bennywhatever
Member
If it's supposed to look live-action, why not just do live-action?
Why are there no hyperrealistic animated feature films?
- Thread starter iMax
- Start date
- Status
Maybe to have a dead star like Marilyn Monroe in a movie? Only thing I can think of
though i'm not particularly a fan of the movie i was pretty upset it bombed, because if successful it probably would've paved the way for more "adult" animated films
i think if it were released a few years earlier it could've done what Toy Story did for "kids'" CGI films
Nobody wants adult CGI animated films.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
NipplesAndToes23
Member
Beowulf, but like others said in America there is too much of a stigma in people's minds that animation is for children.
those Blur Studio shorts are already really expensive. It's not exactly that straight-forward but logic dictates that the more realistic the characters/environments look, the more work has to be put in them
uh, why is she wearing stilettos
uh, why is she wearing stilettos
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
It's not even that animation is considered to be just for children, (btw, people of all ages love animated films it's not, lack of explicit violence or swearing |=considered only for children, that's why they're so successful), it's the point that there's no reason to do so when there are much better alternatives that would much likely result in a more successful film. There are actors who don't wanna do motion capture and wanna be on a real set so they an immerse themselves in a role more. The CGI wouldn't look as good due to how time consuming it would be to do a full film. There would undoubtedly be uncanny valley during the film unless the absolute best techniques are used but that would drastically increase the cost. The stigma that animation is just for children isn't even scratching the surface of why we don't release films like this often.
it's kind of unnecessary to talk about now because the line between "live action" and "CGI" is so blended there's virtually no disparity anymore... but in the interim there could have been better uses of the technology, specifically in the fantasy/sci fi genre, instead of talking boats or whatever
i mean yeah the market for it isn't just screaming to be untapped, but i don't think there's absolutely no market for it either
Wreck-It Ralph
Member
Um. There is definitely a stigma in America that animation is for children.
Phreakuency
Banned
This looked amazing when it came out (nearly 15 years ago).
edit: beaten
edit: beaten
plasmawave
Banned
Captain Harlock.
Astral Dog
Member
That really looked realistic to you? expensive, of course, but i remember thinking all CGI creatures looked weird, unrealistic, or just bad.From an animator's perspective.
Because that's incredibly expensive and there's no point in doing so because you risk uncanny valley which is avoided completely by having stylized characters with good expressions that resemble something hand drawn.
Not only that but there are plenty of actors that most likely would give a better performance in an actual set, and because animation isn't about realism, it's about showing things that aren't possible in real life while retaining relatable characters with a relatable premise, like the story of two sisters who have conflicting ideals.
Try watching the new tarzan movie to see why a nearly perfect example of how everything can go wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzhDgbURwUU
It's still stylized but it's all motion capture and still more realistic looking than something like a Disney movie, uncanny valley before the trailer reaches ten seconds.
No the technology is already there, it's just incredibly expensive and would be very time consuming to do that for a full film. Just the CGI in Maleficent which looks amazing and certainly not uncanny was very expensive, can't imagine a movie making any money back with a full film of CGI with this fidelity.
You also struggle to wonder what's the point when live action is a much more viable option that will likely result in a better end project than a film with a set, costume, practical effects as well as CGI. Like Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
Its likely a big reason regardless, Disney movies, while they can be enjoyed by everyone, are not a good example,as they are targeted mainly for children, recent ones more so than before, imo, they also use similar characters designs, with big headed humans and long noses, but yes the budget would be huge, and the risk too much.
There were some tries with Films like Nine or Beowulf, also , what about something like the style of Kingdom Hearts or Advent Children CGI? i think it would look very nice.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
WordAssassin
Member
Because when you shoot a real person walking down a street, you go to a street, you set up a camera, and you film it.
When you animate a person walking down a street, you're now paying every person that has to board it, make an animatic, design the characters, model them, texture them, design their clothing and the algorithms that make it react and move on their bodies like real clothing, make their hair, rig them, animate them to the voice actors and God help you if the lip syncing is off, people to design the backgrounds, model them, texture them, every single object needs to be designed modeled and textured. Then you light it. Then you render it. Then you edit it.
At Pixar when they worked on Ratatouille, there was an entire team of people who's task was to figure out the math to make a computer understand that when you lift the lid off a pot of boiling water, there is a large cloud of built-up steam, followed by a smaller, continuous stream of steam. In a live-action movie you put a lid on a pot and boil water and then take the lid off. It requires one person.
In Brave there were multiple teams of people making complex mathematical equations for MOSS. Change these numbers and the moss is thick. This algorithm is what makes it spring back out when someone puts their hand on it. These numbers make the moss that grows on trees VS these numbers make the moss that grows on a rock.
In live action you go to a forest and you film the forest. At minimum, one person works the camera, one does lighting, one does sound.
You can film a live action movie in a couple of months, but there's a reason animated movies take ~4 years in production at minimum.
I wish there was some way I could have known to record myself watching that video, because when the twist happened I yelled out loud in disbelief.
That's because the shot of Sgt Johnson in the OP is a still image and not something moving. I haven't seen the animation that's from so I don't know if it was motion captured well or animated well or what, but the movement is what will make or break something, no matter how real looking it is. We as humans see each other and ourselves every single day, and if even the slightest thing isn't perfectly flawless on an animated human, no matter how real it looks, our brains will reject it.
When you animate a person walking down a street, you're now paying every person that has to board it, make an animatic, design the characters, model them, texture them, design their clothing and the algorithms that make it react and move on their bodies like real clothing, make their hair, rig them, animate them to the voice actors and God help you if the lip syncing is off, people to design the backgrounds, model them, texture them, every single object needs to be designed modeled and textured. Then you light it. Then you render it. Then you edit it.
At Pixar when they worked on Ratatouille, there was an entire team of people who's task was to figure out the math to make a computer understand that when you lift the lid off a pot of boiling water, there is a large cloud of built-up steam, followed by a smaller, continuous stream of steam. In a live-action movie you put a lid on a pot and boil water and then take the lid off. It requires one person.
In Brave there were multiple teams of people making complex mathematical equations for MOSS. Change these numbers and the moss is thick. This algorithm is what makes it spring back out when someone puts their hand on it. These numbers make the moss that grows on trees VS these numbers make the moss that grows on a rock.
In live action you go to a forest and you film the forest. At minimum, one person works the camera, one does lighting, one does sound.
You can film a live action movie in a couple of months, but there's a reason animated movies take ~4 years in production at minimum.
I wish there was some way I could have known to record myself watching that video, because when the twist happened I yelled out loud in disbelief.
That's because the shot of Sgt Johnson in the OP is a still image and not something moving. I haven't seen the animation that's from so I don't know if it was motion captured well or animated well or what, but the movement is what will make or break something, no matter how real looking it is. We as humans see each other and ourselves every single day, and if even the slightest thing isn't perfectly flawless on an animated human, no matter how real it looks, our brains will reject it.
Messofanego
Banned
The Adventures of Tintin is incredible. And if you like 2D animation, Fire and Ice is some of the best rotoscoping ever made. Sadly, I can't find too many gifs of it.
and
NSFW
This is reminding me of Heavy Metal, will seek it out. Seeing that as a kid gave me nightmares, especially the creepy green all-knowing ball.
Messofanego
Banned
I find it way less uncanny valley than say
This.
You had to bring up Medal of Honor.
I've never seen this before, looks neat.The Adventures of Tintin is incredible. And if you like 2D animation, Fire and Ice is some of the best rotoscoping ever made. Sadly, I can't find too many gifs of it.
and
NSFW
And yes Tintin was great looking.
Astral Dog
Member
Would like to see something on this style
Recent Disney/Pixar movies use similar character designs, big headed humans and long noses, Big Hero 6, for example, was a perfect oportunity to go for a sligthy more realistic style imo.
Recent Disney/Pixar movies use similar character designs, big headed humans and long noses, Big Hero 6, for example, was a perfect oportunity to go for a sligthy more realistic style imo.
Glass Shark
Banned
I don't really believe "creepiness" or the Uncanny Valley have anything to do with it. If it was cheaper to make a fully-CG animated movie than it was to film a live-action one with some CG effects, Hollywood would go for it no matter how creepy.
Extra Sauce
Member
You had to bring up Medal of Honor.
You had to gif it.
It's okay I can skip a night of sleep.
This movie was so fucking bad. Just rips stuff straight out of other scifi films
Buddha Beam
Banned
Messofanego
Banned
Those fucking eyes!
Because then why even animate it? Just put actors on a screen if you're not gonna add any sort of style to it. And this is coming from someone who loves animation to death. That said, rotoscoping is fine but I wouldn't consider hyper realistic animation and CGI movies animation at all.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
There is but I feel it's definitely exaggerated more so than it actually is, people love animation.
They were purposely animated to look whimsical and fairy like while retaining extreme levels of realism in the models themselves. There's also films like Dawn of The Planet of the Apes that serve as a good example as that movie is animated extremely realistically. Also 3D anime-ish CG like kingdom hearts is avoided by studios like Disney, Pixar etc. It's basically a 3D version of Disney art.That really looked realistic to you? expensive, of course, but i remember thinking all CGI creatures looked weird, unrealistic, or just bad.
Its likely a big reason regardless, Disney movies, while they can be enjoyed by everyone, are not a good example,as they are targeted mainly for children, recent ones more so than before, imo, they also use similar characters designs, with big headed humans and long noses, but yes the budget would be huge, and the risk too much.
There were some tries with Films like Nine or Beowulf, also , what about something like the style of Kingdom Hearts or Advent Children CGI? i think it would look very nice.
Ignore the deviantart captions.
Realistic hair rendering is the accepted way to go over random spikeness.
Yep, it's terrifying.
I sincerely wanted to avoid using the gif. ._.You had to bring up Medal of Honor.
GODDAMN. okay, i really need to get this on bluray now
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
ThatRandomCliff
Member
Why get an expensive large render farm to do realism when you could just hire a few dozen actors to do the same thing with a few cameras and a green screen?
Poodlestrike
Banned
There's a number of factors. Hollywood (and honestly, the general US audience) is still mired in the Animation Age Ghetto, which makes an "adult" (or even adult-looking) animated film a tough sell. There's also the technology limitation with the uncanny valley, and the fact that it's almost always cheaper to just hire actual actors and stick them in front of a green screen.
Wag
Member
Starship Troopers Invasion
Worst boob job ever.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
There actually is a shit ton of stuff in the animation industry outside of huge hollywood films that are awesome. You just need to broaden your horizon. Ad even Pixar and Disney don't make just the same stuff over and over, they make some great short films.
Well with a full-CG movie directors or producers don't have to worry about actors leaving the project since they can get another actor since all they will be adding to the characters is their motion capture performance and voice.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
They'd still have to worry about an actor leaving the project. A character in a film would feel different if someone was recast, this goes for animation as well. And with motion capture usually characters are meant to be similar to a specific actor, you can't just slap any mocap data on a rig and expect the same results as before.
- Status