Comments on: Casting Robert Zemeckis’ A Christmas Carol

By: Amy

Amy — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:27:33 +0000

This is a great cast. I just heard that there are six kids in the movie too. The girl from Pusing Daisy’s and the Verizon Fios kid and also Sage Ryan (the boy from America’s got talent). Can’t wait to see it.

By: James Clarke

James Clarke — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:13:23 +0000

Absolutely - performance capture is performance capture, not animation in the sense we understand as creating motion from something inanimate. To Zemeckis’ credit, he too has acknowledged that performance capture c is not animation but rather its own technique and that to call it as such does a disservice to the art and craft of the animator.

By: avoidz

avoidz — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:05:42 +0000

Zemeckis hasn’t yet leaped over the “uncanny valley” with his mo-cap technology. Beowulf is still just a nice demo; something like an extended PS3 cut scene.

Jim Carrey desperately needs a hit movie. Is this it? I don’t know.

By: Thatfella

Thatfella — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 05:44:23 +0000

Good point. Beowulf is not technically and animated feature and shouldn’t be qualified for an oscar. Not that it would win anyway. Who are we kidding here guys? Rattatoullie is a lock and we all know it.

By: Ranting Animator

Ranting Animator — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:57:57 +0000

I’m growing increasingly weary of people referring to this style of filmmaking as “animation” or the characters as “animated.” Motion capture is more technical special effect, than imaginative animation. There are NO character animators involved in 95% of what ends up onscreen in a film like Beowulf. I’m not denigrating what it is, just clarifying what it isn’t. An “animated” film should refer to the CHARACTERS being animated — to the performance being imagined and created by artists, not realized via the transfer of data from live actors on a mo-cap stage. Moreover, the artistic philosophy between the two different styles couldn’t be more pronounced: the mo-cap film is doggedly trying to reproduce realistic physics and motion while the “animated” film is purposefully ignoring, deconstructing, or hyper-realizing the laws of motion — striving to distill things to their essence in order to achieve a more compelling and fascinating quality of movement.

I’m disturbed that a film like Beowulf is being proposed - in some circles - as an Oscar nominee in the animation category. It just doesn’t belong there with films like Ratatouille. Apples and oranges, dammit, apples and oranges!!!

OK, I feel better now.

By: James Clarke

James Clarke — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:20:14 +0000

I agree with the previous post. Zemeckis’ choice to adapt A Christmas Carol suggests something very cinematic in the works. I am reading Dickens’ novella again at present and keep imagining the RZ version based on the rich descriptions of events in the source material.
And also, hasn’t Zemeckis made spins on A Christmas Carol before in some ways: consider Back to the Future Part 2 and The Polar Express.

By: Brendon

Brendon — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:06:56 +0000

There’s just about the same amount of walk-and-talk in Christmas Carol than, say, the script for Cloverfield. A lot less giant monsterism, sure, but about the same amount of gab-and-stroll.

And there’s far more sit-and-talk in Zodiac than in Christmas Carol too.

This is a deeply cinematic story, I believe, and I have every confidence that Zemeckis will render it in splendidly cinematic terms.