As soon as you do it, actors realize there is no difference playing a performance-captured role or a live-action role.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The fact of the matter is that an actor, if I'm playing a performance capture role and you're playing a live action role and we're having a scene together, there's no difference in our acting processes.
For me, I've never drawn a distinction between live-action acting and performance-capture acting. It is purely a technology.
I don't see a difference between playing a performance capture role and a live action role, they're just characters to me at the end of the day and I'm an actor who wants to explore those characters in fantastically written scripts. The only caveat is a good story is a good character.
My take is that acting is acting. A performance is a performance. With performance capture, if you don't get the performance on the day, you can't enhance the performance.
Actors generally get to do things you probably shouldn't do in real life - well, at least as much as one might like to or be tempted to. Though I suppose a lot of actors just go ahead and do it, don't they?
There's nothing like a play. It's so immediate and every performance is different. As an actor, you have the most control over what the audience is seeing.
So many actors get caught up in their technique, and to be honest, I see it really getting in the way. I see them forcing things. I definitely do my best work when I'm free of that. But I think as an actor, I work really hard in preparing the roles.
When you're feeling very comfortable with an actor, you are doing nothing.
Actors' performances do not stand alone in any film, live action or whatever.
As an actor, acting is like playing a sport. You do this thing that's intangible, and while it's happening, it's great. But then when it's done, there's really no tangible product. Someone else is capturing it and turning it into something tangible.