This is a really interesting article that my brother actually passed onto me that Empire had written up, looking at the fading line that is animation and motion capture and other such techniques to capture life within animated characters.
The way it discusses this topic is that it circles around looking at the way in which the BAFTA’s and Oscars had categorised and awarded different movies, mainly Tintin and Avatar. It is tough to say whether movies like Tintin that are using motion capture are animations rather than live performances as they are captured images and footage of movement that are translated into these models and shells of characters.
The issue that is put forward is that although they are live action captured performances the actions can be exaggerated and ‘animated’ upon once this has been captured. It also brings up the argument that the animators within films aren’t actually praised enough as you could say that an animator is an actor, creating that action for the character within the animation. Within classical animation and more modern animation they still use live references and captured images and footage as a use of reference, so is the use of motion capture not just a more modern way of capturing reference material for an animator?
The thing that I agree most within this small article though is that animators and animations are being over looked. There seems to be a large skim across animation and a lack of focus and appreciation upon the work and amount of effort that goes into creating them.
It seems that there really needs to be a sit down and clear choice in whether or not to expand the actual appreciation of motion capture films and hand animated films, or if there really is a difference. To me they seem to very different things, with motion capture heavy films like Tintin and Avatar to be a completely separate type of animation and film rather than clumping it with other animations.