NOT the question and bears no relevance.EricJ wrote:...But did you SEE it?
Please shut up and don't steer the conversation away from where it was going.
(See how nice that is???)
I think Mo-Cap is just another tool like CGI is.
It's just that it's one of the "newer ones" as far as feature films go -- not really, it's been used in video games for well over a decade-and-a-half now -- and it's been so misused by higher-profile names that it gets an automatic bad rap.
(I could really give a fig about what Cartoon Brew and Jerry Beck think now. They've been wrong on so many issues, dismissive and rude towards many fans and people in the creative community, and frankly sweat the small stuff way too much. We give these guys way more power than they really have or deserve. They have devolved into parody...)
*** WETA knows as WETA does and we'll leave it at that. They are now what ILM was 30 years ago. Leaders and craftsmen. ***
I don't care for Mo-Cap being a sole animation source but it has its place again as an animation tool and seems to have worked well for martial arts video games like Tekken and Virtua Fighter.
Just please don't give us more Polar Expresses and Final Fantasies... Those films looked waxy and eerie! Granted, it wasn't technical failures alone that made the Final Fantasy feature and Zemeckis' Mo-Caps fail...
P.S. -- More people would be dismissive of CGI had the first few Pixar films been more like the cheap direct-to-video CGI features generally are. We'd be saying many of the same things about CGI all the time that are being said about Mo-Cap. It's not the tool, it's how well it's implemented...