Motion capture has become very specialized but also still just a tool of filmmaking.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
What's fantastic is that there's a real growing appreciation for performance-capture technology as a tool for acting.
The reason that some motion-capture films don't work is if the scripts are not good, and the characters aren't engaging, then you don't believe in the journey, and you're not connected to it. It's not the technology's fault.
Motion pictures are the art form of the 20th century, and one of the reasons is the fact that films are a slightly corrupted artform. They fit this century - they combine Art and business!
Filmmaking is a real craft.
I think technology has advanced so far now that there are some cameras on the market that give film a run for its money. It's all about flexibility in capturing images, and digital or film, it doesn't matter to me.
Filmmaking is a very complex form - ya know, acting, lighting, screenwriting, storytelling, music, editing - all these things have to come together.
Every technology that comes into filmmaking is first a gimmick. Think about sound with 'The Jazz Singer' or the first colour or surround sound - it takes a while for filmmakers to understand how to use it.
I think there are advantages to different scales of filmmaking. You wouldn't want to do just one thing.
Technology continues to bring us wondrous advances in filmmaking to improve how we view movies.
For me, I've never drawn a distinction between live-action acting and performance-capture acting. It is purely a technology.
No opposing quotes found.