A Christmas Carol: The Performance Capture Experience
Watch trailers, featurettes and clips from A Christmas Carol at AWNtv!
At a recent press conference, director Robert Zemeckis, producer Steve Starkey and their A Christmas Carol stars Jim Carrey, Robin Wright Penn, Bob Hoskins and Colin Firth talked about the process and challenges of making a performance capture film. As Zemeckis mentioned, the technology has moved from medical uses to helping to evaluate one's golf swing to moviemaking.
Zemeckis said that since his love affair with performance capture began on The Polar Express he's been searching for tales that could be told in new ways with this new art form.
Following Beowulf, Zemeckis said, "I just got hit with the idea that it could be A Christmas Carol, so I went back and read the book to refresh my memory on how I might have seen it and I realized this really hadn't been realized in the way that was actually imagined by Dickens as he wrote it. This could be the perfect way we could take a classic story that everyone is familiar with and re-envision it in a new and exciting way."
"Form always follows story. So when the idea of A Christmas Carol popped in my head, there was a chance to get an actor like Jim to morph himself into all these ghosts and characters and not do it in a traditional way with a 2D camera where all these other wonderful actors would play these ghosts and things like that."
When preparing his actors for the performance-capture films, he begins with an intense table read, where initially he acts out all the roles. "When we go into the volume, as well call it, which is this block of invisible inferred light that we do the movie in, [the actors] turn it on," said Zemeckis. "And so when we're working through the scene, we're recording everything, because there's no film; it’s just harddrives running. So you're doing a performance and you're doing a scene and we do the scenes from beginning to end like you'd do a scene in theater. We work the scene out, the actors work the scene out, and what's great is we record it and when we're really going to do it, if someone says, 'Gee Bob, I'd like to walk in from the other side of the room, because I think it would feel better,' we'd say just try it. So it's like we're doing these elaborate theatrical tech rehearsals. The whole thing is like a tech rehearsal, and he hone the scene down and then all of a sudden we look at each other and say, 'Is everybody happy? Does everybody feel good about that?' And when everyone does we say okay and we move on. We break for lunch."
When performance capture first broke onto the scene, there were murmurs that actors feared for their jobs. But Starkey contradicted that notion when he said, "When you talk to actors they have just as much interest in this new art form as we do. It's freeform and it's more like acting in theater. You're not encumbered by the mechanics of filmmaking but you still get to act and play these characters that otherwise you might not be appropriate for... because of your likeness you might not be cast in that role, but in this art form you can do the performance and they can create that likeness in the computer. So you get to play someone young or someone who is taller than you are or whatever it is."
Printer-friendly version
Here's the proof...
Final Fantasy, Polar Express, Monster House, Beowulf, and Christmas Carol are all full CG movies that uses motion capture. they all have bad reviews and they all did terrible in the theaters. The only one that did well was Happy Feet. As a percentage that is 96% of full CG mocap movies fail.
Whereas over 90% of full CG KEYRAMED movies receive good reviews and do very well at the theaters.
The reason is because the average movie goer wants to see an animated film with characters that are stylized and cartoony. A movie with hyper-realistic characters and moving realistic is discomforting to the audience.
Every mocap movie gets the same reaction. The reason Happy Feet did well was because the characters were dancing penguins. That's it!
Sure Mocap is a tool, 3D is a tool, 2D is a tool, Stop Motion is a tool... there are many tools in film making. But you don't use a hammer to cut lumber. Mocap works well in live action movies, because you are comparing the cg character movements to the live actors. So it works. But in a full CG film, keyframe animation works better because it shows off the expression and emotion through the poses.
I believe that you can compare Beowulf to The Incredibles or Ratatouille, because they're both films and especially if they both fall into the animation category. Not comparing them is like saying you can compare Coke to Pepsi but not to Sprite.
Mocap is fine when used properly, but it is not fine to call it animation. Someone earlier said that Disney used motion capture on 101 Dalmatians with Cruela Devile's car. You're right(well not really, that's called rotoscoping) but, it wasn't used on the entire film. It was used properly for one aspect of the film, everything else was keyframed.
I agree that real animation is keyframed, whether it's 3D, 2D, Flash, or Stop Motion. I also agree that it is good to use videos, live actors, sketches, rotoscoping, and even motion capture and a reference only.
Look at you calling other people elitists for sticking to their opinions and not jumping on the mocap bandwagon. "Mocap is another tool. 3D is another tool. 2D is another tool" YOU'RE A TOOL! I like what Juan said "Just because mocap is a tool it doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job". Point well said!
When animators are tweaking mocap it means that they are fixing the animation. Accept it, that is what's happening.
MOCAP SUCKS plain and simple. It's a useless tool.
There are so many elitists on this blog its hilarious. Mocap is another tool. 3D is another tool. 2D is another tool. They are all tools to expressing ideas, and sometimes emotions. 3D "isn't there yet" because there are a lot more advances needed before it can "emote" like 2D, hand drawn characters. When animators work with mocap, they aren't "fixing" it. That's your twisting it to support your angst. They're tweaking it to meet the artistic desires of the director. Instead of slamming other means of expressions, why not just support the one you are most comfortable with and continue growing in that area. Or, here's a novel idea, why not study other means of expressions outside of your box and see what all the talk is about. Then you might have an INFORMED idea that you can express respectfully and clearly.
I'll make this my final post...
You know what, I am a mocap hater. and it's really not because of the possibility of losing a job or being replaced. it's because I do not like how mocap looks on screen and that it's being called animation. Mocap looks terrible no matter how good it is. Just like how 3d looks like crap compared to 2d. Mocap needs an animator to fix what's wrong with it. An animator does not need mocap. A great animator can make awesome motion and make it look realistic.
Sure the're different style, whoop dee doo, who freaking cares! When I go see an animated film I want to see the emotions and personality only an animator can give. I'm not saying to get rid of mocap, just don't use it in an animated film and call it animation.
I saw Christmas Carol and the so called "animation" was terrible. They look like lifeless wax manikins.
This conversation makes me laugh. While I agree with Juan, I find that this conversation silly and will not end with anyone agreeing. Everyone is going to make their points and counterpoints and it will go on and on and on. So to help this go on and on here's my 2 cents.
I'm an animator also, and I agree with Juan on most of his points. I do believe that motion capture has it's place in certain aspects of entertainment, but I agree that is does not or should not be considered animation.
The guy who posted... "Walt Disney used performance capture in 101 Dalmations for the vehicles. they filmed white models with black tape on the edges to get the proper proportion and speed for the chase.
Chapter 13, page 330. then animators painted on top of it. sound familiar? it's performance capture."... well not exactly. That's called rotoscoping and rotoscoping is not the same as motion capture. The animators still created the animation. It was not automatic like it is with a computer.
The other guy who compared photography and art... good one.
The other guy who talked about 2d and 3d... all I have to say about that is that 2d is the better style and can never be replaced. After all look how much excitement and attention is around The Princess and The Frog.
Animators use reference video all time, I do and there is nothing wrong with that. However, the animator is the one putting more emotion and character into the animation. The video is only for reference.
I agree that you shouldn't compare movies that are completely different in style. Juan was wrong for using The Incredibles and Beowulf. Instead of Beowulf you should have said Monster House or Happy Feet.
so whatever I wasted enough time reading and typing this stuff. Like I said before... this will go on and on.
In the end everyone has a right to their own opinion. Mocap haters don't hate on mocap! And Mocap hater haters, don't hate on mocap haters
Dude this industry can support a variety of ways to tell a story. Robert Zemeckis at the end of the day will tell his side of the story regardless of your opinion on the craft of mocap. I love animation films and those studios that participate in these films do a fantastic job of it and make tons of money doing it.If mocap eventually replaces you as and animator which with the progression of the technology (i.e better facial rigs) might be a possibility hope you have plan B. So Juan stop the hate!!!
A mocap LOVER
blah blah blah I am in animator, mocap sucks blah blah blah.... Really people this why is this such a sensitive subject still. I am an animator myself. I have worked on keyframed movies, mocap movies, videogames, and commercials all that have had used either keyframed animation or mocap OR BOTH!!!!. And really there is no taking away of jobs as animators! I hate that stupid BS about it is putting people out of jobs!
The same could be said for 2D and 3D! so every 2D artist out there after 3D took off was out of a job? OR they adapted and learned 3D. Mocap is not going away, it helps in a lot of ways, and even makes for a pretty cool looking film. But really the closed minded mocap haters out there are so retarded. Do you really think what you capture on a mocap shoot is 100% done and there is nothing you need to do with it at all? NO! an animator goes in and adds to it, and when sometimes it needs more life, you animate more life. When a mocap character is standing in one place pretending to be flying or sliding down a moutain. ANIMATION needs to be added! Mocap is not a one stop shop process, sure it may be quicker then keyframing the whole thing sometimes, but that is just an option that a filmmaker has. It sometimes is even harder to fix mocap and so you just keyframe it. other times it would take weeks to get the keyframing right on a shot, when it might help to use mocap. Hell animators shoot video reference and copy that frame by frame sometimes also.... so is that cheating? No!
Again like some people have said it is a different medium. it does not mean it is wrong, it is just different. like painting a picture with oils, rather then water colors.... on canvas or on wood. just cause you don't like oil paintings does not mean people should stop painting with them.
I think mocap adds life that keyframe animation has a hard time doing sometimes. not saying it can't be done but it sometimes is very hard. But comparing Beowulf and the Incredibles is like saying look at The Notebook and The Matrix. just two different style of movies. Keyframe works for that style of movie. Animating Beowulf like the Incredibles would have just have not been a good fit.
so STOP BITCHING about Keyframe and Mocap... They are both animation! Just different styles! just like 2D animation and 3D animation..... Two different styles!!!!!
Animators use video as reference all the time. Being one myself I often wonder what the animation curves look like for various moves. I'd like to see what kind of curve shape I can get for polishing my shot. But if I told other animators this they would burst into diatribes about the evil of mocap.
Walt Disney used performance capture in 101 Dalmations for the vehicles. they filmed white models with black tape on the edges to get the proper proportion and speed for the chase.
Chapter 13, page 330. then animators painted on top of it. sound familiar? it's performance capture.
where's your open letter to Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and James Cameron?
Do you realize that artists painted pictures for thousands of years before the process to record light -photography- was invented. And yes, the painters of that time were also really upset about this new medium. Why capture a picture of something that is exactly like the real thing? The painters argued that it is the artist's interpretation of reality that imbues quality upon the art. Though they may have had a point, it's still mute because photography was a completely different medium and it took decades for artists to find ways to use the photographic medium to create new and different works of art.
In ways photography opened art to people who weren't classically trained painters. Anyone could pick up a camera and create a picture. In many ways, photography found it's most powerful medium among news journalists who covered moments that occured in the blink of an eye, such as war correspondance. This could have never happened with painting.
Mocap is similar to the analogy of photography. It is new and different and the traditional animators are acting like bullies in grade school classrooms when someone new and different arrives and threatens their small world.
Bad analogy aside, Mocap is great in that the actions of the actors are more spontaneous than animation. What takes an animator days to complete, and is an animators interpretation of an action, takes one session with an actor and is true to the performance of the character because it will be consistent throughout the characterization process.
I thought we were over this? People are still upset?
I saw Christmas Carol in IMAX and it was awesome. The characters were much better than previous versions. This tech will only get better.
Maybe I'm not making myself clear... I feel as an animator, that if a movie is going to be fully CG then it should be keyframed. If a movie like Beowulf, Polar Express, Christmas Carol and Final Fantasy want to use hyper realistic characters and use mocap to make them move realistically, then why not just use real human characters. The reviews of all these films have been negative. And I'm not talking about the story, I 'm talking about the mocap and the realistic characters.
I find it funny that people who defend mocap always state that an animator is there to either clean up the movement or fix it. If that's true, which I know it is, then forget mocap and let the animator do it from the start. I also find it interesting that Pixar made it a point to put in the closing credits of Ratatouille to say that the entire film was 100% keyframed. Yeah the difference is that Ratatouille is cartoony and Christmas Carol is more realistic, but I know that an animator can make a character move realistically. (Because I can and my fellow animators can as well)
I agree with you Gollum and King Kong look good. But it worked in the medium it was in. It was live action with CG characters. That's fine, but when it comes to a fully cg animated films... mocap has no place in it.
By the way, there's nothing wrong with puppets on strings... when it's a puppet not an animated character.
Post new comment