I don't see why it matters what you call it as long as you like it. If it's not art, that's fine as long as you like it. Those who don't like it, why you want to take it away from those who do?
idragosani wrote:...the recent Beowulf movie -- why did it need to be motion-capured CG?
Why can't it be motion captured CG? WHat if that is what they
wanted to do?
idragosani wrote:There have been epic medieval movies made entirely without CG,
So why make another one? Why not do something different? There certainly haven't been enough realistic, motion captured, epic fantasy movies. When 80% of movies are realistic motion captured CG I might say, why don't they traditionally animated it? Until then, I want more and more and
more. As long as
Beowulf and
Final Fantasy stand alone, we need MORE.
VARIETY is good for the industry. Every movie looking like squashy, stretchy Disney work gets old. In the same vein, I haven't watched the last few Pixar films and certainly don't care to see all the clones and rip-offs by other other studios trying to be them. I want something different.
The same goes for rotoscoped 2D. There is not enough. If it is not art, that is fine. If it is not animation, that is fine too. It is
something though and I find it appealing and want to see more movies like
Fire & Ice, or an even bigger epic fantasy in rotoscope.
idragosani wrote:Now, it is one thing to trace over live action versus using live action as a reference. We use photographs and models as references all of the time. We study how animals walk and how leaves fall to effectively animate them. And I think that is a more effective way to animate, because you, as an artist, are squashing and stretching reality with your own skills and experiences and making the art more vibrant and alive.
I agree, but there is nothing saying that's what a particular needs or that it will benefit from that. Every style has its place. I can imagine a few movies that would be destroyed by individual artists squashing and stretching reality with their own experiences.
If there is one point I understand most, it is that traditional animator wouldn't
want to work on a rotoscope film. That would probably be exceedingly boring. That's fine too. By now they should be able to shoot the live action on green screen and write software to do the rotoscope automatically with little need for touch up. I think it is more of a special effect that animation anyway, and so no real animator should be needed in the process. Still doesn't change the fact that I wish there were so many more such movies to watch.
Maybe it is better to think of it as a
look rather than animation. If the process could be automated, how different would a rotoscoped movie be from Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez's
Sin City?