Motion Capture: Underrated and Unknown Acting

Motion Capture: Underrated and Unknown Acting

Motion-capture technology has allowed for actors to play any role without the need of makeup - so why isn't it more respected?

Since the early days of Hollywood, special effects have constantly been advancing. Even now, just over one hundred years from A Trip to the Moon, you can go online and download a basic filmmaking program for free or a low cost – some can even handle minor digital effects. And even older than film effects, is putting actors in makeup and costumes to change their appearance – something as old as performance itself. In the modern era, the use of computer generated imagery has allowed for actors to play any part, in any environment, no matter how large. Motion-capture is one of the most well known aspects of modern filmmaking, with several films, including the recent Star Wars movies, having entire lead characters created with the system. However, it is not without controversies, nor was it something that just happened.

Essentially, motion capture is a modern-day version of rotoscoping. In the late 1930s/early 1940s, all animation was hand-drawn frame by frame, and oftentimes there would be something they wanted to animated that was difficult to draw freehand – so they would take an actor in full costume, film them doing the action, then draw over each frame. An early example would be the World War II era Superman cartoons, in which several close-up shots of Superman were rotoscoped using in-studio reference actors. Eventually, rotoscoping would be abandoned in favor of using models or highly-detailed animation, though of course the live-action reference actors would still be used to track motion in the animation cels. Almost thirty year later, Ralph Bakshi produced an animated adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, and due to the complex nature of the story and the Middle-Earth setting, he elected to use a much more detailed method of rotoscoping, making little effort to hide the fact that the audience would be seeing both cartoon characters and incredibly detailed drawings over stunt actors. The film featured a cast of relatively unknown actors, along with John Hurt as Aragorn and Anthony Daniels as Legolas, and was a moderate success. This adaptation is what brought the world of J.R.R. Tolkien to Peter Jackson, who went on to direct the groundbreaking 2001-2003 Lord of the Rings trilogy – which much like the 1978 film, experimented with the limits of special effects and blurring the line between reality and animation.

New Zealand based special effects company Weta Workshop, was brought in to help develop the processes to bring Lord of the Rings to total live-action. In addition to designing countless practical effects and miniatures for selected shots, they were also put up to the task of creating the ring-crazed Gollum. Meanwhile, in the world of video games, experiments were being done using actors in skintight grey bodysuits that tracked the actors' movements – and Weta saw the opportunity to use this technology in crafting the creature. In late 1998, they started using regular CGI to prove that it was in fact possible to make a realistic humanlike body, and a few months later, filming began on the trilogy. After they showed the capabilities of computer effects, Andy Serkis was cast as Gollum, set to provide the voice and physical reference for the team to animate over. Serkis was was there to film each of his scenes twice – once with him with the other actors, delivering lines and moving around like he would a normal performance, and once without him at all, as to give a background plane for the Weta team. Meanwhile, the team was planning on using him as a simple reference, but it was determined that the co-stars were doing much better if they could actually act alongside Serkis, and the decision was made to use the motion capture system, with Serkis in the “ping-pong ball” covered suit, to track all motion and movements.

At the time, it wasn't possible to really capture the actor's face, and thus Gollum's facial movements were completely CGI. Andy Serkis returned to motion capture on Peter Jackson's 2005 King Kong, cementing his career in the field. By 2006, Weta was continuing to advance their award-winning effects, and during production on James Cameron's motion-capture filled Avatar, developed a headset-mounted camera that would be facing the actor and recording every facial expression and movement, so that the entire portrayal could be presented through the CGI overlays. This instantly proved incredibly useful, and allowed for the performances of the cast to be in the final product, not just used as something to match up the voices to. Avatar was another big hit, breaking several box office records and the effects being highly praised. This would continue to be developed and enhanced, and within a matter of years, the use of the head-mounted camera would become the norm, further pushing away the concept of mo-cap actors being “glorified voice actors.”

The Planet of the Apes series has continued to further push ahead the capabilities of motion capture. 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes gave us a hyper-realistic and incredibly detailed CGI ape, Caesar, played by Andy Serkis (as with many motion capture characters). Instead of filming on a soundstage separate from the main set, Weta was able to have the actors on set, and then isolate their performance without needing to film it all over again. The sequel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes added to the abilities of “digital makeup,” with the ape civilization looking near photorealistic, to very high praise from critics and audiences. Through these films, the potential for uses of the system have been increased, even to a point of using them to make things simple for the on-set actor and the digital effects teams. For example,Tom Hollad wore a mo-cap suit for much of the filming on the upcoming Avengers: Infinity War so that the effects could all be added in without having to fight against the bright color of his Spider-Man costume and the greenscreen. A similar method was used for Spider-Man's appearance in Captain America: Civil War, though some shots did involve a physical costume.

Of course, no discussion on motion-capture could not include the controversy over whether or not the actors are really “acting.” According to the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences (the Academy Awards), actors like Andy Serkis are more of a voice actor than a physical one, as they are just being a basis for the special effects crew to reference. That couldn't be further from the truth – every breath, every look, every single movement, is done by the mo-cap actor. The only difference is that instead of being put in a makeup chair, they wear a standard gray suit and “digital makeup” is put over them. Performances such as Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug in The Hobbit trilogy, Andy Serkis in Lord of the Rings and Planet of the Apes, and the cast of Avatar were not even considered for the big Academy Awards, simply because they do not feel they are really acting. They put much more effort than most actors would, having to also act in the mannerisms of their non-human characters – such as wearing arm extensions to move like a chimpanzee. Reviews for War for the Planet of the Apes are calling for Andy Serkis to win an Oscar. Maybe the Academy will finally change their mind on what “real acting” is.

Motion-capture is here to stay. Characters like K-2SO and Maz Kanata have joined the ranks of amazing digital characters, and the actors playing the parts have achieved high praise and a place in modern pop culture, not like Gollum. There is something to respect about this type of acting, as it requires both physicality and vocal performances in a way that a regular performance rarely needs. It is also a testament to the talent of computer effects artists, as they have to take the actor and turn them into something completely inhuman, without losing any aspect of the actual acting. Since Lord of the Rings, the technology has advanced, and considering how commonplace it is starting to become, it isn't going to be too long before there is a motion-capture add-on to a free film editor/effects program. And maybe one of these days, a motion-capture performance will be nominated for one of the main Oscar categories.

Cover Image Credit: 20th Century Fox

Popular Right Now

8 Reasons Why My Dad Is the Most Important Man In My Life

Forever my number one guy.

Growing up, there's been one consistent man I can always count on, my father. In any aspect of my life, my dad has always been there, showing me unconditional love and respect every day. No matter what, I know that my dad will always be the most important man in my life for many reasons.

1. He has always been there.

Literally. From the day I was born until today, I have never not been able to count on my dad to be there for me, uplift me and be the best dad he can be.

2. He learned to adapt and suffer through girly trends to make me happy.

I'm sure when my dad was younger and pictured his future, he didn't think about the Barbie pretend pageants, dressing up as a princess, perfecting my pigtails and enduring other countless girly events. My dad never turned me down when I wanted to play a game, no matter what and was always willing to help me pick out cute outfits and do my hair before preschool.

3. He sends the cutest texts.

Random text messages since I have gotten my own cell phone have always come my way from my dad. Those randoms "I love you so much" and "I am so proud of you" never fail to make me smile, and I can always count on my dad for an adorable text message when I'm feeling down.

4. He taught me how to be brave.

When I needed to learn how to swim, he threw me in the pool. When I needed to learn how to ride a bike, he went alongside me and made sure I didn't fall too badly. When I needed to learn how to drive, he was there next to me, making sure I didn't crash.

5. He encourages me to best the best I can be.

My dad sees the best in me, no matter how much I fail. He's always there to support me and turn my failures into successes. He can sit on the phone with me for hours, talking future career stuff and listening to me lay out my future plans and goals. He wants the absolute best for me, and no is never an option, he is always willing to do whatever it takes to get me where I need to be.

6. He gets sentimental way too often, but it's cute.

Whether you're sitting down at the kitchen table, reminiscing about your childhood, or that one song comes on that your dad insists you will dance to together on your wedding day, your dad's emotions often come out in the cutest possible way, forever reminding you how loved you are.

7. He supports you, emotionally and financially.

Need to vent about a guy in your life that isn't treating you well? My dad is there. Need some extra cash to help fund spring break? He's there for that, too.

8. He shows me how I should be treated.

Yes, my dad treats me like a princess, and I don't expect every guy I meet to wait on me hand and foot, but I do expect respect, and that's exactly what my dad showed I deserve. From the way he loves, admires, and respects me, he shows me that there are guys out there who will one day come along and treat me like that. My dad always advises me to not put up with less than I deserve and assures me that the right guy will come along one day.

For these reasons and more, my dad will forever be my No. 1 man. I love you!

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

From One Nerd To Another

My contemplation of the complexities between different forms of art.


Aside from reading Guy Harrison's guide to eliminating scientific ignorance called, "At Least Know This: Essential Science to Enhance Your Life" and, "The Breakthrough: Immunotherapy and the Race to Cure Cancer" by Charles Graeber, an informative and emotional historical account explaining the potential use of our own immune systems to cure cancer, I read articles and worked on my own writing in order to keep learning while enjoying my winter break back in December. I also took a trip to the Guggenheim Museum.

I wish I was artistic. Generally, I walk through museums in awe of what artists can do. The colors and dainty details simultaneously inspire me and remind me of what little talent I posses holding a paintbrush. Walking through the Guggenheim was no exception. Most of the pieces are done by Hilma af Klint, a 20th-century Swedish artist expressing her beliefs and curiosity about the universe through her abstract painting. I was mostly at the exhibit to appease my mom (a K - 8th-grade art teacher), but as we continued to look at each piece and read their descriptions, I slowly began to appreciate them and their underlying meanings.

I like writing that integrates symbols, double meanings, and metaphors into its message because I think that the best works of art are the ones that have to be sought after. If the writer simply tells you exactly what they were thinking and how their words should be interpreted, there's no room for imagination. An unpopular opinion in high school was that reading "The Scarlet Letter" by Nathaniel Hawthorne was fun. Well, I thought it was. At the beginning of the book, there's a scene where Hawthorne describes a wild rosebush that sits just outside of the community prison. As you read, you are free to decide whether it's an image of morality, the last taste of freedom and natural beauty for criminals walking toward their doom, or a symbol of the relationship between the Puritans with their prison-like expectations and Hester, the main character, who blossoms into herself throughout the novel. Whichever one you think it is doesn't matter, the point is that the rosebush can symbolize whatever you want it to. It's the same with paintings - they can be interpreted however you want them to be.

As we walked through the building, its spiral design leading us further and further upwards, we were able to catch glimpses of af Klint's life through the strokes of her brush. My favorite of her collections was one titled, "Evolution." As a science nerd myself, the idea that the story of our existence was being incorporated into art intrigued me. One piece represented the eras of geological time through her use of spirals and snails colored abstractly. She clued you into the story she was telling by using different colors and tones to represent different periods. It felt like reading "The Scarlet Letter" and my biology textbook at the same time. Maybe that sounds like the worst thing ever, but to me it was heaven. Art isn't just art and science isn't just science. Aspects of different studies coexist and join together to form something amazing that will speak to even the most untalented patron walking through the museum halls.

Related Content

Facebook Comments