Limitations of Motion Capture CGI with live-action

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 07:00 PM

The main reason so many people were complaining about this movie was that they were replacing the animatronics from the previous movies with the MoCap. I adored the animatronics as well because it gave a sense of realism back in the 90s. As a kid, it felt like the Turtles were right there in front of you and, unlike the people dressed in suits at Disney World, they expressed emotion and "talked."

Of course, now that the "magic" has worn off, I can see the flaws that the suits had. The love is still there, though, but it's clear that these wouldn't have been quite as successful with todays youth. In fact, a friend of mine said that her son loves the new Nick show AND the new movie, but when she tried showing him the '90 movie, the suits scared him. *shrugs* go fig....

For me personally, MoCap can be very hit or miss. I love how it's still similar to animation, but it gives the actors a chance to really delve into their characters in both motion and interaction instead of just having them in a sound booth. Tintin is one of my favorite movies and it made sense for them to use MoCap since it's such an obscure world and characters that having them be real life would've been....well, there's a French movie that tried that awhile back and if you look it up, you'll see what I mean.

I won't get into Uncanny Valley or "dead eyes" or any of that because I thought the Turtles looked great here. I loved the details (though a bit too in your face at times), I loved how they had the actors portraying them instead of just voicing them (excluding Leo, of course). And even though the Turtles weren't THERE like they were with the suits, the actors could still act alongside Fox and Arnett and such, thus helping the interactions feel more natural during filming.

However, the one thing the suits did offer that the MoCap might not be able to is just how MUCH interaction there can be with the live actors and MoCap actors. What I mean is how much physical interaction can there be? We've seen hand holding and even that part where Leo draped his arm around Megan's shoulder, but let's just say....something a bit more romantic were to happen --

*ducks from projectile objects thrown to her head*

I'M NOT SHIPPING APRIL!!!! I want to make that perfectly clear! I still don't see why some people want her to be with Raph, anyway...

Ok, moving on. What I was saying is...well, I was sort of having ideas of what they could do for the sequel and I had this idea that they could bring in Angel Bridge from the comics, only alter her backstory. A lot.

(Hey, they turned Bernard Thompson into a black woman and (almost) made Shredder a white guy. Why not?)

Anyway, I had this idea that Angel could be a young intern working at a genetics lab that is owned by Baxter Stockman in New York. One day, she uncovers some secret plot and is captured in attempts to keep her from spilling the beans. The Turtles rescue her and Donatello sort of thinks she's cool. The two become good friends and eventually a very INNOCENT romance starts to occur.

Back to my MoCap question: Just how much interaction could you have with Angel and Jeremy Howard as he's playing Donnie? Or any of the Turtles' actors while they're doing things with the live actors? Like obviously talking and hand holding are easy enough to do in those suits, but I saw how they had cameras attached to their heads so they could record the facial expressions, so if they were to go for a kiss scene (again, a very mild one), would it be hard to film? Would they have to do like they did in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" where they would use a Roger-doll to mark the shots and have the actors grab him and move the doll when need be, then animate the rest later? Or could Angel's actress and Howard actually do a proper kiss without....breaking the equipment.

I know this is a weird question and I'm sorry if I'm causing a lot of eye rolling, but I would like to see a few more emotional interactions with these future movies instead of just punching, fighting, and screaming. I'm asking for a lot, I know, but for me TMNT always had plenty of emotion to deal with that is not easy to ignore.

*Powder* · 09-02-2014, 07:03 PM

"The main reason so many people were complaining about this movie was that they were replacing the animatronics from the previous movies with the MoCap."

Man, you are definitely new here.

Designs, man! That's the thing most people take issue with.

*IndigoErth* · 09-02-2014, 07:31 PM

*cough* Ok, um.. lol

I'm sure they could probably figure out how to do that, though I imagine that would require extra work on the part of the animators and whoever. With the Turtle's features and proportions obviously different than the actors, and the headgear the actors are wearing that's in the way and would hamper getting the motion recorded if it has to be removed for such a scene... Similarly, note how that although we saw pizza, we never saw anyone take a single bite. I assume that would have to be animated separately, if they would want to have to bother with that, which this time around did not seem to be the case with anything. Might require expert actors that can act it out without a co-star to do it with, then put the separate footage together. lol

TechnoJerome · 09-02-2014, 07:55 PM

Werent they able to pull it off in Avatar?

Warboss74 · 09-02-2014, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechnoJerome

Werent they able to pull it off in Avatar?

It was between two mo-capped actors so I'm not sure how different it would be.

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Powder

Man, you are definitely new here.

That obvious, huh?

Only reason why I said that is because I saw that brought up a LOT on IMDB and YouTube. They were trolls, mainly, but that seemed to really irk them.

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warboss74

It was between two mo-capped actors so I'm not sure how different it would be.

Exactly. With two MoCap actors, they can just animate the rest. With a Mocap and a live actor, the live actor has to either limit their amount of touching with the MoCap then film separate parts with a doll or stand-in.

Pretty sure that's how it works. I'm gonna need to rematch the behind the scenes stuff again, but that seems to be common in special effects.

*Shark_Blade* · 09-02-2014, 08:11 PM

Animatronics are outdated, and we've already have them for 3 movies (and Next Mutation).

CGI mocap is the future and it looks waay better.

~~Leo656~~ · 09-02-2014, 08:13 PM

That's one of my huge problems with over-reliance on CGI characters; no matter what, they can't get around that "Roger Rabbit Effect" where your eye and brain both know that the characters you're watching simply don't exist in the same space. You get to vastly expand the level of texturing and detail, yet at the same time seriously limit the amount of situations you can believably use the characters in without looking blatantly fake and "video game-y".

Just because something is "the future" doesn't mean it's better. Ideally, movies would use a mixture of CGI and practical effects to get the best possible result, but that takes too much work, so instead you push a few buttons and there ya go. When one of the biggest complaints in modern films is the overuse of CGI, or how distracting it can be when done to excess, that's proof that we Aren't There Yet.

Truth? Pretty much only people who are in love with technology insist that CGI always looks better. Fact is, most people disagree, because again, it still looks out of place and fake when it's done wrong. Not as bad as, like, 1998 levels, but most movies that overdo it still look pretty bad.

*Sabacooza* · 09-02-2014, 08:38 PM

What would've been so wrong with blending the two like using the rubber suits but animating the faces with CG to get the ultra realistic facial expressions? That would've been interesting to see but I guess we'll never know now.

*Galactus* · 09-02-2014, 08:40 PM

To be honest on the whole I don't think it was going the full motion capture rout that was the big issue here but rather the designs they used were aesthetically displeasing.

Just like with any cgi it will never truly look "real" but a good movie can get you to suspend your disbelief and I think that's where the movie fails. There were moments that I put the look of the turtles to the back of my mind but then I'd see something which would remind me of why those designs don't work and in those same moments it looked fake, like cgi.

I do feel the best rout for this movie to go down was the Hellboy/Where the Wild Things Are approach of having actors in suits and using cgi to animate the faces and correct for times they look rubbery. It just seemed that motion capture being the "in" thing now they went that way rather than thinking what would be best suited for the characters.

~~Leo656~~ · 09-02-2014, 08:51 PM

Hellboy was such a great f***ing movie. Not the least of which had to do with the fact the characters actually looked good, not like they were filmed separately and stuck over top of the reel like Colorforms.

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Hellboy was such a great f***ing movie. Not the least of which had to do with the fact the characters actually looked good, not like they were filmed separately and stuck on top of the reel like Colorforms.

I loved those movies, too, but it takes a lot of time and money to sit through all that makeup and prosthetics to film for a few hours a day. I can see how MoCap might be easier in that regard, but can still be just as tricky (and expensive) to go with.

Also, someone mentioned earlier how they should've gone the Where the Wild Things are route and had half suits/half CGI. Also like what they did with Yoda in the new Star Wars movies. Guess we'll never know if either of those would've been better than regular MoCap.

*IndigoErth* · 09-02-2014, 08:54 PM

Avatar also has the advantage that the models are still quite human and happens between like-characters/mocap actors.

In this case though, prob have to ensure that the bulk of the Turtle's models don't swallow up the live actor(s) in some cases, assuming the less bulky mocap actors are largely providing motion as if the skeleton of the characters rather than the full scale of them.

If they're not careful some stuff could cut right into the models. Case in point, not actor-to-Turtles but the only thing I noticed in terms of something possibly cutting through part of a model...

Spoiler:

That thing on Leo's chest. If this is by chance a real object that was attached to the mocap actor - note it appears to have a black base that is directly on his chest, however it very cleanly cuts right through his armor which appears as if it's completely unaffected.

It's a quick shot so it doesn't really matter too much, but you can't have that sort of thing happen actor-to-Turtle

~~Leo656~~ · 09-02-2014, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitsy83

I loved those movies, too, but it takes a lot of time and money to sit through all that makeup and prosthetics to film for a few hours a day. I can see how MoCap might be easier in that regard, but can still be just as tricky (and expensive) to go with.

Eh, f*ck 'em, that's the job. I gotta shave my chest and cover myself in rub-on tanner just to wrestle and I don't exactly get rich doing it; it's hours of prep work for a ten-minute match (getting any color on this Irish skin is a week-long project), but that's an Acceptable Inconvenience of the job I've chosen to do. These people who make movies get paid all the money in the world to play make-believe; let 'em earn it once in a while. I have absolutely zero sympathy, none, for anyone working in movies who complains about how hard and how time-consuming it is.

I do see your point, though; I just think if it makes the final product look better, they should just man up and "suffer for their art", not go with the quickest, easiest, cheapest option.

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Avatar also has the advantage that the models are still quite human and happens between like-characters/mocap actors.

In this case though, prob have to ensure that the bulk of the Turtle's models don't swallow up the live actor(s) in some cases, assuming the less bulky mocap actors are largely providing motion as if the skeleton of the characters rather than the full scale of them.

If they're not careful some stuff could cut right into the models. Case in point, not actor-to-Turtles but the only thing I noticed in terms of something possibly cutting through part of a model...

Spoiler:

That thing on Leo's chest. If this is by chance a real object that was attached to the mocap actor - note it appears to have a black base that is directly on his chest, however it very cleanly cuts right through his armor which appears as if it's completely unaffected.

Also good point. Though I do recall seeing Jeremy Howard wearing glasses at one point while they were filming the elevator scene. Whether those were HIS glasses or just a prop to help him with minor details, like Donnie adjusting his own glasses to help the animators get the effect. Maybe there are times they give the actors MoCap props to help?

I guess the proper way to film a kiss would be the angle. Like, say if a girl kisses a Turtle on the lips, they could just film the back of her head and focus on the Turtle's expression. It wouldn't have to be a long kiss. Like a couple seconds.

Trust me, as much as I'd like to see romance with our boys, a make out type kiss would kill it for me....

Bitsy83 · 09-02-2014, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

Eh, f*ck 'em, that's the job. I gotta shave my chest and cover myself in rub-on tanner just to wrestle and I don't exactly get rich doing it; that's an Acceptable Inconvenience of the job I've chosen to do. These people who make movies get paid all the money in the world to play make-believe; let 'em earn it once in a while. I have absolutely zero sympathy, none, for anyone working in movies who complains about how hard and how time-consuming it is.

I do see your point, though; I just think if it makes the final product look better, they should just man up and "suffer for their art", not go with the quickest, easiest, cheapest option.

Ooooh kay, I don't think I made myself clear. I didn't mean to refer to the ACTORS or the makeup artists. I watch "Face Off" religiously, so I know how dedicated those people are to their craft. And Doug Jones (Abe) has done this for years and he loves it, so I know the actors going into a movie like that know what they're in for.

I was talking about the PRODUCERS. In this case, Bay. We know how addicted he is to CGI and such. I don't know how he feels about makeup and prosthetics, but seeing his past movies, I think it's obvious which he prefers.

*IndigoErth* · 09-02-2014, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitsy83

Also good point. Though I do recall seeing Jeremy Howard wearing glasses at one point while they were filming the elevator scene. Whether those were HIS glasses or just a prop to help him with minor details, like Donnie adjusting his own glasses to help the animators get the effect. Maybe there are times they give the actors MoCap props to help?

Very possible, esp since they also had prop weapons to work with.

I could see them going for a smooch on the cheek as a 'thanks' like in the occasional cartoon episode - and then they have some derpy look on their face

- but if the Turtle's faces are wider than the actor's that's gonna take some movie tricks.

*MsMarvelDuckie* · 09-02-2014, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sabacooza

What would've been so wrong with blending the two like using the rubber suits but animating the faces with CG to get the ultra realistic facial expressions? That would've been interesting to see but I guess we'll never know now.

So, basically like Jurassic Park did? That was a blend of CG and animatronics, and it worked beautifully.

Leolead · 09-02-2014, 09:23 PM

I agree with Sharkblade, animatronics are outdated, and it's time to get over it and move on.

Motion capture is basically used to get those fluid human like movements, without the limitation of using actual Turtle costumes, you also get the actor's full facial expressions, so no dead eyes, no bad syncing and no fake looking skin, also with Mocap you get high quality textures, something you could never do with real costumes

Mocap is here to stay, and it's only going to get better. so either get with it or get left behind. (No offense)

09-02-2014, 07:00 PM	#1
Bitsy83 Hench Mutant Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: My house Posts: 266	Limitations of Motion Capture CGI with live-action The main reason so many people were complaining about this movie was that they were replacing the animatronics from the previous movies with the MoCap. I adored the animatronics as well because it gave a sense of realism back in the 90s. As a kid, it felt like the Turtles were right there in front of you and, unlike the people dressed in suits at Disney World, they expressed emotion and "talked." Of course, now that the "magic" has worn off, I can see the flaws that the suits had. The love is still there, though, but it's clear that these wouldn't have been quite as successful with todays youth. In fact, a friend of mine said that her son loves the new Nick show AND the new movie, but when she tried showing him the '90 movie, the suits scared him. shrugs go fig.... For me personally, MoCap can be very hit or miss. I love how it's still similar to animation, but it gives the actors a chance to really delve into their characters in both motion and interaction instead of just having them in a sound booth. Tintin is one of my favorite movies and it made sense for them to use MoCap since it's such an obscure world and characters that having them be real life would've been....well, there's a French movie that tried that awhile back and if you look it up, you'll see what I mean. I won't get into Uncanny Valley or "dead eyes" or any of that because I thought the Turtles looked great here. I loved the details (though a bit too in your face at times), I loved how they had the actors portraying them instead of just voicing them (excluding Leo, of course). And even though the Turtles weren't THERE like they were with the suits, the actors could still act alongside Fox and Arnett and such, thus helping the interactions feel more natural during filming. However, the one thing the suits did offer that the MoCap might not be able to is just how MUCH interaction there can be with the live actors and MoCap actors. What I mean is how much physical interaction can there be? We've seen hand holding and even that part where Leo draped his arm around Megan's shoulder, but let's just say....something a bit more romantic were to happen -- ducks from projectile objects thrown to her head I'M NOT SHIPPING APRIL!!!! I want to make that perfectly clear! I still don't see why some people want her to be with Raph, anyway... Ok, moving on. What I was saying is...well, I was sort of having ideas of what they could do for the sequel and I had this idea that they could bring in Angel Bridge from the comics, only alter her backstory. A lot. (Hey, they turned Bernard Thompson into a black woman and (almost) made Shredder a white guy. Why not?) Anyway, I had this idea that Angel could be a young intern working at a genetics lab that is owned by Baxter Stockman in New York. One day, she uncovers some secret plot and is captured in attempts to keep her from spilling the beans. The Turtles rescue her and Donatello sort of thinks she's cool. The two become good friends and eventually a very INNOCENT romance starts to occur. Back to my MoCap question: Just how much interaction could you have with Angel and Jeremy Howard as he's playing Donnie? Or any of the Turtles' actors while they're doing things with the live actors? Like obviously talking and hand holding are easy enough to do in those suits, but I saw how they had cameras attached to their heads so they could record the facial expressions, so if they were to go for a kiss scene (again, a very mild one), would it be hard to film? Would they have to do like they did in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" where they would use a Roger-doll to mark the shots and have the actors grab him and move the doll when need be, then animate the rest later? Or could Angel's actress and Howard actually do a proper kiss without....breaking the equipment. I know this is a weird question and I'm sorry if I'm causing a lot of eye rolling, but I would like to see a few more emotional interactions with these future movies instead of just punching, fighting, and screaming. I'm asking for a lot, I know, but for me TMNT always had plenty of emotion to deal with that is not easy to ignore. __________________ "Question: Do you like penicillin on your pizza?"

09-02-2014, 08:38 PM	#10
Sabacooza Mad Scientist Join Date: May 2005 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,994	What would've been so wrong with blending the two like using the rubber suits but animating the faces with CG to get the ultra realistic facial expressions? That would've been interesting to see but I guess we'll never know now. Last edited by Sabacooza; 09-02-2014 at 08:44 PM.

09-02-2014, 09:23 PM	#20
Leolead Stone Warrior Join Date: May 2014 Location: Cali Posts: 909	I agree with Sharkblade, animatronics are outdated, and it's time to get over it and move on. Motion capture is basically used to get those fluid human like movements, without the limitation of using actual Turtle costumes, you also get the actor's full facial expressions, so no dead eyes, no bad syncing and no fake looking skin, also with Mocap you get high quality textures, something you could never do with real costumes Mocap is here to stay, and it's only going to get better. so either get with it or get left behind. (No offense) __________________

09-02-2014, 07:03 PM	#2
Powder 40 Years of TMNT Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Shell-Ri-La Posts: 26,945	"The main reason so many people were complaining about this movie was that they were replacing the animatronics from the previous movies with the MoCap." Man, you are definitely new here. Designs, man! That's the thing most people take issue with.

09-02-2014, 07:31 PM	#3
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 16,293	cough Ok, um.. lol I'm sure they could probably figure out how to do that, though I imagine that would require extra work on the part of the animators and whoever. With the Turtle's features and proportions obviously different than the actors, and the headgear the actors are wearing that's in the way and would hamper getting the motion recorded if it has to be removed for such a scene... Similarly, note how that although we saw pizza, we never saw anyone take a single bite. I assume that would have to be animated separately, if they would want to have to bother with that, which this time around did not seem to be the case with anything. Might require expert actors that can act it out without a co-star to do it with, then put the separate footage together. lol

09-02-2014, 07:55 PM	#4
TechnoJerome Random Punk Join Date: Aug 2014 Posts: 16	Werent they able to pull it off in Avatar?

09-02-2014, 08:11 PM	#8
Shark_Blade Emperor Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 7,909	Animatronics are outdated, and we've already have them for 3 movies (and Next Mutation). CGI mocap is the future and it looks waay better.

09-02-2014, 08:13 PM	#9
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	That's one of my huge problems with over-reliance on CGI characters; no matter what, they can't get around that "Roger Rabbit Effect" where your eye and brain both know that the characters you're watching simply don't exist in the same space. You get to vastly expand the level of texturing and detail, yet at the same time seriously limit the amount of situations you can believably use the characters in without looking blatantly fake and "video game-y". Just because something is "the future" doesn't mean it's better. Ideally, movies would use a mixture of CGI and practical effects to get the best possible result, but that takes too much work, so instead you push a few buttons and there ya go. When one of the biggest complaints in modern films is the overuse of CGI, or how distracting it can be when done to excess, that's proof that we Aren't There Yet. Truth? Pretty much only people who are in love with technology insist that CGI always looks better. Fact is, most people disagree, because again, it still looks out of place and fake when it's done wrong. Not as bad as, like, 1998 levels, but most movies that overdo it still look pretty bad.

09-02-2014, 08:40 PM	#11
Galactus Foot Elite Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,009	To be honest on the whole I don't think it was going the full motion capture rout that was the big issue here but rather the designs they used were aesthetically displeasing. Just like with any cgi it will never truly look "real" but a good movie can get you to suspend your disbelief and I think that's where the movie fails. There were moments that I put the look of the turtles to the back of my mind but then I'd see something which would remind me of why those designs don't work and in those same moments it looked fake, like cgi. I do feel the best rout for this movie to go down was the Hellboy/Where the Wild Things Are approach of having actors in suits and using cgi to animate the faces and correct for times they look rubbery. It just seemed that motion capture being the "in" thing now they went that way rather than thinking what would be best suited for the characters.

09-02-2014, 08:51 PM	#12
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Hellboy was such a great f***ing movie. Not the least of which had to do with the fact the characters actually looked good, not like they were filmed separately and stuck over top of the reel like Colorforms.

09-02-2014, 08:54 PM	#14
IndigoErth Team Blue Boy Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: U.S., East Coast Posts: 16,293	Avatar also has the advantage that the models are still quite human and happens between like-characters/mocap actors. In this case though, prob have to ensure that the bulk of the Turtle's models don't swallow up the live actor(s) in some cases, assuming the less bulky mocap actors are largely providing motion as if the skeleton of the characters rather than the full scale of them. If they're not careful some stuff could cut right into the models. Case in point, not actor-to-Turtles but the only thing I noticed in terms of something possibly cutting through part of a model... Spoiler: That thing on Leo's chest. If this is by chance a real object that was attached to the mocap actor - note it appears to have a black base that is directly on his chest, however it very cleanly cuts right through his armor which appears as if it's completely unaffected. It's a quick shot so it doesn't really matter too much, but you can't have that sort of thing happen actor-to-Turtle