Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Zemeckis Confirms That Performance Capture Factors Into The New ROGER RABBIT Film!! But, How??

Merrick here...
Yesterday we learned that the writers of the original ROGER RABBIT film are returning to script a proposed sequel (details HERE). That news came from a video snippet over at MTV, in which Robert Zemeckis briefly touched on the project. A longer sampling of the same interview has now been posted, in which Bob reveals that performance capture (a la BEOWULF, A CHRISTMAS CAROL, and the forthcoming YELOW SUBMARINE) would play some part in the new ROGER RABBIT film. The question is: considering the "universe" in which ROGER is set, how will the technology fit in, exactly?
I wouldn't use it for the cartoon characters, because I think they should stay two dimensional...I wouldn't dimensionalize Roger. [EDIT] All the other characters they would have fun with would be magnificent in performance capture technology. It would be really fun.
...says Zemeckis in THIS VIDEO INTERVIEW over at MTV:
So, what the hell does this mean? Will humans who get thrown into Toon Town now be realized via performance capture? Will the sequel be entirely performance capture - featuring Toon pests who MoCap characters discriminate against because they're not rendered as well, or rendered differently? Will any live action/"real world" components feature into this project at all? Or, as MTV speculates, might performance capture actually be part of the storyline? I.e. might we have performance capture characters interacting with live action characters...alongside Roger and his Toon squad...as the new/upstart Toons in town? Really intrigued...

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Freeway=toon town

    by Meadowe

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Good God no

    by white_vader

    Please make it stop...

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    zemeckis is like lucas and cameron

    by Meadowe

    More concerned with the tech than an actual good movie.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST

    this is gettin complicated

    by knowthyself

    CGI vs 2D vs Live action?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:30 a.m. CST

    How are you lumping Cameron with Lucas?

    by knowthyself

    Based on a trailer? Considering all of Camerons films in the past have focused on the human story and not the special effects.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST

    How are you lumping Cameron with Lucas?

    by knowthyself

    Based on a trailer? Considering all of Camerons films in the past have focused on the human story and not the special effects.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:35 a.m. CST

    ZEMECKIS REPENTS FOR EVERYTHING HE"S DONE SINCE BTHF

    by 3 Bag Enema

    This would be the only cool news about this shitbird.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:37 a.m. CST

    Er, BTTF.

    by 3 Bag Enema

    Moah.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:39 a.m. CST

    He will have a young CGI Bob Hoskins there!

    by ricarleite2

    Pretty obvious to me! If he pulls this off, I might forgive him for the past 3 pieces of crap he made, as he was maturing the technology to go back to Roger Rabbit and, maybe, BTTF4!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:41 a.m. CST

    At what point in "history" is this being based?

    by The Dum Guy

    The 50's?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Don't the majority of people HATE performance capture?

    by santoanderson

    I do CG for a living, and the uncanny valley is avoided like the plague. It looks weird, the only advantage is an infinite CG camera system (which never looks right with realistic humans). These Performance capture movies just seem like a higher quality video game mocap cutscene. I wish Zemeckis would just step back and realize that it really does look weird, and would return to shooting movies with these things called actors and cameras.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    Ew...

    by Jack_Mort

    Talk about milking a dead horse. I mean, I love me some Roger Rabbit, but, isn't it a little past time for a sequel?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST

    I really hope "A Christmas Carol" flops

    by BenBraddock

    and we see an end to "Mo-cap". It's horrible and kind of pointless.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST

    how can I lump them?

    by Meadowe

    Derivative stories? Check. More focused on tech first and a story to fit the tech instead of vice versa? Check. And btw I actually liked the avatar trailer I saw with This Is It, I just don't think it'll do anywhere near as good as what jim cam or 69th century fuxxx are hoping.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    So no 3D Jessica Rabbit?

    by ominus

    crap,this sucks

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST

    I think old Bob means when actors interact with toons

    by terry1978

    Basically in flicks like RR, Space Jam, etc. it looked seamless for its time, but if a live action character interacts with a toon, you can somewhat tell they're not really grasping them or touching them and it's kinda floaty. Probably mo-cap certain points when they're engaged in wacky hijinx or something, but so subtle you don't even notice.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:55 a.m. CST

    What is Derivative About Star Wars?

    by DarfurOnTheRocks2

    I am just wondering because it is so vogue to bash Lucas.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Zemeckis has gone insane!

    by TheMcflyFarm

    My once favorite director is a mere shell of his former self. Work with real fucking people!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Oh come on, wouldn't you people LOVE a BTTF4?

    by ricarleite2

    With a young Christopher Lloyd, and a Michael J Fox that could hold a glass of water and not get totally wet?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST

    I got a bad feeling about this

    by Brigon

    Hopefully RR2 will follow some storyline where the toons have been upstaged and abandoned to live in Toon Town, now that they are no longer the media darling. Now all the Motion captured characters get all the movie work and the toons are ignored as they aren't cool anymore. All real world humans should hopefully still be live action just like in the first Roger Rabbit. I want to see toons, real life and motion captured characters all interacting with each other.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Ender's Game

    by enderandrew

    Zemeckis, plesae do Ender's Game. Your mo-cap is the only way to get older kids actors who are more capable, yet animate them as age appropriate kids. Your mo-cap is the only way to do the Battle School, the Fantasy Game, the Buggers, the space battles, and also the only way to appropriately do the violence with the kids.<p>This is Star Wars meets Harry Potter. Who wants a billion dollar franchise? I'm not remotely kidding. Zemeckis, make this happen.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST

    They should lock Zemeckis up

    by IAmLegolas

    Nobody wants this performance capture, it's very LUCAS to want to control EVERYTHING on your set. Nobody sees how insane it is to perfomance capture human beings to try and make human beings on the computer?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Uncanney Valley

    by enderandrew

    Beowulf didn't seem to suffer from it. I think the trick is to either focus much more attention on animating the eyes correctly, or just stylize the animation to the point that it isn't hyper-realistic. Polar Express is his only effort that suffered from the uncanney valley.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    maybe they want to put Pixar in it

    by Datascream

    think of it. 2D cartoon characters are being threatened by the CG characters of Pixar and Dreamworks by their cutting edge look. Everyone is forgetting about 2D, they're old hat now.

  • Like maybe a CG version of Roger's creator or something? All the ol' dead artists in caricatured form? C'mon, you people are reactionary and lack imagination. We don't know what he's doing yet and he probably has some sort of reason for it. So how about we calm the fuck down?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    There is SERIOUS potential here...

    by Toulon

    ... if the old, 2D toons degrade/discriminate against the new CGI/MoCap toons, you could do some VERY interesting, adult things with segregation, 'interracial' relationships (between toons, not a la Cool World), prejudices, etc. An entire Toon Rights Movement could be in there. With good writing, that could be awesome stuff!!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Why hate on Zemeckis?

    by enderandrew

    What do you mean that nothing since Back to the Future III has been any good. Look again at his resume since then.<p>Death Becomes Her Forrest Gump What Lies Beneath Cast Away Polar Express Beowulf<p>All very good movies except Polar Express. So he has one miss mixed with those movies? Most would kill for that resume. Name five directors with a better resume over their last six movies.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Enderandrew

    by Toulon

    What Lies Beneath? Really? I hated that fucking thing. Damn trailer even gave away the first 2 and a half acts of the movie!<p>And I totally agree that LIVE humans, MoCap, CGI, and 2D toons all together would be pretty fantastic.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST

    But can they again strike that golden deal between disney and WB

    by Geomancer21

    I mean, one of things noticed and loved by fans of the movie back in the day was the use of both disney and WB characters. The duel between Donald and daffy is still one of the best scenes.<BR><BR>Can they do that in this day and age?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Don't forget CONTACT

    by master_of_realty

    Good movie!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Geomancer

    by master_of_realty

    If there's money to be made...

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Zemeckis is dead to me now

    by kwisatzhaderach

    He churns out bland, soulless crap. This mocap thing he does is utter, utter shit.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Live action elements or FUCK IT.

    by performingmonkey

    That is all. There IS a great movie waiting to be made, but it needs live action, it needs continuity with the first movie, it needs a decent story and great dialogue, it needs an excellent villain to match Christopher Lloyd's mental Dr Doom. Fact.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Zemeckis says he wants to perfect the technology

    by terry1978

    That's his reason for the last few flicks being mo-cap. Granted, it makes sense considering studios are basically paying for him to experiment and what not, but hey.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST

    wasn't Kathleen Turner Jessica Rabbit

    by Meadowe

    If so I haven't seen her in anything snce Serial Mom, so I hope she can still do the voice.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Aging, unemployed Roger Rabbit visits a CGI rejuvenation clinic.

    by Darth_Inedible

    ...he emerges as a grotesque, waxy late '90s CGI monstrosity and finds work in cheap direct to video horror films.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:44 p.m. CST

    If Chinatown was the template for the first

    by skimn

    Make Sunset Boulevard the template of the second. Roger is the Norma Desmond of animation replaced by 3D CGI characters. He hires a female screenwriter to come up with his comeback scipt. " They may have dimension, but do they have depth...?"

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Waaaaaah! I hate mo-cap! Waaaaah! I hate Zemeckis!

    by slone13

    Get over yourselves, you dumb fucks.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 12:55 p.m. CST

    It'll never happen, but...

    by Toulon

    ... Simpsons? South Park? Venture Bros? Duck Tales? Toy Story? Pinky & The Brain? I'd lose my shit five times over if Futurama ended up in there. How updated can we make the Tooniverse? Can we get those Popeye fuckers to loosen up this time?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Way to kill my interest, Zemeckis

    by FeralAngel

    (lifts finger) Motion capture THIS!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Bob Hoskins is in, or I'm out.

    by HarryCalder

    Really, that's all I want to hear about this project. Everything else is just technical bullshit.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Beowulf was amazing

    by TheLastBoyScout

    But it was made for adults, whereas all these other properties are geared towards children.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 1:53 p.m. CST

    A V A T A R - Fucking your eyeballs in December!!!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    nothing else matters

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Oh god, this is going to suck, isn't it?

    by Veraxus

    Zemeckis needs to stay the fuck away from Mocap this time around. There is no place for it in a Roger Rabbit movie... ESPECIALLY not for humans. It would defeat the whole fucking point.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:28 p.m. CST

    sigh

    by brakemonkey

    I'm not going to write this off when it's not even properly in production yet. The story could be mind-blowing for all we know. But motion capture... really? Sigh. It always looks oddly bland. In theory it should present infinite possibilities. Instead we get Jim Carrey with a slightly longer nose.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I don't hate the idea of . . .

    by Royston Lodge

    . . . having the humans transform into mocap 3d toons once they cross the boundary into Toon Town. Just as long as the scenes that take place inside Toon Town aren't the majority of the movie. <p>In the original, the Toon Town sequence was only a small part of the entire story. And I don't think seeing Bob Hoskins inside Toon Town was nearly as funny as seeing toons in the "real world".

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:39 p.m. CST

    At Least We'll Always Have Paris Zemeckis

    by FreeBeer

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Geomancer21: WB & Disney characters...

    by Royston Lodge

    ...I'm no expert, so I might be completely wrong here, but I seem to remember that the WB characters were portrayed using their earliest designs. Like, there's a difference between "early Bugs" and "later Bugs", or "early Daffy" and "later Daffy".<p> Unless I'm very much mistaken, aren't the original designs for Bugs and Daffy old enough now that they have reverted to the public domain? After all, there are really old Merry Melodies cartoons available for download at www.archive.org.<p> So, as long as they stick with really old-school characters, copyright might not be an issue.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST

    Zemeckis' Beowulf doesn't hold a candle to ...

    by Royston Lodge

    ... Beowulf and Grendel. I love that flick.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST

    I like the idea of using today's Animated characters...

    by ThePorkChopExpress

    Gollum, Dug the Dog, Wall-E - you could go on and on!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Bob Hoskins will be replaced with Ray Winstone!!!!!

    by Xxplosive

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 2:58 p.m. CST

    Hrrm, Could be clever...

    by FreeBeer

    ...Roger & friends all out of work because these fancy pants CGI animated characters are getting all the movie roles. If this isn't what he has in mind then I don't know what he's concocted.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:05 p.m. CST

    FUCK...YOU...GOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDD

    by Nasty In The Pasty

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Bob Z fell into the uncanny valley and can't get up.

    by Bot-Bot

    Enough already

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    roger was always so unappealing though...

    by Ivor Heath

    ..he's on about the same level as jar jar binks in terms of annoying animated characters.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:13 p.m. CST

    "It would be really fun."

    by Subtitles_Off

    Has no one told this imbecile he's a dick yet? Hopefully, A CHRISTMAS CAROL will flop, then his mo-cap fetish can be put to bed once and for all.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Ivor Heath: How dare you?

    by HarryCalder

    Jar Jar Binks-levels of annoying? Rog doesn't come CLOSE. First off, the rabbit's got far more expression in his eyes than that soulless CG freak, so I can empathize with him. Second, he's funnier. WAY fucking funnier. Third, Jar Jar sucks ass. Fourth, see third.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:32 p.m. CST

    by leeroychile

    Instead of the villain in the first film being a toon disguised as a human, the villain in this sequel will be a human controlling a horrible ugly evil mo-cap puppet that seeks to destroy both toons and humans alike.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I really don't see a movie about 2D toons vs. 3D cgi.

    by Royston Lodge

    Considering Zemeckis' relationship with Disney, would he really make a movie where Pixar is essentially the villain?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    by leeroychile

    No, no. It's Toons vs. Mo-cap. Pixar would fall under the category of toons. Zemeckis would fall under the category of crap.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:48 p.m. CST

    In that case, the toons should team-up with ...

    by Royston Lodge

    ... human actors.<p> Like, throughout the 20th century, human actors and toons have been at odds with each other. Each side thinks the other steals their jobs and siphons movie budgets away from them.<p> Then this dastardly villain, perhaps Judge Doom's grandson, comes along with mo-cap technology, and the human actors and the Toons set aside their differences to fight a common enemy.<p> The villain's name could be either Robert Lucas or George Zemeckis. Either one would work. The villain's henchmen are Jar Jar Binks, Gollum, and the conductor from The Polar Express.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST

    by leeroychile

    Yes! That's it! Genius! I would watch that movie.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by TheNorthlander

    Roger Rabbit already has some of that element in it. Remember where Betty Boop is waiting tables because Jessica Rabbit has basically replaced her? CG toons don't have to be the new villain just because you use it in the storyline.<p> <p> The real question is, if Roger Rabbit is a film noir, will the sequel be that too?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Royston Lodge

    by TheNorthlander

    But will CGI Yoda fight Muppet Yoda?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Better yet..fuck the CGI

    by skimn

    Since the original was a period piece set in the 1940's, set the sequel in the early to mid sixties when the motion picture shorts were replaced by weekly televised characters. Fred Flintstone, Top Cat, The Jetsons, Jonny Quest, etc. At least it makes thematic sense, and keeps it in a period setting.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Oh my, I didn't think of the Muppets!

    by Royston Lodge

    Maybe Toon Town and Muppet Town declare war on each other! Heh heh heh...

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 4:59 p.m. CST

    What part of Jessica will be performance captured?

    by marineboy

    ...besides her tits of course!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Ricarleite

    by MandrakeRoot

    LOL for a joke in such bad taste, that was hilarious. <p> As for Zemeckis, I've only seen Beowulf as far as his mo-cap stuff goes, and that wasn't too bad. However, a Christmas Carol looks kinda weak, and he should absolutely NOT do Yellow Submarine. That's one classic that needs not updating. I think he should go back to using live actors, which he probably will eventually...but I wouldn't mind seeing one mo-cap classic from him (maybe it could be Roger Rabbit?). <p> As for comparing him to Lucas and Cameron. Well at least Lucas and Cameron still use live-action and real actors. I mean Cameron's only using it for characters that it SHOULD be used for, and when you actually see photos of the Na'vi and humans interacting, it makes complete sense why he did it, as it could not have been done any other way. He still believes in working with actors and live-action, and practical FX when possible, he's just using CGI to create a world that doesn't exist, and make it very surreal. That I can respect...and he's doing some great things with the tech.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Its racist that anime isn't included in this

    by MacReady452

    just kidding. who gives a fuck.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 5:12 p.m. CST

    But...WHY?

    by Stegman84

    Can someone explain that to me? I mean to me, motion/performance capture is a tool that you use when you need to create a character that can't be realised any other way, such as Gollum for instance. But what is the god damn point of doing motion/performance capture on human characters when you could jus, oh, I don't know, film the fucking actor playing the character via regular means. I mean is making humans look less real adding anything to a film? I just don't fucking get it, I really don't.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 6:10 p.m. CST

    Re: Stegman84

    by ricarleite2

    In order to create a young version of Eddie Valiant. Unless you believe it is better to just recast. I fucking HATE mocap, BUT it could open the door to some movies we never thought that could be possible, EVEN if it's through Uncanny Valley dead eye freaks: Roger Rabbit might be the first, if it worked, who would oppose to BTTF4? Gump & Company? A 1930s set Indy flick?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 6:33 p.m. CST

    It should take place in the present and be 2D

    by Dr.DirtyD

    Vs 3D.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Just make it 3D and call it a day.

    by lockesbrokenleg

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Classic animation, some mo-cap cartoons, and live action

    by Tall_Boy66

    I think it's going to be a mixture of all 3.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST

    More possible plot-lines that rape your childhood but make me ch

    by Royston Lodge

    - Toon Town goes to war against an army of stop-motion warriors, led by a maniacal villain named Harryhausen.<p> - The long-time residents of Toon Town are fighting back against the forces of suburbanization, led by young upstarts with names like Simpson, Hill, and Griffin.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST

    "but make me chuckle"

    by Royston Lodge

    ...was how that topic was supposed to end.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 7:27 p.m. CST

    terry1978 makes an interesting point about Mo-Cap

    by Royston Lodge

    What if the mo-cap is used not to animate human characters, but to help the toons interact more naturally with the actors.<p> Can you hide mo-cap sensors inside clothing, like inside a hat or a sleeve or something like that?<p> If you film the live-action with these sorts of reference points, then it could make it way easier to make sure the toons are looking in the right spot, moving around objects more naturally, bumping into objects and people at JUST the right moment without being kinda "floaty", and stuff like that.<p> It's a possibility. Fingers crossed.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Wait.

    by TedKordLives

    We're talking about 2D cartoons interacting with 3D mocap people? And no 'real' humans? <P> If that is the case, screw that. That not only defeats the purpose of the whole thing, it's actively insulting to me. I wouldn't let someone pay me to see that. <P> If that's not the case, then there could still be hope. Too early to tell.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 7:55 p.m. CST

    intrigued?

    by Buzz_Aldrin

    more like disgusted. fuck this guy.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 8:20 p.m. CST

    Love it! Zemeckis is one of my favorite directors

    by IndyCollector

    Fuck you haters. FUCK...YOU. And to those who say he should work with real actors, learn what mo-cap is, FAGGOTS. I can't wait to see A Christmas Carol. I can't wait for Yellow Submarine. And hopefully he will do a sequel to Roger Rabbit.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 8:27 p.m. CST

    I think Zemekis shits in motion capture

    by Glory_Fades_ImMaxFischer

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 8:28 p.m. CST

    by leeroychile

    No matter what Zemeckis does, he will never top the all-time greatest performance capture device ever invented... the MOTION PICTURE CAMERA.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 8:51 p.m. CST

    We know what mocap is...

    by Stegman84

    It's taking an actor and then drawing over the top of them with something that isn't quite as real looking or believable. <p>And calling people faggots? How much more of a stereotypical hate-filled internet douche can you be? I mean, really? IndyCollector, you are an absolute fuckstain on the clean sheets of mankind, and no mistake.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST

    FUCK NO!!!!!

    by fassbinder79

    This is where I draw the line! NO FUCKING MO CAP!!! PLEASE GOD!!!! NOO!!!! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?!!!!! NO CG. Hand drawn is timeless. The original RR is timeless. Why the fuck would you want to fuck up your own legacy, Bob?!!!

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 9:24 p.m. CST

    Rob, you're pretty cool and all, but please

    by lockesbrokenleg

    retire.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 9:32 p.m. CST

    My childhood has been raped so many times...

    by Uncle Clay

    ...that my childhood's sphincter can't even hold in shit anymore. I hope Zemeckis doesn't join in on the horrid violation.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 10:08 p.m. CST

    How MoCap figures in,,,

    by Battybrain

    Isn't it obvious yet? EVERYTHING besides the toons would be motion capture. Zemeckis has clearly given up on presenting actual people on actual celluloid. I could understand if the animation didn't so closely resemble the original actors but the whole process just seems like wankery.

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 10:13 p.m. CST

    DUCK POTATOES!!!

    by MainMan2001

    That's what I think?

  • Nov. 3, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST

    I hear Robert Zemeckis is an asshole

    by D.Vader

    From a friend of a friend that works at his company. Says he's like the guy who got picked on all the time as a kid, and is now rich and powerful and just an all around asshole to everyone around him. I wonder if its true. I'm sure that will make AsimovLives happy to hear it.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 12:34 a.m. CST

    D.Vader...your a guy involved in the Business..

    by conspiracy

    Are there ANY nice people in it?? I'd bet that damned near anyone who is in front of the camera, directs, or writes is a major league cock.</p><p>But I can see Zemeckis as a top notch prick...just like Spielberg reportedly is.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 1:41 a.m. CST

    Stegman84

    by MandrakeRoot

    I agree that it seems kind of silly to use mo-cap on stuff that could just as easily be done with live-actors, and actually look real. The thing about mo-cap, especially of the quality found in Zemeckis films, is that it just makes it extremely hard for the audience relate to the characters without accepting it as a card. And truthfully while I did notice a jump from The Polar Express to Beowulf quality wise, I don't see much change in a Christmas Carol. <p> However the reason I think Zemeckis prefers it is because he gets complete control over every little detail, and can change anything he wants, whenever he wants. He also has control to change the look of the actor/character to a look that live-action probably couldn't achieve without cheesy makeup. Plus from watching the Christmas Carol trailer, and certain scenes from Beowulf, it seems that some of the action does lean towards the cartoon side, and instead of merely green-screening it, he can make it all look like everything's happening in the same world. Still though, we've seen plenty of live-action with fantastic CGI and green screen integration. So with that in mind it does seem like every one of his stop-motion movies could have been done live-action, but I'd imagine it would be more costly, and he couldn't really alter actors looks.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 1:42 a.m. CST

    *accepting it as a cartoon

    by MandrakeRoot

    my bad

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 2:54 a.m. CST

    I remember I wrote to Zemeckis back in the

    by lockesbrokenleg

    Forrest Gump days, and I actually got a letter and a signed pic from him. It was so cool. I still have them. BTTF and Roger Rabbit are classics. I wish he'd do another Romancing the Stone. Maybe one final movie.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Spielberg reportedly is, Conspiracy?

    by D.Vader

    I always wonder. I've never heard anything bad about the guy ever, which makes you wonder if everyone is just mum on the subject, or if he really is nice.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 4:45 a.m. CST

    This is the first time I have had a problem with Zemeckis

    by NomoredirtyjokespleaseweareYanks

    i mean his last 3 films have been this way, yet I am willing to cut him some slack, let him experiment and see if he can 'change cinema.I saw a quantum leap from Polar Express to Beowulf and thought that if he had more time he might just pull it off. The guy made some of my favorite films ever for fucks sake. <p> This however sounds terrible

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 4:54 a.m. CST

    WHYYYYYY???

    by JT Kirk

    What the fuck is his obsession with MoCap performances? These films don't have the cache of true animated films, and don't seem to bring out the performances of live ones. Plus, the eyes are creepy. Why even bother doing MoCap characters against 2d animation? They'll be separate either way, unless the 2d characters are also CG and part of the render. That would be pure yuck though, nothing sucks as bad as the current CG Mickey Mouse.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 4:59 a.m. CST

    Classic characters=2D, Pixar = CGI, Humans= Live action.

    by GibsonUSA Returns

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 5:02 a.m. CST

    I don't think that they should be dimensionalizing BIG LOB.

    by GibsonUSA Returns

    He should stay 2D, should he appear in Roger Rabbit. <BR><BR> As others have said, it would be awesome to see 2D Bugs Bunny next to 3D CGI Pixar characters and stuff...I wonder if they could get Family Guy and stuff in there too, it would be awesome.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST

    I Predict Robert Zemeckis Next Film Will Be...

    by TheNorthlander

    ...a Motion Capture CG Remake of Michael Jackson's Moonwalker.<p> <p> Think about it - He's doing Yellow Submarine, Michael Jackson is more popular now than when he was black.<p> It would make perfect sense.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 8:03 a.m. CST

    AICN, stop defending this hack

    by reflecto

    Fucking Zemeckis. Can anyone claim The Polar Express, Christmas Carol, etc are watchable? This man doesn't care about story, he cares about gadgets. He is about to rape his best film.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Zemeckis, serously FUCK OFF with MO-CAP

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    Polar Express, Beowulf, Scrooge; the first thing that springs to mind when anyone sees these movies is 'wow, how much better would this be if it was live-action?'.<p>stop wasting time and money, ffs.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 8:37 a.m. CST

    jessica Biel for Jessica Rabbit............

    by mojoman69

    im just sayin'................

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 9:05 a.m. CST

    I have hope in this...

    by The_Crimson_King

    ya know I've only seen Beowulf (in 2D) and it really wasn't bad (I mean it was at least an animated movie aimed at adults, how many of those get released in theaters these days?) so I haven't written Zemeckis off yet, still I hope it's not CGI humans with cartoon characters, what would be the point of that?

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Dead-Eyed MoCap Characters OBVIOUS ZOMBIES

    by ThusSpakeSpymunk

    The toons and the live actors must join forces to stop the soulless evil zombie mocap creatures who wander the landscape taking all their jobs for no pay and saying "BRAIIIIIIINS!" and costing studios $230m a film, destroying the economy. Roger drops a fucking safe on a Na'avi and I'm gonna see this 8 times, Robert Zemeckis, it's a promise. You kill a Na'avi in your movie and I'll watch it enough times to bankroll the entire project.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST

    if they remake Moonwalker

    by Bouncy X

    will Joe Pesci reprise his role? will they get Dakota Fanning to play the lil blonde girl? will ILM make the Jackson-Former? will Jaden Smith play the "cool" black kid who thinks he can dance? so many questions.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Fucking Robert Zemeckis

    by AsimovLives

    Fuck him.

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Betty Boop!

    by Hagakure

    This kind of makes sense from a technical standpoint. Wasn't there a line in the original movie about when Betty Boop says work is hard to come by because she is in black and white? If that is the case, then the "newer" cartoons would be CGI or Motion Capture if they are sticking to those same rules. But does this open up the doors for a Gollum or Jar Jar?

  • Nov. 4, 2009, 8:35 p.m. CST

    enderandrew... Enders game

    by MurderMostFowl

    I love the whole series... I've read every single book including overly simple "ender in exile" <BR><BR> An ender's game movie is guaranteed to flop if they use age appropriate actors. Card was a moron for insisting that they be so young. A) it kills any sexual tension and relativity between the characters and B) they simply aren't believable. Tell me how they could film that movie and not end up with a bunch of scenes that are like Goonies and Explorers. <BR><BR> And mo-cap would just make it worse.<BR><BR> Make ender 16 and make the older kids be in their early 20's. It's the only logical thing to do. After all, that's a real life age gap.... a teen wanting to hang out with college kids. The distance between a child and becoming an adult. <BR> Card was an idiot to have made age be so important to his plot ( I think it was his own Hubris actually ) and don't get me started on Bean. His story when you actually visualize it is just like "Our Gang"