Comments on: Open Forum Friday: Should There Be an Oscar Category for Motion Capture?

By: Goon

Goon — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:21:16 +0000

I don’t think Zemeckis is irrelevant, its just that the movies he’s making aren’t good.

And on one hand he’s pandering with his choices and his casting, and on the other hand the way he’s using the tech is kind of self indulgent and for his own playing around rather than the benefit of the viewer.

It’s entirely possible this tech could turn into something much better and RZ would be seen as a very relevant pioneer.

By: Goon

Goon — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:18:28 +0000

they’re recording tonight kyriakos. check in the morning for your fix.

By: kyriakos

kyriakos — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:09:25 +0000

oy, new podcast please!

By: Maopheus

Maopheus — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:31:55 +0000

Zemeckis should probably nominate himself for most irrelevant. He pretty much monopolizes the “mo-cap” genre which kinda tells you something. No one else is bothering to make similar kinds of movies. Mo-cap works best when used to enhance the animation of certain CGI characters like Gollum or King Kong but the whole movie shouldn’t be mo-cap.

By: kyriakos

kyriakos — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:48:47 +0000

How about Oscar for Best Kiss???

By: Paul Andrews

Paul Andrews — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:02:09 +0000

I’d like to see Zemeckis win something for ‘most pointless remake’.

By: Tyson

Tyson — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:51:16 +0000

No.

By: Falsk

Falsk — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:57:04 +0000

No. NO. NONONONO.

The category that exists is Best Visual Effects. Maybe this needs to be expounded upon or something but… an Oscar for motion capture? That’s really fucking stupid.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:43:58 +0000

Also, if such a category were to exist, shouldn’t a lot of the credit go the the animators? I suppose you could compare it to an actor who wins an award for a performance where they are wearing a lot of physical makeup (the make-up artist doesn’t really get a piece of the award) but it seems like, at this point, the technology still leans heavily on the CG animators to pull the performance together.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:38:43 +0000

I haven’t watched any of these movies that use mo-cap for the majority of the performance. I appreciate the technology, but whenever I see mo-cap CG in place of a human actor, I feel like I’m watching a video game cut scene instead of a movie. Maybe when the tech gets better, I’ll feel differently. But when I see things like Avatar, I think, “why can’t hey use real actors?” They could even use “digital” makeup instead of full motion captured cg characters and achieve the same effect, with a bit more realism because the majority of the performance would be a real actor.

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:33:23 +0000

Mocap is an extension of CG and there for already has a category in the animation running.

By: Jon Rocks

Jon Rocks — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 03:33:08 +0000

If anything, he should get an award at the Oscars ceremony for technical advances in film. Not one of the main Oscars– not ever. I agree with most when they say mocap is absolute shit. Beowulf sucked and Polar Express looks incredibly awkward. Almost unwatchable.