Alfred Urrutia (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 22 May 2000 11:37:20 -0700
> >Disney doesn't rely on cg at all when it comes to their characters. They rely
> on the
> >30+ years of past Disney movies. They feel compelled to stick to that one
> >forever, too afraid to break out of it and try something else.
> Hmmm. So that does mean that fluid human movements can be done in CG. Isn't
> the program reusable for other characters or movies? Or does it have to be
> tailored for every character or movie?
Can be done in cg? Sure. Either mocap, which is the cg equivalent of rotoscoping
(actual human movements converted to images) or keyframe animation, both have been
done. Neither is really "reusable", though. Not for key characters since each
will have his own "personality" and style put in. It works better for background
characters or for adding scenes like you'll see in "X-Men" and "Spiderman" where
some superhuman feat is supposedly done by the actor. Disney has never done this,
though. "Dinosaur" is its first use of cg character animation (Pixar doesn't
count). Anyway, Disney prides itself on being the "best" at animation, they
wouldn't stoop to recycled animation for successive movies. I'll say this, as
crappy as the movie was, "Godzilla" had a better sense of weight and animal
movement than "Dinosaur" (not counting the baby zillas, that sucked). That shows
you the difference in approach between Disney and everybody else.
-- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Dude, it doesn't matter what day it is. Max shits bigger than Kirk."
- StJohn, during "my superhero is better than your superhero" day
Alfred Urrutia - Digital Domain - 310.314.2800 x2100 - email@example.com -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
- Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue May 23 2000 - 03:36:08 JST