New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

It's somewhere between creepy and super creepy, is the consensus

Kim Hollis: In comparison to other CGI animation and Real D technology, what do you think of Zemeckis's motion capture style of filmmaking? Rank the three in terms of immersive experience.

George Rose: Motion capture ranks pretty low. Zemeckis keeps using the technology to capture the motion of realistic objects: people. People only look like people when they are filmed with regular cameras. The technology was so effective with Gollum in Lord of the Rings because he is a creature, not a human. He was always going to look fake, but the technology made him more lifelike by giving him man-made movement. It does the opposite when applied to actual humans. It makes them look like creepy and stiff. If you're making an animated human, you almost have to try making them NOT look human in order for the audience to connect, like Carl from Pixar's Up. He's short and boxy, but he's charming because his appearance isn't trying too hard to look realistic. The technology may work for the ghosts of Christmas past, present and future, but for Scrooge himself and the citizens around him, it just makes me feel like I'm the middle of the Disney theme park ride It's A Small World. And that's not a good thing.

Michael Lynderey: Being that the Polar Express is my favorite animated movie - ever - I'd have to rank Zemeckis' style as the best. Or at least the style that's been put into the most interesting use - and it hasn't been used very often. As for CGI, it is what it is, and the experience there depends on the quality of the movie or the animation. Real D would have to rank last, because I've never much felt myself "immersed" in anything 3D. I've only been annoyed, occasionally, or sometimes I forget it's in 3D and just watch the movie. Can I put traditional animation somewhere within this ranking? I miss it.





Josh Spiegel: This may be something closer to personal taste, but right now, Zemeckis' version of animation is the lowest on the totem pole. My biggest issue with Disney's A Christmas Carol is something that others complained about with regards to Polar Express and Beowulf: the dead, dead eyes of the characters. Some are more distracting than others, but I can't get too immersed in an experience that promotes realism but seems more like it's starring zombies. Right now, a Pixar movie with 3-d technology is the most immersive experience there is, to my mind.

Kim Hollis: I agree that Zemeckis's animation feels off, and I do think it's largely because the eyes aren't as expressive as they ought to be. I still find it easiest by far to become immersed in Pixar films, regardless of whether they are 3-D or not. If we're talking about movies that have used the 3-D technology most effectively, Coraline leads the pack, followed by Meet the Robinsons.

Jason Lee: This question recalls for me a statement made by Roger Ebert in his review of Princess Mononoke: "I go to the movies for many reasons...I want to see wondrous sights not available in the real world, in stories where myth and dreams are set free to play. Animation opens that possibility, because it is freed from gravity and the chains of the possible. Realistic films show the physical world; animation shows its essence. Animated films are not copies of 'real movies,' are not shadows of reality, but create a new existence in their own right."

I 100% agree with Ebert on this and feel the same way as Kim does. I don't need realism in my animation . . . I want boundless, imaginative worlds where the style of animation itself helps tell the story. For this reason, I enjoy a film like The Triplets of Belleville much more than anything Zemeckis has done.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5