most blockbusters in the last 10 years are, to some extent, "animated movies," with huge percentages entirely CGI (set, costume, make-up). we've moving beyond a meaningful divide between "live action" & "animation," so the primary thing we have left to distinguish each is intent.
Read more
9 months ago
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
If we did a poll which "live action" movies in the last decade feel the most "virtual," answers will likely depend more execution than the number of digital assets. As the mediums becomes more hybrid, we need to change our thinking in how we define them.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
What's impressive is how AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is more "live action" than some realize. It's a dazzlingly hybrid production, so if AVATAR is "animation," so are many movies. We need to think differently about these mediums, and what *reality* the artist is trying to capture.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Under Feige, Marvel shoots their movies so costumes, characters and even entire locations can be fluidly swapped in post via CGI. Many of "real locations" are actually animation. Live capture is full of placeholders to give near-total control to VFX to create the final look.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Cameron had an interesting quote on this, basically that in traditional animation the actors read lines at a podium and animators do the movement/acting. And on Avatar the actors are providing the entire performance.
9 months ago
In response Daniel Brown to his Publication
This definition is pretty straightforward. Setting the input method as a way do differentiate seems to be a good way.
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Small Correction: that helmet is real, not CGI
9 months ago
In response Lewis Jones to his Publication
There is a real helmet on set, but the one in the movie is cgi. Does that sound completely ridiculous? Yes. Is it true? Also yes
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
I get what you’re saying and this is definitely a more nuanced view than I’ve seen, but I do have to wonder does intent matter? The Lion King 2019 was intended to be live-action but most figured it was animated given the tech used and it’s eventual nominations in animation.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Incredibly misguided to create an “animated feature film” Oscar category when it really appears to mean “kids movie” to the voters.
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
bro put a full practical shot in here and didn’t even know it 😂😂
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Imagine explaining to someone not tuned into the business that the giant ape at the top right is Christopher Walken
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
If there are humans present, it is live action.
If not it is animated
If not it is animated
9 months ago
In response Johnny J. to his Publication
But about something like Speed Racer? It has human actors and some practical sets, but it really embraces animation for entire environments and sequences as well. I don’t think there’s really any clear line.
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
As long as people stop calling the 2019 Lion King the "live action" version 🤢
P.S. Avatar is an animated film IMO
P.S. Avatar is an animated film IMO
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
I think it’s kind of silly to compare a movie that’s animated from the ground up to one that’s primarily actors shot with physical cameras and altered with cgi
9 months ago
In response Snake Blessedskin to his Publication
Like yeah, mocap cgi is technically animation but “avengers endgame is in the same medium as spirited away” takes some insane mental gymnastics
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
I don’t think it’s an issue in practice. The only movie out of those you listed that seems to exhibit any kind of real ambiguity is Lion King 2019, and it was such an obvious artistic failure that I doubt it’s going to have much influence on the medium.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
I agree with that, there’s clear intention on these to be felt as a live action movie versus an animated movie. Both mediums are great and different
9 months ago
In response James sowka to his Publication
In that case, Avatar the way of water counts as the first animated film to be nominated for best pictures since Toy Story 3.
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Surprised Marcel the Shell isn’t represented here, the most hybrid of all these animated films. I agree we have to reframe the filmmakers’ intent, the new Lion King was made to reflect a real world even though it’s all animated.
Read more
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Reminds me of the whole 'Live Action Lion King' Debate. Because yes that film was completely animated, but it was imitating the look of a live action movie with the same sort of workflow.
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
None of this matters to anyone but Film Twitter
9 months ago
In response Brendan Hodges to his Publication
Nah! The definition is in the dictionary and it's clear. Avatar is animation. Paintings, however realistic don't become photographs. Etc etc.
9 months ago
In response Dominic Hailstone to his Publication
But there's so much live action happening that isn't just animation. It's a hybrid but most certainly it's live action/cgi.
9 months ago
In response Dominic Hailstone to his Publication
Why does it have to be considered an "animated" film? Why is this so important for you when the intent, style of presentation and process is so completely removed from what we typical consider animation?
