1. Is this acting or is this animation?
I think this is a bit of both acting and animation. Most people think it is all animaion, but without the actors there would not be any of the exact movement or action the characters had in the movie. In addition, animation does play a big role in this movie but it only changes the outer appearance of the actors as Spielberg states “I like to think of it as digital makeup, not augmented animation.”
2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?
I think that the animated character should not be eligible for acting awards, however the actual actor who played the role of that character should. Yes, the character in the movie does not look the same as the actor but I think of it as a recreation of that actor. There would be no voice or action without the actor. Even Serkis claims “You can’t enhance a bad performance with animation. You can’t dial it up, lift the lip or the eyebrow. It has to be right at the core moment." In addition, the director says that the animators job is to "use the actor’s performance as an absolute template without variance for what comes out the other end.” Therefore, what the actors performed was not changed, only animated but they are still performing the same acting job and this is why I believe that the actors of the film should be eligible for acting awards.
3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?
I do not think that human actors will ever become obsolete because although our world is constantly creating innovation and technology that replace many of the jobs in our world I think acting is something that cannot be replaced. Acting is a talent or learned skill. Actors made up and created through the use of technology would not be the same as the real-life acting done now. Why would someone want to watch something that is not real show emotion? The audience would not be touched by the performance in the same way knowing it was just animated. For example, when people watch a cartoon or animated movie compared to one using real actors more emotion and feeling is expressed and felt in non-animated movies because it seems more believable and realistic. Creating actors with technology would be like creating new humans that could look real but wouldn't actually be real; they couldn't be touched or held or have physical contact with. It's like messing with and getting rid of natural creation and I don't think it would be right or even accepted by all of society. Another reason why I think this is because directors wouldn't play the same role they do now with human actors. They would only be instructing the animators, which brings me to another point. Animation is a very long and sometimes difficult process with proof given from Henry Selick as he states "Animators have to work very, very hard with the motion-capture data. After the performance is captured, it’s not just plugged into the computer which spits out big blue people. It’s a hybrid.” If it is already hard enough to animate a given human performance it would be even harder to create animation on it's own without influence of real life acting. Lastly, even if actors were to be replaced on screen, I do not believe they would be able to be replaced for live performances in plays or musicals. That is something I do not think technology can take away from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment