First Clip from Disney's A Christmas Carol

Originally Posted By dshyates

This looks pretty cool:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOrDN21yoGk" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...DN21yoGk</a>

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

Umm...I followed the link and got Raising Arizona.

Mouse Tales
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ice.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By dshyates

Sorry, my bad.

Here is the correct link:

<a href="http://geektyrant.com/2009/05/6430/" target="_blank">http://geektyrant.com/2009/05/6430/</a>

 

Originally Posted By SBSBelle22

Um...

OMG AWESOME!!!

This is how they should have done the Haunted Mansion movie. Eddie Murphy and Jennifer TIlly were just ridiculous.

Uh, but yeah back on subject. This is so way cool! Love Jim Carrey!!!

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

I thought this was going to be a live-action film, not CGI.

The world can't have too many versions of A Christmas Carol, says I.

Donald Duck's Family Tree
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/donald.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ald.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By FerretAfros

It's motion capture, so it's sort of a cross between live action and CGI. It looks like it's done pretty well, but there's still just something a little 'off' about the faces, particularly the eyes. Polar Express seemed to suffer pretty badly from that, as their faces just stretched in different directions instead of really showing emotion. I didn't see Beowulf, but I heard it had problems with the eternal blank stare and no blinking. Hopefully that's something that's easy enough to fix that they can get it right before releasing the film, but other than that, I'm pretty surprised by how good it looks.

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

Oh, motion capture...no wonder Scrooge looked so odd.

Yeah, staring eyes are a definite problem in video games, so I guess some CGI filmmakers have the same problem.

House of Mouse
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/house.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...use.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By Ursula

Am I the only one on the planet that thinks that mocap is just freaky looking?

 

Originally Posted By jdub

>>Am I the only one on the planet that thinks that mocap is just freaky looking?<<

Nope! That's one of the reasons I refused to see the movie version of "Polar Express"--just plain freaky looking.

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

I've only seen snippets of Polar Express, so I can't really comment. But from what I've read, EVERYONE thinks motion capture looks freaky.

Disney Role-Playing
<a href="http://disneyglobe.proboards.com" target="_blank">http://disneyglobe.proboards.com</a>

 

Originally Posted By markymouse

And not GOOD freaky, just not quite right freaky. It doesn't expand your senses as much as irritate them.

But my particular beef - since only a small percentage of movies are motion capture - who decided every movie has to be loud? Come on, this is Charles Dickens. "Packs a wallop" "non-stop roller coaster" and "edge of your seat action and in your face special effects" are not phrases you want in reviews of A Christmas Carol. But judging from this clip, that's what they're going for.

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

Here's my analogy for this motion capture technique.

When you're in the boat sailing through the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' attraction at Disneyland -- you see the various AA figures, and they look really cool -- almost real.

The lighting is just so, and you're several feet away from them, so, like in theater, they look really cool and very realistic.

However, if you got out of the boat, and stood right next to those same AA figures, they would look sort of strange and waxy with the overdone make-up and wigs -- and the eyes would look sort of dead and peculiar. Overall, not nearly as realistic as when you were sitting back in the boat.

That's what watching that Motion Capture process is like for me. The characters SORT of look cool, but overall, it misses the mark.

In this day of digital photography, and the amazing special effects available to you -- why not just use live action?

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

Why not just use live action?

Very good point.

As computer renderings come closer and closer to looking like live-action, there doesn't seem to be any real reason to make CGI films, let alone motion capture.

I can't understand the 'praise' heaped upon CGI films for backgrounds that are inditinguishable from real life. If that's what you're aiming for, just film the real thing.

Disney Glitches
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/dglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...tch.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By markymouse

I do like the potential for CGI to create photo realistic movies that can't be done through live actors. Space travel and dinosaurs are the two examples that come immediately to mind. But that works best, apparently in a lot of people's minds, when the characters who populate those environments are either real or clearly cartoons. Nearly realistic animation and motion capture in particular just never seem to work.

The best I can say for it is that it is a step in a process. Now, how you feel about the end result is a matter for debate. That British actor who wanted to do every Sherlock Holmes story but died too young. In ten or fifteen years, some director could resurrect him digitally and finish the opus. But should that happen? Should someone buy the rights to use the "real" Charlie Chaplin in a new movie? Even if someone had the legal right, would anyone have the ethical right to create Casablanca 2? Slightly easier to stomach - historical movies where the actors finally look exactly like Nixon, or Kennedy, or the Beatles, or whoever.

But I digress.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

I'm neither a fan of motion capture or of Jim Carey. So I'll hold on to my money until I hear back from friends and or critics I trust. I do love the Christmas Carol story, but it certainly has been remade a million times.

 

Originally Posted By markymouse

There are a few actors - Jim Carey, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrel - that I am going to avoid like the plague 90% of the time and really, really like 10% of the time.

The combination of Jim Carey and motion capture are two strikes against this for me too.

 

Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub

I would add Tom Cruise to that list. Julia Roberts tops my actress list of people that do not need my money.

 

Originally Posted By SBSBelle22

Wasn't Gollum in LOTR mocap? I thought he was feakishly real looking, especially for a creature that does not exist. I kept expecting him to show up at the oscars with the rest of the cast lol

On the other hand, Polar express, while and enjoyable movie I thought, was stiff and awkward... hhmm... :/

 

Originally Posted By basil fan

Yes, Gollum is flawless, the epitome of CGI special effects.

Donald Duck's Family Tree
<a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/donald.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ald.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA

^^^"King Kong" is another great example of outstanding special effects. The giant ape was done using motion capture, and it's darn near flawless.

And Gollum, although human-like, is off just enough that you buy it.

It's when they start to replace real humans with the motion-capture characters is when it starts to look slightly 'off.'