Disney's Motion Capture Animation

[frogboy4]

Mars might need Moms, but who needs this zombified, expressionless motion capture from executive producer Rober Zemekis' "Polar Express" crew?

I'm hoping this slipped through the cracks and trust Lasseter doesn't want much to do with this monstrosity from Disney Animation next year. Pixar has a notorious disdain for motion capture that is referenced in the credits of "Ratatouille", assuring viewers that all of the animation was hand crafted by artists. Mars Needs Moms is probably the result of Disney's Christmas Carol deal with Zemekis before it was critically panned and the $200 million picture flopped domestically.

Why couldn't this have been simply an animated film, CG or otherwise, instead of this creepy, watered-down motion capture? James Cameron's gamble "Avatar" set a new standard in this style of film making so any studio attempting such effects should at least measure-up or get out the game. This is greatly inferior! Maybe the wooden expressions will be fixed in time for next year's release, but the trailer doesn't give me much hope.

Of course, this is created by ImageMovers and merely distributed by Disney, but why? I'll be interested in seeing how this fares with audiences who have come to expect much more. However, it is a fun story concept.

This also gives me pause about Zemekis' recent movement for a Roger Rabbit sequel. He's responsible for one of the last great traditionally inked and painted animated films, but has lost his way since then. Technology is a great tool, but in the handsof ImageMovers it's only a crude gimmick.

 

[Drtooth]

I heard about this project a little while ago... watching the trailer...

I couldn't be more disappointed and annoyed with the final results.

This is based on the work of Berkley Breathead, one of my FAVORITE cartoonists and I was hoping that they'd at least keep in mind his style when making this movie.

They OBVIOUSLY didn't.

I totally and completely agree with you on this one. And more.

Motion capture is for VIDEO GAMES and digital puppetry. I hate the point of the motion capture device to make things look as realistic as possible. Monster House cartoonified, successfully, motion capture characters, and I don't see why they couldn't accommodate the animation to look like THIS instead of the ugly, corpsy version of live actors (might as well do it COMPLETELY live action).

Now, obviously, they're taking a sweet little book and ruining the sweet little story. I've said it hundreds of times, I HATE when they take a kid's book (especially a picture book with 10 pages of text that can be read in less than 5 minutes) and turn it into a movie, because they always kill the thesis of the book and blow it out to have crazy special effects. What's it like when Where the Wild Things Are is one of the GOOD ones? I will say, I like the direction they took in Shrek, but the original ending of the original book was much funnier.

And I'll also agree to JUST completely animate the whole thing. Again, I'm very disappointed in the abandonment of Breathead's style for such an ugly, washed, looks like live action only wooden look. It NEEDS to look like a cartoon. It doesn't. And yet, Cloudy doesn't look a thing like the book either, going the opposite route (I hate that movie too).

I hope Roger Rabbit 2 NEVER EVER EVER gets made, quite frankly. If they're not doing it to look like a cartoon, there's no point in making it period. You might as well do it completely live action, and have Roger be a walkaround theme park costume.

 

[Sgt Floyd]

I'e always found movies or really anything that has too realistic people to be terrifying...

 

[frogboy4]

From what I've been hearing, this is the last film from now defunct ImageMovers. They're dumping it at the theater to try to recoup some of the bloated budget. I suppose Zemekis saw the writing on the wall with last Christmas' film and the higher quality of Avatar's motion capture method. I will admit that Monster House got things much better by going a cartoonish caricature route, but in the end - why the motion capture?

I'm glad that Disney now has Pixar's leadership in their animation department. How frightening things would be without it.

 

[Drtooth]

From what I've been hearing, this is the last film from now defunct ImageMovers. They're dumping it at the theater to try to recoup some of the bloated budget. I suppose Zemekis saw the writing on the wall with last Christmas' film and the higher quality of Avatar's motion capture method. I will admit that Monster House got things much better by going a cartoonish caricature route, but in the end - why the motion capture?

That's the question... WHY? I said it earlier, but I LOATHE how this movie looks, and the lack of faithfulness to Breathead's style and the clear crappification of the children's book it was based off of. Polar Express looked horrifying, and I couldn't bare to watch the movie for the uncomfortable 10 minutes I sat through it on TV. At least with that movie they were trying to (and failing at) capturing VanAllensberg's painterly style.

I will never EVER bother with their horrid Christmas Carol movie. Casting Jim Carrey as every role is one thing (I only like him in The Mask, both Ace Venturas and The Truman Show... I've yet to see Man in the Moon but other than that... blehh) but the fact they turned it into a 3-D 90 minute theme park ride (Scrooge shrinks and slides around old buildings? I'm sure Dickens wrote that in there ). It is proof that not EVERY movie about Christmas will be gold at the box office... And really, had Princess and the Frog gotten THAT release date, it wouldn't have Avatar and the Chipmunks taking its audience. I'm sure it would have done a LOT better had it Thanksgiving Weekend.

But if this is the end, good freaking riddance.

 

[frogboy4]

But if this is the end, good freaking riddance.

I second that!

 

[Mupp]

I don't care for motion capture.

I wasen't motivated at all to see A Christmas Carol.

 

[Drtooth]

I wasen't motivated at all to see A Christmas Carol.

And frog knows it's not like we don't have about a million other Christmas Carol movies out there... Even not counting the obvious, and barring any other cartoon/tv interpretations there's quite a few others, musical, or straightforward.

An ugly CGI motion capture Jim Carrey one just... gets lost in the shuffle.

 

[frogboy4]

And frog knows it's not like we don't have about a million other Christmas Carol movies out there... Even not counting the obvious, and barring any other cartoon/tv interpretations there's quite a few others, musical, or straightforward.

An ugly CGI motion capture Jim Carrey one just... gets lost in the shuffle.

That was supposed to be "the" version, but apparently they fell short. And why mo-cap Jim Carrey of all people? His face is rubbery enough.

 

[Drtooth]

Heh... you ever see Horton Hears a Who? Jim was so generic sounding in that one. They could have got Matt Frewer at like a third of the cost. Everyone else in that movie had an unmistakable voice, Steve Carell, Carol Burnet, Will Arnet... even Charles Osgood... but Jim sounded like... well, nothing.