Monday, August 15, 2011

An Open Letter To Andy Serkis

Dear Mr. Serkis,

If you deserve to be considered for an Academy Award nomination for Acting in regards to your performance motion capture, then every animator who has ever animated a character in any movie deserves consideration as well.

Sincerely,

Tim Borrelli

P.S., Let me clarify:

Recently, you have been quoted as claiming that performance capture actors deserve to be considered for the Academy Awards in Acting categories:


Before I even start, let me say that I feel that you are a great actor. I don’t doubt your acting ability, both on stage and on film. But that’s not the debate here.

From what I gather, here is what you are suggesting. You seem to feel that performances like yours in Lord of the Rings (Gollum), King Kong (King Kong), and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (Caesar) should be recognized by The Academy as an individual effort in excellence of acting performance.

Wait. What?

Let’s ignore the fact that animators have been doing this without motion capture longer than you have been suiting up for it.

Performance capture is the digital capture of a performance of an individual actor, to be later applied to a digital character. Yet according to you, “…there are two parts to the process. The first part is capturing the performance. Only later down the line do you start seeing the characters being painted over frame by frame using pixels."

First, that doesn’t sound like an individual performance to me.

Second, painted over? Using pixels? For a guy who has positioned himself to be the spokesperson for performance capture, it sounds like you don't quite understand what goes into the entire process.

Ignoring the fact that there is nothing “being painted over frame by frame using pixels” (almost) anywhere in the process, you seem to be ignorant of what happens to your performance data after you walk off the set. Many times, chunks of data need to be thrown out entirely and done by hand. Also, it is quite often that the actor’s proportions don’t match that of the digital characters, requiring a remapping of the motion. This may not seem like it affects a performance, but it in fact does. Different proportions means poses don’t read the same. It means a slouch on a short actor is a hunchback on a tall character. It means delicate interactions often need to be heavily modified or redone with animation due to differing limb lengths. I could go on.

Long story short, it means the performance is not 1-to-1 from performance capture to screen.

Furthermore, you claim that "Performance-capture technology is really the only way that we could bring these characters to life… It's the way that Gollum was brought to life, and King Kong, and the Na'vi in Avatar and so on and it's really another way of capturing an actor's performance.”

You then go on to say, “That's all it is, digital make-up."

What. The. Hell.

Well, makeup artists HAVE an Oscar category. So are you also suggesting that the people behind taking his performance to the big screen be considered in that category? When you say “that success using the technique can be rewarded with current accolades,” is that what you mean? Should the modelers, animators, painters, shader TDs, lighters, etc., be considered for Makeup and Costume Design?

Makeup and Costume Design teams do amazing work. I just have trouble seeing how modelers, animators, painters, shader TDs, lighters, etc. fit into those categories.

Or are you referring to the VFX category (which, while valid, is a much broader category than acting), or even the lesser known, non-televised technology categories? Are you basically saying that your performance, which wouldn’t even be viewable without those aforementioned teams of people, is more deserving of public recognition?

I, as well as many others, won’t argue that motion capture data is only as good as the actor in the suit. I have directed and worked with motion capture data from actors on both ends of the talent spectrum. I agree that without the proper direction and performance, the end result that I produced wouldn’t be as emotional, as powerful, or as accurate.

However, I also know that without a talented digital character team (animators, modelers, TDs, etc.), that performance will NEVER look as intended.

What you've done here, Mr. Serkis, is downplay the contribution that the whole team makes to bring a character like Gollum to life. What’s worse is that you aren’t alone. In this featurette on the making of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the animation team is completely overlooked!


Is the technology that Weta developed awe-inspiring and exciting? Hell yes it is. I’d love to be on set just for a day and see what the technology is like from start to finish. It would be amazing (and after writing this I may never get the chance). But to see the contribution of an entire discipline glossed over so readily by both a recognizable name (your own, Andy Serkis!) AND a production team is disheartening and frustrating.

Yet, as infuriating as that may be, this is not the point I want to make here. That point is:

If you deserve to be considered for an Academy Award nomination for Acting, then every animator who has ever animated a character in any movie deserves consideration as well.

Animators, both hand-keyed and motion capture artists, breathe life into their characters. They push performances of their characters to an artistic limit, based on the direction they are given. Many even use video reference- animators often of themselves performing (yes, ACTING) the scenes they are working on, mocap artists using video shot on set.

Not to single one person out, but some do it REALLY WELL, like this example (password: education):


Rio Comparison Reel from jeff gabor on Vimeo.

And this one:



It should be clear that this guy is an amazing animator. He’s also a great example of an animator using his own performance to bring characters to life (in the case of Rio, a female lead, and supporting male, and a bird.) As animators, we’ve been taught that video reference is a powerful tool. Like any tool, however, it requires training and practice to get right.

Some things may come more naturally (in a male animator’s case, the supporting male). Some things may take more creativity (like humanizing a creature, such as a bird). Even other things may take a bigger investment into the movement and emotion of the character (the female lead).

However, the end result in Rio didn’t come from just an animator’s performance. It came from the ability to translate that acting into what the digital character warranted.

Like you, Mr. Serkis, animators use their performance to improve and sell the characters they are acting for, in the interest of the whole story.

So my question for you is this:

Don’t animators also deserve individual recognition from the Academy for Acting?

Mr. Serkis, please leave a comment here, or drop me a line. I welcome the discussion, as would many others who do and do not share my opinion.

26 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Tim, I'm a friend and collaborator with Andy Serkis, so definitely biased. I agree with many of your points and share many of your concerns and I'm sure you'll find everyone involved in this process is as much in love with good ol' animation as you are and would want animators to get all the well-earned credit they deserve. As someone who has had the privilege of being on the motion capture set, watching Andy work, I can assure you that 100% of the essential elements of the performance you see on the screen originates with Andy -- the emotional content, facial expression, body language and vocalizations -- the acting -- are all there and just as potent on the stage as in the final product. If anything the CGI gets in the way a bit. Obviously the CGI artists have to make alterations but I think their objective is to remain true to Andy's performance. If Andy's public statements are technically imprecise I'm sure it's because he's trying to explain a complex process in simple terms and maybe it loses something in translation. Thanks for opening up on this subject, I hope this addresses some of your concerns and feel free to contact me: Keith Stern, vendor2@veriport.com.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm just a small independent film maker who has had no access to motion capture of any kind. Here's my take.
    The real problem is that the whole award system is flawed. Every aspect of every part of a production is one bled together symbiotic thing. I think a more mainstream accepted example of that is in giving any film actor an award for best performance. Mostly because that performance is drastically altered and for all intents and purposes created by the editor of the film. So you could also argue that anyone editing a film deserves credit for acting. That even begs the question of how many people ultimately contributed to that final edit. Should only the head editor be given credit? Even though the director was very involved in that process and several other people contributed cuts that went to the can exactly as they finished them? What about the low lights with strong shadows that made the performance more threatening? Or the cinematography that had that particular line delivered from a low imposing angle? Heightening the drama. Then there's things like the technology used by Rockstar Games to make LA Noire. Would you argue that those actors should only be recognized for their voice contributions? Then to take it one step further what if the voice performance is altered in any way? Does that make it undeserving of any recognition? A slight echo or mood enhancing music in the background for example. After all it's not the performance they originally gave. People behind the scenes had to make it sound better. My point is it's a slippery slope you're going down here. Andy Serkis is an incredible actor delivering award deserving performances but due to the tools used to capture that performance he's not eligible for the same awards as other actors. It's hypocritical for many reasons more apparent than just the old school film making techniques I spoke of earlier. I mean have you seen any modern movies recently? A third of the time the actor is on screen it's a CG version of them. Time to change with the technology. Simply put if his performance is good enough for an award in acting then give it to him. Especially if he provided both the voice and the physical aspects of the character. (Which is what separates his performances from the examples you gave. That and what the he was doing was using video of himself as a reference.) Also if the animators ironed out the glitches of translating that performance to the 3D model someone else made so that it all looked smooth then give them one for best animation. Or scrap the whole award thing in general and just make movies because you want to make movies.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If what Keith says is true, than the only animation note the director ever gives on a Sirkis film is: "Make the animation more like Sirkis's original peformance" and nothing more. If the director gives ANY other instruction or direction, than it becomes something different, doesn't it? And I find it incredibly hard for a director, an animation supervisor, or even the animator to not want to add or subtract flourishes here and there. Especially when, Mocap technology, no matter how good, "gets in the way" as you said. It makes things ugly. Even if what Keith says is mostly true, there is ART in recreating his performance.

    The animators role is downplayed so much in the realm of vfx that you have to be careful when describing how the final product is made. There is too much of a bias towards actors right now. Andy is a phenomenal actor and has received immense public and industry praise. The best animators in the world combined will never get nearly as much credit.

    I do not think Tim is fully out of line here but, I am a biased animator.

    Eric Drobile

    (PS. Andy, If I ever get to work with your mocap data, I sincerely hope, for the sake of the film or game's production, that it is a collaborative team effort to make a beautiful end product, and not a blind following of your motion based blueprints. Also I am a HUGE fan of your work and hope you are doing well! :D )

    ReplyDelete
  5. At some point you're just essentially scanning a performance. I think we're essentially there.

    A puppeteer is not an actor or an animator. Someone who physical performs and voices a character but is then traced is still an actor. If an animator acts out and voices a character... and then he or someone else animates him--sure let him get an acting nomination. But if you take a movie like A Scanner Darkly you have a case where actors were filmed, their voices recorded and then traced.

    Cleaning up performance capture is far more akin to rotoscoping a performance than it is pupeteering or animating.

    Acting is using the human body to create motion and character. Animation is not a real-time process. So it's a different skill. You can sit and work for days on a specific eye reaction. It's a form of performance but it's not acting. We don't have the turn of phrase "Animating Out" to mean something that you just do without deliberation.

    Andy Serkis is an actor. Animators essential 3D roto his performances. But the performance was done (1) by a single person (2) in real-time.

    What process takes that performance and renders it is irrelevant in my opinion. Now if substantial amounts of his performance were changed by animators (more so than say a compositor adjusting a filmed performance) then yes we have a problem. But I don't consider Mocap cleanup adding to a performance so much as just creatively rendering it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Acting is the work of an actor or actress, which is a person in theatre, television, film, or any other storytelling medium who tells the story by portraying a character and, usually, speaking or singing the written text or play."

    An animator portrays a character. They are in charge of every aspect of that performance. Animators have to bring that character to life and find a way to get people to empathize with the character they are portraying. A good animator is just as much an actor as Andy Serkis.

    quote source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acting

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll guarantee to you that there are some shots that made it into the film that did not have mocap/reference from Andy Serkis..... maybe decided to add a shot that wasn't originally conceived before the motion capture sessions. I also know from experience that there are shots at times that change so much they throw away the original performance.

    Also, mocap companies etc. Lie to producers and actors etc saying how seamless and 1 to 1 it is etc. So what you see on stage & what you're told happens after that may not be entirely how it works. I'm sure your memory does not remember every single shot.

    How many people have cried during an animated feature? ... To pull that off..... It is so much easier to make a human looking at another human to cry than it is to look at something that is known to not be physically real, to have empathy for that. That is truly an accomplishment & to say that doesn't require a great deal of 'acting' ... is just denial.

    Now, what I might not completely agree with is, he says then 'Every Animator deserves consideration' Maybe to be considered, but there are animators that are better than others just like there are actors that are better than others.

    Furthermore it would be more difficult and require more skill to be able to make all the performances feel like one individual rather than one doing it all on his own.

    Other examples to be considered (a)Tom Hanks, who we know is deservedly an academy award winning actor .... in Polar Express however (where they animators were told not to add a blink if he did not blink)& he played many of the roles...
    (b) The performance of Gollum is more convincing than that of Smeagol that Andy Serkis was filmed doing. Yet, they say the CG is a hindrance ... ?

    I think animators should allow this to happen, even though for now, they are neglecting the role and abilities of the animators ... this gives recognition to the digital character & I feel is a step to bridge the gap in giving the recognition to the fully animated character. (They can give it to 1 animated character, say The Beast from 'Beauty and the Beast' or Mr. Incredible from 'The Incredibles' ... & the whole team that worked on that character can feel the appreciation.

    Also, .... Animators as well as many others should receive royalties when they do not. But, that's for a different discussion.

    Do characters that do not appear on the screen as live action humans deserve acting recognition, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. As a former animator at Weta who’s worked with Andy Serkis’ performance capture data on both Lord of the Rings and King Kong, I both strongly agree with some of his points, and strongly disagree with others. Yes, the work he did for those films and Apes is incredible, and he has every right to be recognized, but not just as an individual. Very often, that performance has to either be enhanced in some ways, with something as simple as changing eye movement or a facial expression, or completely discarded and animated from scratch. Things can either go wrong technically, the performance that was captured doesn’t work as best as it should when seen in context of its surrounding shots, or someone makes the decision that the performance capture artist’s take wasn’t good enough. The performance capture artist, however, has no knowledge of what percentage of their take is used in that range from all to none. And when something has to be created from scratch, as was often the case in LOTR, the emotive needs of that scene relies on the performance of an animator, with the performance artist used sometimes as reference. In that case, it is the animator who is doing the acting.



    For him to break it down to a two part process, then, is a gross over-simplification. Aside from the artistic contribution made from either the performance capture artist or animator, or whatever mix of the two exists, there are the several other creative and technical processes needed in order for that character to be believed as any other performer. Modeling, rigging, texturing, lighting, rendering and compositing are several other crucial steps that, if not executed to the highest degree, would then render anyone’s performance or animation irrelevant because the character wouldn’t be believable.



    And for him to say that “performance-capture technology is really the only way that we could bring these characters to life,” is both arrogant and insulting. There are a great many animators that are just as good at bringing digital characters to life as any actor, but performance capture is sometimes a quicker and more efficient way to do so. And “It’s the way that Gollum was brought to life. [] That’s all it is, digital make-up.” is just incorrect. It is one of the ways, but not the only way. I know, because I, and anywhere from 20 to 50 other animators helped bring those characters to life, in addition to his performance capture for those two films. I can’t speak to its use in Apes as I did not work on that film.



    I understand his need to evangelize the process of motion-capture, because he is the most prominent figure in the industry, and he has done some truly incredible work. I am in no way criticizing any of his performances in that regard. But, just as people thinking that he merely provided Gollum’s voice is an incorrect understanding of his much greater contribution, giving credit solely to a performance capture artist for the acting of a digital character is just as incorrect a statement for the many artist’s much greater contribution to making that character believable on film.



    To address a comment, for Keith Stern to so say that the CGI gets in the way is both ignorant and insulting. How believable would Gollum, Kong or Caesar have been if it were Andy Serkis on screen rather than a 60 pound husk of a hobbit, a 5000 pound Gorilla or 100 pound chimpanzee? And, since he wasn’t an animator at Weta, he has no understanding of what percentage of the performance originates with Andy. Again, yes, Andy did a brilliant job with his performance in all three roles, but those performances as seen on screen were not 100% authored by him, and without the CG to plug it into, would never be seen, and these arguments would be irrelevant.



    Keith Huggins

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello everyone! I am very excited to see all of the comments coming in here, as well as other websites. I apologize for my absence in replying individually, but I've been busy with the other half of my life this week.

    That said, I am happy to have gotten such an outreach of support for my opinion, but even more excited that people are willing to speak against it. In all honesty, my main goal WAS to facilitate this discussion, and I am happy it's happening.

    I hope to follow up with everyone as soon as possible! I have many thoughts that will potentially make it into a near-future post, including encouraging more discussion of this topic.

    Until then, I'm off in my powerlifting world for a few days, being humbled by not just the attention this post has received, but also by the masters of this athletic strength sport.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey Tim,

    Great post. It's funny that you mentioned powerlifting because I feel it's related to this subject.

    It's unfair for Andy Serkis to take credit for Caesar because he essentially used performance enhancing visual effects! :)

    If you were in a powerlifting competition, you would be disqualified for using steroids: It's a performance enhancing drug that gives you an unfair competitive advantage. We wouldn't be able to tell whether it was your performance or the work of the steroids that gives you a great performance.

    What about a situation like John Hurt in Elephant Man which garnered him an Oscar nomination even though he was in makeup and wearing a mask?

    Unlike visual effects which can dramatically alter the performance after the fact, makeup aids and suppliments the actors performance.

    The same can be said with the use of protein drinks, weightlifting shoes, etc. These items supplement your performance, but do not enhance it.

    I think we should stop using the words motion capture or performance capture. It should be called performance enhancing visual effects.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Awesome to see a fellow classmate's work being used as an example. I've talked to Jeff over the years and the feeling I come away with from talking him and to most accomplished animators is that they are frustrated because of the lack of recognition, so much so that it really undermines their creativity and just makes them wanna quit and do other stuff. What keeps them going is the sheer fun it is to bring characters to life. That's why they are called animators, they breathe life into the inanimate "pixels" to use Serkis' word.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To press the "performance enhancing" further, beyond even my post, it should be noted that just USING steroids won't make you bigger, stronger or faster They just let you recover quicker so that you can work harder in order to excel.

    It's the same for motion capture. Just HAVING mocap doesn't mean it's going to look good. That's where the extra work comes in- before, during and after the captures sessions. The better you plan, direct, cleanup and layer on top of mocap, the better your end result is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. who cares!?
    If you're acting (or animating(or anything)) for the accolades, you're doing it for the wrong reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Honestly, Black Pug, that's a fair point, and one I agree with.

    In my opinion, though, the problem here is that there are people taking too much credit for a team effort. In this case, Andy Serkis downplays the contribution others had on his performance in order to justify being deserving of an award for himself and himself alone.

    What he and his PR machine are doing is wrong, and I felt the need to highlight the FACT that he wouldn't even be KNOWN if not for the hard work of those people who brought his performance to the screen long after he left the mocap volume.

    ReplyDelete
  15. as we all know, actors are notorious for having low self esteem and craving recognition, fame, attention and awards to compensate.
    The Oscar were created as a result of this very character flaw.
    Many actors feel the deep rooted need for belonging to this absurd "elite" group.

    The whole movie industry is full of nameless people who all contribute to the final product and no one actor would ever have the opportunity to shine without them.
    Everyone knows this and let them satisfy their craving without ever saying anything.

    Singling one of them out on this because he worked on a project where there was a need for some more nameless contributors (the animators and the cg artists) is a little bit absurd imo.

    Actors will suffer from low self esteem (or inflated egos if they receive too many accolades), this will not change anytime soon.
    The whole industry (and the media covering it) is based on this.

    Sometimes we are blessed with the lovely presence of some of them who are humble.

    if i was an animator with the same insecurity complex, perhaps i should consider to change career path and choose one which offer more opportunity to satisfy my unsatisfiable craving.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It might behoove you to look into the information you gain from online articles. I’d be willing to bet (and this is simply my own opinion) that many of the quotes in this article were taken out of context. Follow the paper trail and you’re likely to find sources from all sorts of random articles, dating back to 2003.

    It probably doesn’t help your opinion of Andy Serkis that the heading of the article is totally misleading. It sets up your emotions immediately. Take another look and tell me that layout doesn’t give you the idea that Andy Serkis is out there somewhere with an agenda and a megaphone, advocating the inclusion of all motion capture performances in the Oscar race.

    In the little research I did on the subject I never found a single quote by Andy Serkis that sounded anything like “performance capture is misunderstood and its actors deserve more respect” or “We want more Oscars!” as the heading might suggest.

    Perhaps your open letter to Andy Serkis should return to sender and be readdressed to the author of the article.

    This is an old debate anyway; like a decade old. You would think by now we’d all have learned to get along a little better and accept the fact that… if we’re not in it for the accolades, and certainly not in it for the money, then we must be in it for the love of the game. Without that there’s probably nothing for you here.

    That said, I love Andy Serkis and I love what he’s done for the vfx world. We make each other look good and that’s all there is to it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Not for nothing, but the article I link to has him quoted as saying the following:

    "I am a bit evangelical, I know, but performance-capture is still misunderstood," he said. "Ten years down the line, people say, 'Oh, so you did the voice of Gollum?' Or people go, 'You did the movements for [King]Kong?' It's frustrating, because I play Gollum and I play Kong. It is acting."

    So... yeah. Also, I'd love to see your paper trail, honestly. I'm all for getting my facts straight, but for now I am going with what I have access to. (By the way, if you're going to criticize what I use as my facts in an article, it may behoove you to not state that it's "in your opinion.")

    And for the love of god, I don't want an Oscar. I animate because I love it. That's not the point of the article. My point was that animators are overlooked and under-respected by the general public and Academy too, but they aren't yelling it from the rooftops like Andy Serkis is.

    For what it's worth, that's why I am "singling him out."

    ReplyDelete
  18. First off, I mean no disrespect, but you put it out there and evidently it touched a nerve with a lot of people. I’m simply trying to illustrate that a single article (or video) such as this one hardly gives a crystal clear picture and may or may not warrant such an incredible tongue lashing.

    Of course, that is YOUR opinion. We both have one. And that is why blogging is so much fun, right?

    Secondly, I’m happy to criticize what you use as facts when you misquote the person you’re berating.

    I don’t see anywhere in the article you have access to where Andy Serkis actually says “that success using the technique can be rewarded with current accolades”. Yet you quote him as having said it verbatim and go on to scold him for it.

    Perhaps I’m mistaken. If so, I will be happy to retract.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It's right there in the article I link to in the post:

    "Serkis has said in the past that he would not want to see a special category introduced at the Oscars for motion-capture acting, insisting that success using the technique can be rewarded with current accolades."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Beyond that, I still haven't heard back from him as to what he meant when he said it. :) I even ask IN this post:

    "When you say “that success using the technique can be rewarded with current accolades,” is that what you mean? Should the modelers, animators, painters, shader TDs, lighters, etc., be considered for Makeup and Costume Design?"

    I'm sure I could have worded many parts of this post differently with the same message and gotten different reactions out of every who has read it, but as you said, that's why we blog- to get our own opinions out there the best way we know how.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Not to state the obvious, but Andy's work has already been acknowledged with Oscars...just in the appropriate category (visual effects), which as others have pointed out above is a team effort. That does not minimize his accomplishments or obvious talent, it's just that performance animation (or whatever we are calling it) and acting are two similar, but also very different skills.

    I'm a professional puppeteer and would never expect to be considered for an Oscar. It's a nice thought, but puppetry and acting are two different skills. If anything, I would argue that puppetry is more difficult than acting (great puppeteers have to be good actors, good actors can't necessarily puppeteer).

    As a matter of fact, I would suggest that puppeteers would be better candidates for acting Oscars than a performance capture artists or animators, since at least puppetry is done live, in real-time, and is usually the product of a single performer. If that doesn't qualify as acting, mocap and animation certainly shouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It's about time someone brought up puppetry :) I agree wholeheartedly that puppetry is another form of acting. In fact, I've had long conversations about how motion capture is closer to puppetry than animation (I'm still on the fence on that one).

    I have the utmost respect for puppetry- I dabbled with it a bit in college while I was learning to animate so that I could learn how to get into "character" without looking at myself, as I was quite introverted then. I spent more time fixing my marionettes than anything else!

    But just like you say that great puppeteers have to be great actors, I say so do animators. Saying that it's more deserving because it's live and in real-time is a bit misleading- if you are a stage puppeteer, sure, but if you are working on a movie, you get many takes to get it right, and the benefit of editing, just like actors on film (vs. theater) do.

    All in all, I don't think any discipline (animation, mocap, puppetry) deserves consideration for an acting Oscar over the other (if the performance merits it). I do, however, think that if one does, they all do.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. My comment probably could have been phrased better...I certainly wasn't trying to knock animators or animation. I work with both puppetry and animation and while there is a lot cross over in concepts and techniques between the two, they are also very different skill sets.

    I guess what I meant is that I think animation is a very different craft from acting or a performance crafted "live" (for lack of a better term). Not a lesser one by any means, just different.

    I agree that performance animation is much closer to puppetry than animation; it's really kind of bastard child of both plus acting, which is why I think there is such a lively debate about it. It's really something new and it will probably take many years to figure out exactly where it fits.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No worries! I love that this post is making people talk about their passions and opening it up to such a great debate.

    I can't speak too much to puppetry other than I'd love to delve into it more in the future (along with voice acting, actually). Saturday morning cartoons shared equally with the Muppets when I was growing up :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Andy Serkis doesn't understand the process and it is not his job to understand it. He just acts. He probably realized that we have VFX award but no award for the actor/mocap man. And in a celebrity world we live in - public people want to see film with their favourite actor/ actresses in it. So Andy Serkis thinks he should get an award for that.

    Regarding the planet of the apes trailer: Marketing people can't be bother to mention all names in production team on the trailer. For marketing purpose, its easier for them to mention Andy Serkis and the word WETA. (They probably also don't know what animators are) That should attracts public to see the film.

    I think, Andy Serkis has the right to ask to be considered for an award but he should know, realize or mention that the CG character comes alive because of the work of actor + animators.
    Public also should know about this.

    In my opinion, if people are little bit nicer to each other and they communicate between each other that should create nice harmony. You know, have a beer and talk between animators & actors for example.
    Everybody should get an award and recognition and should be treated fairly.

    Why don't they create new award? The film industries have changed so much with all the effects films + mocap actors. Why can't we add new award for best CG character or something?


    Cheers,
    curious animator

    ReplyDelete