Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Tools    





Christian Bale is Christian Bale, not Batman.

Andy Serkis is Andy Serkis, not Gollum.

Actors cannot have hermetic careers, where they're only allowed to perform one role then retire in order to maintain a verisimilitude for that one role. Watching American Psycho, then Batman has the same effect as seeing Serkis on a press junket for The Hobbit. The whole nature of cinema is suspending disbelief, if you can't handle it with Serkis, not sure how you watch anything- it's not like during the film you see a side by side of him in the motion capture. You watch the film in THAT moment
__________________




Again you jump to false conclusions.

Batman is man in a cape and mask
Achilles was a man.
King Kong is an oversized Ape.
Golum is meant to be a a golum , not Andy Sirkis!
Believability in cinema is crucial, as in acting.
To destroy your films believability by destroying the audiences perception of your characters, is just plain dumb.

What is the point at reaching the seeming zenith of affective SFX for the reason of wanting to blow away the audiences minds, with great SFX creations in movies.
Then destroying all the affectiveness of your creations, by constantly harping on about Andy Serkis being the creations ? to the point all they think of is him?

Ok, explain why Ledger's Joker is considered the best and finest portrayal of the character, and has become something of a legend in the Batman Universe... even when most of the publicity was about Ledger's preparation for the role and his untimely death.

All the media hype over these things takes very little away from The Joker.



Your point of discrediting actors who use motion-capture suits is moot. If that was the case, surely then all actors, regardless of their role in production should be discredited for their work.

Many DVD features contain masses of interviews and documentaries on the actors in the film, not just the Serkis style actors but all the actors... but it takes nothing away from the character that's seen on screen. Why is it different for motion-capture?



I think his point is that there's "magic" being spoiled either way; Serkis is not an ape, and Pitt isn't really an old man. So why is it okay to "spoil" one by honoring it and not the other? It's a good question.

Even leaving the question aside, though, I don't see how it spoils anything to hand out these awards. We all know they're effects, and we don't have to watch the how-to if we don't want to. Heck, even handing out awards for acting sort of "spoils" the performances, by that logic.
Because men can become old but they cannot become monkeys.

But say if Brad Pitt was in a movie about a man who turned into a monkey,
then along comes Andy Sirkis who takes over the rest of the monkey part of the movie.
They then would go on and on, about Andy Sirkis played the part of the monkey it was him, his expressions his jumping around and his emotions . Isn't he wonderful?
Four hour special on Blu ray
ANDY SIRKIS WAS THE MONKEY MAN.

And then they not only end up destroying the monkey itself but they would destroy Brad Pitts character personality, of the human personaility behind the man who turned into a monkey, that he, a man, Brad Pitt, had tried to produce for the sake of the effectiveness on the viewer , all the way through the movie's earlier scenes !!
and destroy it!!
That's how annoying they are.

I would much prefer him playing the Queen or Thatcher, now that would be fun.



In the Beginning...
I WOULD CREDIT HIM
BUT BY A MYSTERIOUS ACRONYM
like they do most movie jobs.
Are you f'n crazy?

I certainly wouldn't keep making endless special edition tv slots or dvd slots,
that constantly point to him to be identified with the SFX CREATURES.
Dude, get over it. This is the lamest gripe I've ever heard about movies. If you aren't satisfied with a movie for this reason, you've seriously got to cut down on the complacency-flavored Doritos. Life is so much better when you relax.



Because men can become old but they cannot become monkeys.
This is an arbitrary distinction. Both are fake. You're talking about the "magic" of making things that are not happening look like they're happening. The fact that they can happen, theoretically, has nothing to do with that.

But say if Brad Pitt was in a movie about a man who turned into a monkey,
then along comes Andy Sirkis who takes over the rest of the monkey part of the movie.
They then would go on and on, about Andy Sirkis played the part of the monkey it was him, his expressions his jumping around and his emotions . Isn't he wonderful?
Four hour special on Blu ray
ANDY SIRKIS WAS THE MONKEY MAN.

And then they not only end up destroying the monkey itself but they would destroy Brad Pitts character personality, of the human personaility behind the man who turned into a monkey, that he, a man, Brad Pitt, had tried to produce for the sake of the effectiveness on the viewer , all the way through the movie's earlier scenes !!
and destroy it!!
That's how annoying they are.
Wow.



Oh, also: Brad Pitt didn't just play an old guy. He played an old giant man baby. Pretty sure men can't become that any more than they can become monkeys.



Oh, also: Brad Pitt didn't just play an old guy. He played an old giant man baby. Pretty sure men can't become that any more than they can become monkeys.
It was a meant to be human though.
Please dont try any longer, my argument is water tight.



This is an arbitrary distinction. Both are fake. You're talking about the "magic" of making things that are not happening look like they're happening. The fact that they can happen, theoretically, has nothing to do with that.


Wow.
Did this Giant Baby and old man appear to look like a giant baby version of and old man version of Brad Pitt?
I think you will find the answer is yes.
But did King Kong or Golum look like Andy Serkis?
NO is the answer.
wow



Sam Worthington was a blue 8ft tall alien by using motion capture and voiceover. He was also part robot once as well.

Should he be discredited from his movies for his work with motion-capture?



Oh, also: Brad Pitt didn't just play an old guy. He played an old giant man baby. Pretty sure men can't become that any more than they can become monkeys.
It was Brad Pitt though
visually in the movie
It was his face.



Sam Worthington was a blue 8ft tall alien by using motion capture and voiceover. He was also part robot once as well.

Should he be discredited from his movies for his work with motion-capture?
No because he is a man
Such human forms of aliens are based upon the shape of human men, and as the actor in the movie was playing the alien man shaped character, knowing it was him was obvious, and didn't spoil the character of the alien, because he was the alien's character.
Whereas, I have my own ideas about the personality of King Kong that i do not want spoilt, thank you very much.

Animated features are slightly different, Although Jeremy Irons in the Lion King did bother me a little at first, but i got over it. As did Tom hanks but i try to not let it get to me.



But Apes have more in common with humans than fictional 8ft tall blue aliens from a planet called Pandora...



It was a meant to be human though.
Please dont try any longer, my argument is water tight.
Actually, it's leaking like a sieve. As I said, movie magic isn't fundamentally different based on the theoretical possibility of what you're doing. You have to suspend disbelief to think you're watching an intelligent ape, and you have to suspend disbelief to think Brad Pitt is actually a giant man baby. The fact that being old is possible has nothing to do with it: the "magic" is in taking someone who isn't old and making it look like they are.

Also, the movie isn't about "men becoming monkeys." It's about intelligent apes. And really, as if your opinion would change if we found a super intelligent ape.

True or false: everybody knows Brad Pitt doesn't look like that, and everybody knows apes aren't that intelligent. True, right? So there's no argument. We all know it's a trick. Maybe it's nice not to know how the trick is done, and if that's the case, hey, just don't watch Behind the Scenes featurettes. Problem solved.



No because he is a man
Such human forms of aliens are based upon the shape of human men, and as the actor in the movie was playing the alien man shaped character, knowing it was him was obvious, and didn't spoil the character of the alien, because he was the alien's character.
So...if you found out that the animators had designed Caesar by looking at photos of human men, you'd suddenly have no problem with it? What?



You must really have a problem with Pixar films. I pity you.
I like the fact is was him because he was the star and the character



So...if you found out that the animators had designed Caesar by looking at photos of human men, you'd suddenly have no problem with it? What?
Not so much, but they must have an Andy Sirkis pinup collection fetish.
Your point falls flat, doesnt it?



No it wasn't. It had makeup on it.
it was HIS role