An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
A Computer Generated Christmas
I guess I just have to accept it, Christmas now starts on November 1st. Not only were stores immediately adorned in tinsel with carols playing over their loudspeakers the day after Halloween, but it’s not even a week into November and the holiday movie season has also begun.
This weekend brings us Disney’s A Christmas Carol. I think it’s worth noting that even though Dickens wrote this over 150 years ago, Disney has decided that it will now own this story, along with Snow White, Peter Pan and the Marvel Zombies.
Not only has A Christmas Carol jump started the holiday season, it is also the third movie in a row from innovative director Robert Zemeckis (Forest Gump, Castaway, Back to the Future) to use motion capture technology. His first stab at it was five years ago withThe Polar Express, a movie that attempted to be a whimsical holiday perennial but is largely known for its creepy dead-eyed computer generated recreations of Tom Hanks. Beowulf came next. Although the human characters looked a bit better here, and even though the CG Angelina Jolie was mostly naked, the human characters still felt eerie and unnatural—like a big budget video game cut scene.
Motion capture (or mo-cap) is a fun new tool for directors, but has yet to be truly successful in tricking our sophisticated brains into thinking fake humans are real. Yet mo-cap’s popularity is growing. I think the appeal for both directors and actors to use mo-cap, is the freedom it gives them to tell stories. Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and many of the other actors “appearing” in A Christmas Carol are playing multiple roles with their faces manipulated in ways that would take hours upon hours in the makeup chair. Directors are able to control every aspect of an environment without having to deal with the real world, weather, annoying extras, teamsters…
While A Christmas Carol looks like it has taken a step forward in terms of the technology, I find that this technique always keeps me at a distance from the story. It’s hard to connect with computer rendered facsimiles of known actors. They serve as a constant reminder that I am watching a movie. It’s not computer animation’s fault though. Pixar has managed to suck me into their movies time and time again. I weep like a baby during the first ten minutes of Up and every time I see the Sarah McLaughlan song in Toy Story 2.
Looking at the trailers for A Christmas Carol, I can’t help but wonder if or when this technology is ever going to look right. My guess is we’ll be able to find out because more and more directors are playing with mo-cap in their movies.
So even if it is way too early, Merry Christmas to all! And when you go to the theater this holiday season, watch out for computer generated zombies.
What do you think about motion capture technology? Do you like these movies? Do they bother you? Are you planning on seeing Disney's A Christmas Carol?
This weekend brings us Disney’s A Christmas Carol. I think it’s worth noting that even though Dickens wrote this over 150 years ago, Disney has decided that it will now own this story, along with Snow White, Peter Pan and the Marvel Zombies.
Not only has A Christmas Carol jump started the holiday season, it is also the third movie in a row from innovative director Robert Zemeckis (Forest Gump, Castaway, Back to the Future) to use motion capture technology. His first stab at it was five years ago withThe Polar Express, a movie that attempted to be a whimsical holiday perennial but is largely known for its creepy dead-eyed computer generated recreations of Tom Hanks. Beowulf came next. Although the human characters looked a bit better here, and even though the CG Angelina Jolie was mostly naked, the human characters still felt eerie and unnatural—like a big budget video game cut scene.
Motion capture (or mo-cap) is a fun new tool for directors, but has yet to be truly successful in tricking our sophisticated brains into thinking fake humans are real. Yet mo-cap’s popularity is growing. I think the appeal for both directors and actors to use mo-cap, is the freedom it gives them to tell stories. Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and many of the other actors “appearing” in A Christmas Carol are playing multiple roles with their faces manipulated in ways that would take hours upon hours in the makeup chair. Directors are able to control every aspect of an environment without having to deal with the real world, weather, annoying extras, teamsters…
While A Christmas Carol looks like it has taken a step forward in terms of the technology, I find that this technique always keeps me at a distance from the story. It’s hard to connect with computer rendered facsimiles of known actors. They serve as a constant reminder that I am watching a movie. It’s not computer animation’s fault though. Pixar has managed to suck me into their movies time and time again. I weep like a baby during the first ten minutes of Up and every time I see the Sarah McLaughlan song in Toy Story 2.
Looking at the trailers for A Christmas Carol, I can’t help but wonder if or when this technology is ever going to look right. My guess is we’ll be able to find out because more and more directors are playing with mo-cap in their movies.
So even if it is way too early, Merry Christmas to all! And when you go to the theater this holiday season, watch out for computer generated zombies.
What do you think about motion capture technology? Do you like these movies? Do they bother you? Are you planning on seeing Disney's A Christmas Carol?
Tags: movies
-
Comment by Alan on November 6, 2009 at 12:20pm -
I saw a bit of Polar Express and the kids were the creepiest thing in that, little zombie looking things. I think the technique will be good once they find the "right" thing to do with it. Frankly, I'd rather see a live action version of a Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey. Does the story really need that much CGI goodness?
Does the upcoming Avatar use it? That seems like a good use for it, and a movie I am geeking for badly at this point.
-
Comment by John T. Capp on November 6, 2009 at 2:02pm -
We won't see this movie. As if we need another retelling with Disney touches. I won't give Disney money to see how they butcher it. We'll stick with reading Dickens.
As for the technology, I think it's interesting -- it did well in small doses for Smeagol/Gollum in LOTR. I get sick of it after awhile because it never looks quite right. However, even the slightest bit too much of it is so "in your face" and jarring that it interferes with Coleridge's willing suspension of disbelief. Like you, DGB, I can't really lose myself in a story in which the visual narration calls so much attention to itself.
-
Comment by Reeling on November 6, 2009 at 3:55pm
-
The first question is, do we really need another version of this story?
I think mo-cap works best when the characters aren't human based. Gollum looks really cool. As does Grendel in Beowulf. We're not being tricked into thinking that these are human characters and our brains tend to be more forgiving with them.
From what I understand, Avatar does this (and does this well). Avatar is designed to totally immerse the viewer in the world--which is why the 3-D aspect of it is such a big deal. But that is another blog post entirely.
-
Comment by wookie on November 6, 2009 at 4:42pm - I'll stick with our family tradition of the Muppets version.
-
Comment by Floor Pie on November 6, 2009 at 4:45pm - The Muppet version is actually pretty faithful to Dickens. (Except for Statler and Waldorf as the ghosts of Jacob and Robert Marley...)
-
- Robert Marley! You gotta love the Muppets.
-
Comment by wookie on November 6, 2009 at 5:58pm
- Hey, don't diss Marley and Marley, man! I love Statler and Waldorf!
-
Comment by MamatothaMax on November 6, 2009 at 6:04pm - I think one could argue that directors (and actors) get so caught up with and fall inlove with the process that the craft of story telling falls by the way side. I also think the same thing about print making. If the end result isn't your goal (instead you want to do something fancy with a computer like mo cap) then it will just be pretty crap (or in many of the prints I've seen in my travels not so pretty crap in duplicate).
-
Comment by John T. Capp on November 9, 2009 at 2:21pm
- I have seen a few reviews that have not been kind to this effort. The best line about Zemeckis's infatuation with this technology and blindness to its flaws: "Motion capture is not emotion capture."
-
Comment by StitchyWench on November 9, 2009 at 3:05pm - I'm with Wookie - the Muppets version is my favorite.
© 2010 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by 
.
You need to be a member of Offsprung to add comments!
Join Offsprung