Originally Posted by Pyke
While he is going about it the wrong way, he does have a point. He may be lessening the 'role' tha the FX guys have, but honestly it DOES come down to the acting. And as much of a douche as he sometimes comes off as, he is a really good actor.
If you strapped a mocap and facial capture rig on a bad actor, no amount of tweaking is going to make the performance any better. In Rise Of The Apes, you identified with Ceasar because of the performance....because of the reactions to the other actors, the play of emotions between the characters. THATS what brings a performance to life.
But that's besides the point. Animators aren't trying to downplay what he does, he does a lot. They just don't want him stealing credit, and they don't like his stance that what he does is superior, and that animators can't capture what actors can. He doesn't achieve anything an animator couldn't.
You care about Caesar because he's well done, sure. But you also care about Woody in Toy Story, or Simba in Lion King. You care even though they are purely animated.
He seems to think of animation as a science or a robotic series of buttons to push, when really it can be just as emotional as acting. Animators can spend hours just acting for reference, or trying to get to know the character. You could just as easily argue an animator has the harder job. Not only do they have to achieve heartfelt, believable emotion in the character (like an actor) they also have to deal with physics and balance and all the things a human just automatically does. An actor doesn't have to work out how the character takes a step, they just take a step.
Anyways, I'm not saying one is better than the other, they're two different beasts. Both with their own set of challenges. Unfortunately Serkis disagrees. I know I shouldn't let what he says get to me, it just annoys me.