One of the running jokes amongst my fellow classmates is that we have to like Tron, we have no choice. The head of our department was one of the main animators for the original ground breaking 1982 special effects movie, Tron; one of the first of it’s kind. So, naturally, when we found out about Tron: Legacy we were all excited. Having ties with the original, we were able to have our own screening of the new film as well as a Q&A session with the directors. What they had to say was amazing and we were shown pretty incredible behind the scenes footage, animation, and visual effects that went into the making of the film.
About midway through the session though, we learned something that startled me and surprised me so much that I swear I will NEVER be the same again…
This is Clu, Kevin Flynn (played by Jeff Bridges)’s “codified likeness utility,” or for those of you who have never seen any of the Tron films, his alter-ego. Clu is the bad guy. Here’s the thing about Clu, he is Jeff Bridge’s alter ego in more than one way. Take a good look because what I am about to say may blow your mind…
Clu isn’t real. He never existed throughout the entire movie. That’s not Jeff Bridges. Clu is all CGI.
I know, right? I had no Clu either (if you will pardon my stupid nerd pun). You can go the entire movie without ever knowing that that isn’t Jeff Bridges made up to look younger than he is. I know I did, and the second I was told Clu wasn’t real I was shocked. After watching more clips with Clu, knowing he was all CGI, I grew even more puzzled and amazed at the work they did on Clu’s character. He looks SO real. But he isn’t. In fact, he was only created with assistance from motion and performance capture technology.
One of the nice advantages of one of my classes I am taking this semester is that we have a massive array of talented directors, animators, and artists coming to talk to us. One of the most common themes of the talks haven’t been about traditional animation or even Pixar-esque CGI, but rather this crazy thing called motion capture. You may have heard of it. It’s revolutionizing the industry and the way animated and effect laden films are created.
As described from a former Chapman student who now works at Dreamworks as a mocap engineer, “Motion capture is real time keyfame and playback. It is the creation of a 3D representation of a live performance by an actor.”
You’ve probably seen motion capture in use within behind the scenes footage of several movies. Most famously, there was Gollum/Smeagol in The Lord of the Rings Trilogy performed by the talented actor Andy Serkis. To see some motion capture in action, here is a clip of the famous schizophrenic scene where Andy’s performance is put side by side with the final rendered result.
I can spare you the nitty gritty details about how mocap uses retro reflective markers combined with nearby infrared light to produce 3D tracked data in real time at a speed of 1200 fps (yes, I actually was paying attention in that optional motion capture class I took a few weeks ago), but the technology behind it can be a story for another time.
We had the pleasure of having Simon Wells, director of the new Disney animated movie Mars Needs Moms, coming in and talking to our class. His newest movie is following in the footsteps of Robert Zemeckis’ film, The Polar Express. How would you describe the stylings of both films? How about freakishly realistic to the actual actor? How about plastic, like something about their faces doesn’t seem right? And how about so abnormally realistic to the actor that it almost seems unnatural to look at it because you know it is animated, but can still see the actor clearly as day.
You've Got to be Kidding: Seth Green was the original motion capture actor for the young protagonist of the story, Milo. And you can clearly see him not only as a CGI character, but also through the way Milo moves in the film.
Tron: Legacy’s Clu is also part of this freakishly realistic group of CGI characters, and, like in Mars Needs Moms, depended heavily on performance capture of an actor. Mocap provides an excellent solution to a long problem animators have faced which is efficiency. Animation changed from paper and pencil to Maya nearly overnight due to its ability to quickly move and animate a character, a feat that was not possible in the restrictions of frame-by-frame traditional animation. Once again, the industry is moving onwards, only this time taking it to a whole new level; capturing an actor’s performance through IR sensors and translating it into a computer to be rendered and “made pretty” through programs like Maya. Motion capture has even progressed to the point where a 3D model is linked onto the actor’s movements and can be moved in real time during a live performance.
Though, all of this comes with a heavy question:
When a film relies on motion capture technology, when does the content of the film stop becoming animation and rather become a live action performance?
Simon Wells, who was a playful and hilarious sport with ridiculously entertaining answers to all our questions was stumped when this was thrown his way. We asked him whether or not Mars Needs Moms, if up for an Oscar, would be qualified for Best Animated Feature since it was so heavily created through motion and performance capture. He couldn’t answer it.
I find it’s a question that once again the industry is faced with. Is it animation to simply capture an actor’s performance frame by frame and place into the computer, or is it something more? Sure, there are a large number of CG characters captured by motion capture that can be considered animated. For instance, although the character of Gollum/Smeagol was direct motion capture of Andy Serkis’ performance, Richie Baneham made it a point to tell us that he was digitally animated in the computer, frame by frame, to get the best out of the performance. Gollum and Smeagol’s faces needed to do a lot more than what Andy Serkis could physically give in a performance. If you noticed in the above clip, Gollum isn’t always lined up exactly with Andy’s performance and is often times exaggerated.
The Evolution of Gollum: Andy Serkis serves as the performance capture actor of the CG character, Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings". Gollum's facial extremes were created solely in the computer by animators, as successful facial performance capture was not yet developed enough at the time.
Mocap technology is fantastic, exciting, and new. I am personally looking forward to continuing my studies in this new technology. As I continue my two part class in motion capture, I will be keeping you updated with a post next week on my experiences with this fancy new technology. Though, deep in my mind I wonder if what is being created can be considered “traditional” animation, or is it something in it’s own league?
Is mocap redefining our definition of traditional animation? Or is it part of a whole new category?
Taking Art to the Next Level 
Interesting point I never thought about. I always new motion capture was big, but it never hit me that it could be redefining animation as we know it. I think it belongs in a separate category as traditional animation. It doesn’t count with real time motion capture technology that you can make a rendered object move in real time with an actor’s motions. That’s not animation. It’s only animation if you animate it frame by frame. I have a love hate with motion capture.
Hey Damien, thanks for reading! I agree, it is definitely a separate division of animation. Though I think motion capture is a useful tool when it comes to animating, I think that it definitely has draw backs. Even though the technology is advancing, it doesn’t necessarily make the result look “realistic” enough. We know what we are watching is animation, and like in classic cartoons, the animated world can be stretched and squashed and morphed…which is acceptable.
I agree, it isn’t animation unless animated frame by frame. I do think though that motion capture can serve as a jump start tool for the final product. 🙂
An interesting topic to be sure. I also didn’t know Clue was CGI until Tron was screened at Chapman and they talked about the process. However motion capture is something I think can work in collaboration with acting and animation. Two fields that have traditionally been separate are now being brought together with the wonderful technology of motion capture. We fix sound in post, we fix picture in post why cant we fix some acting in post as well?
That’s where I found out about Clu being CGI as well! I agree with your points that acting should be able to be fixed as well. Richie Baneham from “Avatar” came in to talk about how Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington’s performances were captured and then “enhanced” through the computer. I think when it comes to performance and motion capture enhancing a performance is one of the greatest benefits it can give to the film industry. 🙂