Disney's Motion Capture Animation

[frogboy4]

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.

Exactly. He's not much of a voice artist. Jim physically in a Horton costume would be the draw, not his voice - - but we've learned not to do that from Mike Meyer's terrible Cat in the Hat. I do like Horton's animation.

 

[Drtooth]

That said, I ashamedly admit, I rather liked the Grinch movie... But that Cat in the Hat one looked all sorts of ugly. Plus, Martin Short does a better job as the character in that new kid's series... and he's basically the only real draw. The animation sucks, the kids are flat and emotionless, but Martin Short is just so energetic in the role that it makes the show watchable.

What were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, Mars Needing Moms but not needing motion capture. Imagine if they did this as a 2-D animated movie/special the same way A Wish for Wings that Work was. Now that was an amazing, yet undeservedly obscure TV special... and sadly the ONLY animated outing for Opus and Bill. It proved that his designed look even BETTER when they're animated. heck, even if they did this in plain CGI... but realistic motion capture? And they could at LEAST have tried to capture his brand of humor instead of being so generic.

Oh, and Sgt Floyd? the term you're thinking of is "Uncanny Valley" a paradox where in something artificial becoming so realistic that it's disturbing and disgusting.

 

[rurulesunc]

Hey guys,

I actually worked on this movie for over a year. I worked in CG very closely with the director (worked on Xmas Carol too) and in another capacity that I discuss further below. Im not going to get into the whole "Is this movie any good" talk because I am too close to the project to be objective.

What I will talk about are 2 things that no one has really gone in depth on.

1. Looking at mocap as a form of digital full body puppetry. (Drtooth briefly mentioned this earlier but I wanted to touch on it a bit more) In reality the characters are basically being manipulated by the actors on set so it is all digital puppetry. You will see this more in the future. This is a big trend in Hollywood right now and has a ton of potential when used for the correct projects. Think about how much of the actor's performances came through in Avatar. (Worked on that one too) Those non-human characters were being driven by real actors in real time. Thats super exciting when you think about it and takes puppetry in a whole new direction.

2. On set puppetry of non-humanoid characters. In several mocap productions, when a creature or other being interacts with the main characters puppeteers are brought in to help bring that character to life. This means work for puppeteers (hooray!). I was one of 2 puppeteers on this movie who brought a cat and another mechanical character (that you can see in the trailer) to life. Now, how much the motions are used for eyelines only versus motion captured to put into the movie varies greatly from production to production. For this one, it was mainly used for rough placement, timing, and for the actors to have something to interact with.

Anyway, just wanted to give you all a bit more to discuss on the topic besides just bashing the final product. (Also, one thing to think about is that IMD closing means that over 150 artists have lost their jobs. So just try to keep that in mind while making comments as well)

I will be interested to see the final product myself since Ive only seen it in rough layout form and I will be interested to hear all of your thoughts on it.

 

[Mupp]

I do like Horton's animation.

The entire Horton Hears a Who movie looked beautiful. They really nailed the look of Dr. Seuss.

The problem for me was the film's story. I felt that the story was pretty lackluster. There was too much goofing around, things felt rushed, and that horrible day dream sequence done in hand-drawn animation inspired by anime that went on for way too long. They pretty much stopped the film just so they could have that sequence.

I did think that the film had some good aspects, but for me the bad out-numbered the good.

It just goes to show ya, an animated film can look beautiful, but without a well crafted story it doesn't mean anything. (I liked the book though.)

 

[Drtooth]

The entire Horton Hears a Who movie looked beautiful. They really nailed the look of Dr. Seuss.

The problem for me was the film's story. I felt that the story was pretty lackluster. There was too much goofing around, things felt rushed, and that horrible day dream sequence done in hand-drawn animation inspired by anime that went on for way too long. They pretty much stopped the film just so they could have that sequence.

I did think that the film had some good aspects, but for me the bad out-numbered the good.

2 things... I HATE the American view of generified DBZ sorta looking "anime." I've seen a LOT of series that do indeed look like that, and I've seen plenty that don't. if anything, most modern ones look VERY Western (at least their comics). Naruto has a very marvel quality to it, One Piece seems inspired by Disney and Tex Avery as much as it does Miazaki... but that's me going off on a tangent. not all American cartoons look like Bugs Bunny...that said, i wish the whole movie looked like that, or rather that short 2 second screaming Whos animation.

the other, more fitting with the context is that I have that problem with all Blue Sky movies... they look good, but the stories seem to have unfinished plots... like the film almost seems like it's complete and they decide that's the point to start the film. like the plots are unfocused, and needed just a little more before they were completed. I think Robots is their strongest work, but it still feels like that. I;m not looking forward all that much to Rio, though...

I actually worked on this movie for over a year. I worked in CG very closely with the director (worked on Xmas Carol too) and in another capacity that I discuss further below. Im not going to get into the whole "Is this movie any good" talk because I am too close to the project to be objective.

What I will talk about are 2 things that no one has really gone in depth on.

Sorry if it seems like we're stepping on toes, and we all have to realize they're laying off that many artists and workers that now have to compete even more... to that extent I agree that sucks. But there's just something to be said for the look. I like how Monster House looks, but Polar Express, Christmas Carol, and this thing (especially) just have an uncanny valley to them that just... I dunno... just makes it feel like you're watching live action, but not quite. Maybe it's just me, but I've always liked my cartoons to look a little cartoony. I like the Shrek movies, but I have to say, I like the look of their later films, Madagascar to Megamind a whole lot better when things were stylized.

Here's my question? Was their any specific reason they wanted to make this look realistic instead of adapting the style of the original author/artist? Seem to me, even motion capture can be cartoonified. Anyone remember the French animated show (we got it here, don't worry) Donkey Kong Country? That was motion capture BUT it was also cartoonified. I'm sure the Mars needs Moms project would have looked a LOT better if their wasn't pressure to make it realistic.

Plus, above all, we've had some BAAAAD experiances on long movies based off short kid's books lately... you can't blame anyone for that...

 

[Mupp]

2 things... I HATE the American view of generified DBZ sorta looking "anime." I've seen a LOT of series that do indeed look like that, and I've seen plenty that don't. if anything, most modern ones look VERY Western (at least their comics). Naruto has a very marvel quality to it, One Piece seems inspired by Disney and Tex Avery as much as it does Miazaki... but that's me going off on a tangent. not all American cartoons look like Bugs Bunny...that said, i wish the whole movie looked like that, or rather that short 2 second screaming Whos animation.

Sorry, but seriously, there was no other way to describe it.

Can you think of another way that I could have described it for people who may not have seen it?

 

[Drtooth]

Nah, nah, I'm not referring to you, but rather that exact scene in the movie that was trying to "ape" the "anime" look. That exact scene is what US audiences think anime is. As for it, I thought it cute but far too far out of place in the movie, and that sequence should have been the first cut.

As for anime, i think Family Guy actually summed most of it up (at least the current stuff) with the one line "I don't get this! Everyone in Japan is either a monster or a 10 year old girl!"

 

[frogboy4]

Hey guys,

I actually worked on this movie for over a year. I worked in CG very closely with the director (worked on Xmas Carol too) and in another capacity that I discuss further below. Im not going to get into the whole "Is this movie any good" talk because I am too close to the project to be objective.

What I will talk about are 2 things that no one has really gone in depth on.

1. Looking at mocap as a form of digital full body puppetry. (Drtooth briefly mentioned this earlier but I wanted to touch on it a bit more) In reality the characters are basically being manipulated by the actors on set so it is all digital puppetry. You will see this more in the future. This is a big trend in Hollywood right now and has a ton of potential when used for the correct projects. Think about how much of the actor's performances came through in Avatar. (Worked on that one too) Those non-human characters were being driven by real actors in real time. Thats super exciting when you think about it and takes puppetry in a whole new direction.

2. On set puppetry of non-humanoid characters. In several mocap productions, when a creature or other being interacts with the main characters puppeteers are brought in to help bring that character to life. This means work for puppeteers (hooray!). I was one of 2 puppeteers on this movie who brought a cat and another mechanical character (that you can see in the trailer) to life. Now, how much the motions are used for eyelines only versus motion captured to put into the movie varies greatly from production to production. For this one, it was mainly used for rough placement, timing, and for the actors to have something to interact with.

Anyway, just wanted to give you all a bit more to discuss on the topic besides just bashing the final product. (Also, one thing to think about is that IMD closing means that over 150 artists have lost their jobs. So just try to keep that in mind while making comments as well)

I will be interested to see the final product myself since Ive only seen it in rough layout form and I will be interested to hear all of your thoughts on it.

I apologize if any of my comments were taken personally and this is was intended as an honest discussion.

I guess ImageMovers hit a nerve with Polar Express. Man, did that movie rub me the wrong way in just about every area of its execution. There is one long sweeping shot with an owl that I did like, but that's about it. That film was an enormous experiment so I can appreciate it at that level. Monster House seems to have gotten things closer, but in the end motion capture is largely used as a gimmick and one that ImageMovers has never quite got right IMHO. I think that's why it closed. The public can't be faulted.

I feel bad that artists lost jobs, but most artists are nomads by nature. It's the way of it. If something's not working (or many times when it is, but profits are low) then things break up and regroup in new configurations.

However, Avatar is another story. I entered the movie with the expectation that I'd hate it. The story was noble, yet still flimsy. It didn't take long for that masterpiece to win me over. James Cameron's leadership pushed the production while the many artists and actors gave it life. The eyes, the facial micro-expressions, the movement, the hair on the skin, the pores, the way the skin reacted to light and water and so much more made this an amazing film! It must be an honor to have worked on it.

ImageMovers hasn't come close to Avatar's quality in my eyes. I haven't yet seen Christmas Carol all the way through, but it's on my Netflix queue. Mars Needs Moms will require a trailer that blows me away to give it a shot. It just seems like they should have gotten things right by now. To me they're like dial-up in a lightning speed wifi world.

I guess something could be said for making movies look like videogames because that's how kids spend most of their cash. I just like to see good movies. Motion capture is legitimate, but it should be a tool rather than a genre.

Just how I see it. I appreciate that many hours and a lot of skill goes into every production. I wish most motion capture didn't creep me out so much.

 

[Drtooth]

Anything done well and done right can work...

We all can appreciate the work that hundreds of artists do, but it all comes down to directors, direction, and directing. Polar Express at least has the excuse of trying to look like the art from the book... but the hyper realism, motion capture or not, doesn't really flatter the character designs. And that of course, if the fault of the main director who CHOSE to have it look like that. The artists work hard and long hours... it's a valiant effort... but when it's all over, the main direction doesn't work even after all that effort. I totally agree it's more gimmicky than anything, and you can tell Zermeckis only likes it because it's shiny new technology... all these fuddy duddy directors inevitably rely on new technologies instead of working harder on their projects. They let the shiny flashy stuff speak FOR them, and often times it just illuminates a shoddy project. Need I say George Lucas? Third Star Wars was good, anyway...

Now, this is a VERY primitive TV limited animation example of what COULD be done with motion capture... From Donkey Kong Country the animated series ... This is well over 13 years old and not perfect, but it uses the motion of actors and BUILDS up on it to create cartoony figure. This was only explored in Monster House, and it REALLY should have been used here.

In the end, it's not given the true potential it SHOULD have. It seems to me more like they're exploring ways to show how human actors are becoming obsolete more than exploring the artistic merits. It doesn't have an organic feel, both artistically and thematically. I'm sure they kept most of the artists on a tight leash about what THEY wanted out of their staff, and that does hamper the artistic vision of all of those who worked on it.

I hope that a new company regroups the lost artists here and does something really swell.

 

[frogboy4]

Anything done well and done right can work...

We all can appreciate the work that hundreds of artists do, but it all comes down to directors, direction, and directing. Polar Express at least has the excuse of trying to look like the art from the book... but the hyper realism, motion capture or not, doesn't really flatter the character designs. And that of course, if the fault of the main director who CHOSE to have it look like that. The artists work hard and long hours... it's a valiant effort... but when it's all over, the main direction doesn't work even after all that effort. I totally agree it's more gimmicky than anything, and you can tell Zermeckis only likes it because it's shiny new technology... all these fuddy duddy directors inevitably rely on new technologies instead of working harder on their projects. They let the shiny flashy stuff speak FOR them, and often times it just illuminates a shoddy project. Need I say George Lucas? Third Star Wars was good, anyway...

Now, this is a VERY primitive TV limited animation example of what COULD be done with motion capture... From Donkey Kong Country the animated series ... This is well over 13 years old and not perfect, but it uses the motion of actors and BUILDS up on it to create cartoony figure. This was only explored in Monster House, and it REALLY should have been used here.

In the end, it's not given the true potential it SHOULD have. It seems to me more like they're exploring ways to show how human actors are becoming obsolete more than exploring the artistic merits. It doesn't have an organic feel, both artistically and thematically. I'm sure they kept most of the artists on a tight leash about what THEY wanted out of their staff, and that does hamper the artistic vision of all of those who worked on it.

I hope that a new company regroups the lost artists here and does something really swell.

I see a lot of directors out there who have run out of stories to tell so they either remake something old, follow new technology or both. Visionaries like Tim Burton end up remaking pieces with striking visuals but no heart. I wish he'd revisit his Edward Scissorhands days and that Zemekis would remember a time when replacing a lead actor with one who could better relate to audiences in Back to the Future was just as important to him as the special effects. Let's face it, the spark is gone and it's not because directors are using new technology. They are merely being distracted by it.

By the way, I predict some lack-luster results for Tron. For some reason I'm not feeling it. I'll still see it and hope to like it.