor aint easy, they're very rarely given the roles to show off they're abilities. Now without sounding trite, I have to say I've never been able to take Anthony Hopikins seriously after his dreadful performance in Legends of the Fall, (which I must start to put down in my top 10 of worst films)

But you know enhancements may be fine in having your Hoffman's doing physical things they can no longer do due to old age, but really there is something great about casting the right person for the right role. Imagine if motion capture were around in the eighties and you'd have Al Pacino play the part of The Terminator. Thereby eliminating Arnie in the role. That would be just plain wrong. CGI or not. Arnie was the Terminator, and his physical build was what help 'create' that entity on screen, and that organic connection is what rounds off a character.

Quote:

---

So yes, you have all these great actors. But put them in front of a camera and have them act it out in real life, most likely it would not work. But with motion capture, their bodies and facial features could be changed so that they actually fit the character and properly inhabit the world that they are in.
Any other motion capture issues you'd like to debate?

---

:D I had this thought last night. There is also the possibility of people who cannot act, (take a bow Miss Hilton) being given the 'treatment' in post production. Animators may be called upon to make a particularly wooden actor appear, well less wooden, thereby allowing a greater number of 'eye candy' to take the major roles and seemingly appear to able to act. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Just to change the subject slightly. One movie from the 30's that blows my mind in terms of FX is the original THE INVISIBLE MAN with Claude Raines. Invisible fx are done regularly now, so we kinda take them for granted. But to be able to do it convincingly in the 30's, when AFX in general were still primitive, it blows my mind.

---

Ah yes. Indeed. That is a genuine classic and as you say an amazing achievement given the era it was made. Been a while since I saw that one. Might have to dig that out again.

Quote:

---

And I'm with the guy that said model work brings great results. When I see BRAZIL and it's dream sequences, I do feel like you're flying through the clouds or the monolithic buildings.

---

Yup. Those are brilliantly done in Brazil! Always had a softspot for that flick.

Ok must dash. Sorry if this one seemed sketchy, I'm doing this on the fly as I have one eye on something to do with work. So apologies.

Quote:

---

There is also the possibility of people who cannot act, (take a bow Miss Hilton) being given the 'treatment' in post production. Animators may be called upon to make a particularly wooden actor appear, well less wooden, thereby allowing a greater number of 'eye candy' to take the major roles and seemingly appear to able to act. Just a thought.

---

Quote:

---

At 50, Ray Winstone has discovered the fountain of youth, cinematically speaking. In the CGI technologically advanced Beowulf, the British actor takes on a role over two decades his junior. On paper, the Nordic Viking warrior has little in common with the much shorter older actor, so he does concede surprise that director Bob Zemeckis even cast him, "because he's a six-foot-six, 20-year-old warrior, I'm 50 years of age, and I'm five foot ten."

So the actor adds, reflectively, that this new technology "kind of changes the game a little bit, because sometimes it's about the way you look, rather than the way you perform, so it's quite flattering, because it's about performance." The actor, who was hired on the strength of his voice, happily admits that "it does open doors for other things, as there are parts that you might have bypassed because you're too old."...

Yet Winstone has now embraced the technology that has afforded him the unique opportunity to play characters younger than himself. "Things like Henry the Fifth. You know, he's a young man, but by the time you're 50, you know how to play him. I wasn't clever enough when I was supposed to be his age to play that, and I'd like to think I was now. So this opens the doors for everyone and I think it ups the stakes."

---

Quote:

---

I for one am getting tired of the idea that they can do 'anything' with it. It's just a tool; when the tool BECOMES the movie, the movie becomes a ride, not a character-driven story (see: Sky Captain).

---

Quote:

---

Just that last bit about Henry the Fifth to me reinforces the argument that you can now hire an actor who spiritually is perfect but who physically isn't. Now in the case of Arnie playing the Terminator, yes it is a bit of iconic casting that should never be touched. And with the exception of Marlon Brando in SUPERMAN RETURNS (which was more of a case of Singer using stuff that Donner had planned for SUPERMAN II but was scrapped), I don't like the idea of dead actors being brought back to life digitally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheSomnambulist:

But then if you do that - it surely is no longer the actor. Thereby raising the point of what is the purpose of having the actor at all? If it is for reference then surely any individual would do.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reginaroadie:


And I'm sure with BEOWULF that Crispin Glover will be known just as much for Grendel and his fucked up personality as he is with George McFly.

---