Originally Posted by tedious
Good movies are more about using the tools well (and using the right tools for the job) than any one technique being entirely good or bad. Mocapped characters like Golum and King Kong have been totally unique in how they looked and moved, so I don't see why movies with more of those kind of mocap based characters couldn't be successful in the future.
There haven't been many mo-capped animated features yet, but the few that have been made are making progress. I found Monster House much more watchable than Polar Express or Final Fantasy. Sure, none of them are The Incredibles, but The Incredibles isn't The Lord of The Rings either, it's just horses for courses.
Golem and King Kong were exceptions because they were the only cg characters with complex personalities the production had to worry about. Personnally I think mocap lacks the energy, charicature and life that hand animated characters have. I also think mocap is a dumb cop out of having to hire animators. A pose is very different from performance recorded in a studio and facial animation pasted on top of it. "MoCap is more fluid and nuanced and blah, blah blah..." is one way to see it. But nothing sticks, nothing reads.
The "why use mocap in a cg production" leads to "why do cg at all" when you consider that the mocap actors are replaced by hand animated characters, much like live action productions, when its time for stunts.
Why is this thread here anyway?