2 ms·
I think some of these problems are solvable, if someone worked at it. The lack of gravitas of these creatures isn't in the pixels themselves, so to speak. They'
by jerf 5y ago
I think some of these problems are solvable, if someone worked at it. The lack of gravitas of these creatures isn't in the pixels themselves, so to speak. They're in the fact that large creatures fundamentally move differently than small ones. For a sample version of this, compare the "walk cycle" of a small dog to a large one. They aren't just scaled up.
The problem is, you motion capture a normal sized person then try to linearly project their motion up to a 10 foot tall behemoth, and we can't help but see the normal-sized person underneath. The motion needs to change.
Possibly something as simple as putting some weights of the right size in the right place on the motion captured actor would do the job.
- zerocrates 5y agoWell and bring up Lord of the Rings and you have to reckon with the beloved and acclaimed motion capture performance of Gollum by Andy Serkis. Obviously the earlier Lord of the Rings movies did have lots of practical effects and models, but also major use of CGI. It's not exactly a slam dunk for anti-CGI, as an example. The main problem with bad CGI is that it's bad, not that it's CGI.