KQIII

Message

Lambonius · #76 Post by **Lambonius** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 8:29 pm

I suppose my use of the word terrible to describe the Star Wars prequels' effects is really more a matter of personal taste. No matter how cool and intricate the CG scenes and effects (especially the CG characters) got in the new Star Wars movies, to me they just couldn't hold a candle to real tangible objects, even if they are pretty clearly puppets. For example, I BELIEVED the original Yoda, but with the new episodes, his CG counterpart was more a novelty to me than anything else, and certainly didn't feel as real as the muppet version. But again, that kind of thing is mostly down to personal taste.

The Lord of the Rings movies, on the other hand are incredible, and are made even moreso by an amazing use of CG, same with the new King Kong. Peter Jackson and Weta digital just have it down when it comes to CG effects. I haven't really seen any other movies that compare to that team's work.

Kurdt · #77 Post by **Kurdt** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:15 am

That's because they actually have actors in the motion-capture suits. Andy Serkis actually PLAYED Gollum as well as voiced him. The same with King Kong. That's the only way to do it, IMO.

Lambonius · #78 Post by **Lambonius** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:20 am

Agreed, though I imagine the Star Wars prequels probably had some motion capture going on as well. Although, the overuse of keyframe animation would explain the somewhat more cartoonish CG animation in the the prequels (the Yoda light saber battle in Episode II comes to mind.)

I think Andy Serkis could have done a fantastic Yoda, by the way.

Boogeyman · #79 Post by **Boogeyman** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 9:21 am

Kurdt wrote:That's because they actually have actors in the motion-capture suits. Andy Serkis actually PLAYED Gollum as well as voiced him. .

Except that I heard somewhere that Gollum/Smeagol was done entirely through CG.

Gronagor · #80 Post by **Gronagor** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:33 pm

No, you heard wrong. Smeagol (sp?) was entirely him, and he also acted the entire Gollum sequence with that strange green suit on. Poor guy must have had pains in places he didn't know about after a long day of shooting!!

Lambonius · #81 Post by **Lambonius** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:04 pm

well you guys are both right actually. Visually, and technically, Gollum was entirely CG. However, the majority of the basic motion and animation was done with Andy Serkis (the actor who also voiced Gollum) in the motion capture suit. The unique thing about it is that Serkis actually was on the set and acted out the scenes with the actors, thus really becoming the character, rather than simply being another motion capture guy who shows up and does the movements at the motion capture studio. Once they got the basic motion down (which gives Gollum that realistic movement that made the character so believable) the CG guys went back in and smoothed everything out with keyframe animation (basically the computer equivalent of stop motion animation.) Another unique thing about the Serkis Gollum performance is that they actually motion captured his entire face as well as his body, allowing for the ultra-realistic detail in Gollum's facial expressions, which really helped in bringing the character to life. The same process was used with Kong in that movie.

The visual look of Gollum was also modeled from Andy Serkis' own face, so the two have a more than passing resemblance, yet another quality that gave the character more personality than your average CG creature.

decoy_maloon · #82 Post by **decoy_maloon** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:25 pm

Okay... we finally made a point about CG animation... if there is more about CG please use another post...

Kurdt · #83 Post by **Kurdt** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:56 am

Either way, my point remains the same. Acting is done with the full body involved. If the body isn't there, the mind won't follow. Therefore, it's best to have it done that way as much as possible. Having a nobody or a stunt man or somebody in the motion capture suit (in the case of "The Hulk" movie, it was the director) will never convey the meaning that an actor will unless the guy is an actor himself because he's not looking for character, he's looking to get it done. What made Andy Serkis' Gollum and Kong so awesome was that the CG character was essentially a puppet to him. He did the motions, the character did them. He made the facial expressions, the character did them. This meant that there was actual ACTING going on with the CG character instead of just looking pretty.

Brainiac · #84 Post by **Brainiac** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:14 pm

Kurdt wrote:Acting is done with the full body involved. If the body isn't there, the mind won't follow.

That's probably why voice acting can be difficult for stage/film/TV actors - you're reduced to only a single conduit.

KQIII

KQ3

Voice acting