Okay, not animation, exactly. Mo Cap.
Too Real Means Too Creepy in New Disney Animation
... "Mars [Needs Moms]" may have plunged to the bottom of this valley of fear.
"People always comment on things feeling strangely dead around the eyes," said Chuck Sheetz, an animation director of "The Simpsons" and a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. "If it gets too literal, it starts to feel false or has a strange effect." ...
At this point, it's not newsworthy that another journalist is writing another story regarding how weird motion capture looks. Everybody gets it: mo cap creeps people out.
What I find interesting is that one sector of Disney is now piling on another sector of Disney. I mean, the picture is still out in various markets, isn't it? So I don't really know that the Mouse's strategy of saying how weird and unnerving the big-budget movie is helps
A) Disney box office receipts,
B) Disney profits, or
C) Disney stockholders.
Richard Ross must really have a lot of clout at Diz Co., yes?
Posts
10 comments:
Either Richard rules, or the company has totally thrown in the towel and just wants a whopping big tax write off.
(It will probably get one.)
Wrong. Just look at Benjamin Button, Avatar or the POTC films as examples of realism (particularly in the eyes) of CG characters done right. Blame it on Zemekis' approvals rather than limitations of the tech.
Avatar was OK, but benjiman button and potc were awful, and zombie like.
Assuming the main problem with Mars Needs Moms was the eyes is not seeing for forest for one of the trees. The film was an ugly mess in a dozen ways.
I find this news disheartening. It seems that the entire film industry is going to quit "realistic" CG in favor of the tried-and-true and silly cartoonish stuff we've been getting in truckloads. Is it too much to ask for CG that looks realistic? Or should we be happy with the identical looking products like "Hop?"
Have to disagree Anon 12:12. The industry isn't getting away from realism. Its just mucking about and being artistic.
Realism has improved immeasurable amounts over the past 10 years. CG has stretched out past film and tv largely due to the improvements.
"Is it too much to ask for CG that looks realistic?
Let's hope so. BTW--"realism" has nothing to do with how things looks. It's the emotional connection and identification they have with the characters that make the audience believe things are more "real."
But enough of the ugly "concept art" looking garbage--especially of the rango kind. It doesn't look "real," it just looks cheap.
I don't understand how people are finding something to be offended about here. It's apples and oranges, really.
Zemekis was pushing for realism because he wants to do a live-action film but have total control over it as if it's an animated film. I'm sure once we get to the point where you're unable to tell the difference between live-action and CG, more and more filmmakers will find the obvious appeal in total control and we'll see more realistic CG films.
People here are acting like cartoony stuff is going to take over the industry forever, which I personally wouldn't mind, but I simply don't think that's the case. The public wants to see themselves-- the jump just needs to be made past uncanny valley.
Assuming the main problem with Mars Needs Moms was the eyes is not seeing for forest for one of the trees. The film was an ugly mess in a dozen ways.
Well, it's closer (even if they are trying to distance themselves from Z's doings)--But they never quite got far enough to also finally hit on "Poor story name-only improvised off of already thin picture books, and not even remotely appealing characters" yet. One more flop and they might've gotten it.
Guess we'll just have to take whatever studio epiphanies we get.
The problem isn't motion capture. It's zemecki's inability to tell a coherent story. I like a handful of his films (Used Cars, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, the first Back to the Future), but ugly messes like the horrible roger rabbit, death becomes her, and What Lies Beneath were in there, too. Mind you, even silly films like Castaway and Forrest Gump made money.
Post a Comment