Ok so I just watched the new Planet of the Apes film and have been checking out a lot of the behind the scenes shit from the series, and I gotta ask

Ok so I just watched the new Planet of the Apes film and have been checking out a lot of the behind the scenes shit from the series, and I gotta ask

How is this not counted as an animated film? What's the difference between this and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

The human actors aren't interacting with real apes. Each ape actor's mo-cap performance is not what we're seeing directly on screen. All that mo-cap data and visual reference passes through the hands of various artists and animators before we get the final product

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How is this not counted as an animated film?
    Because it's motion capture. If they were doing animation, then they wouldn't have bothered with the tracking suits. Motion capture does it all for them.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      motion-capture is a form of animation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >motion-capture is a form of animation
        No, it is not. It is the absence of animation because it's following the performance of real people. If it was animated, then it would've been the result of people manually moving every joint of rigging within the model to make them move the way they wanted. Don't frick with me. I work in GC animation. Anyone who tells you motion capture is animation is either doesn't know that the frick they're talking about of fricking lying to you.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          pure autism
          have a nice day

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >It is the absence of animation because it's following the performance of real people
          So you're saying rotoscoping isn't real animation?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Happy Feet, The Polar Express, Tintin, Monster House, Lion King 2019, Final Fantasy Spirits Within, that Donkey Kong tv show, those straight to video Barbie movies
          >spatial data used to create the illusion of motion for completely computer-generated characters
          >not animation
          >DON’T FRICK WITH ME. I MAKE VIDEO GAMES.
          Thanks for reminding me why I tend to take months long breaks from this place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Are puppets animation? We had Dark Crystal threads here way back.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Puppetry exists in kind of a weird limbo - it's arguably not animation, but discussions of movies/series like Dark Crystal, Team America, etc. usually get deleted on Cinemaphile, so the discussions usually go to Cinemaphile instead.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >it's arguably not animation
                It literally is animation, but it's a different type of animation compared to what is mostly referred to as animation today.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yep, the original form of animation. You’re animating a character with your hands.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's not an illusion though, it's all real.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s an elaborated sock until you give it life. You animate it. Do you consider shadow puppets animation? They look identical to cel-shaded 2D.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The puppet is actually alive and speaking

                Yeah, but at that point, then, the definition of animation as a medium now grows so broad as to include animatronics and other mechanical practical effects in live action films.

                They are animation, but if we're purely talking about where we draw the line on something being Cinemaphile related animation, I would say that if the medium has no live action humans, and only has animated characters, be it drawn, CG, puppets, or animatronics, it is 100% Cinemaphile.
                This would be stuff like Dark Crystal, Team America, Bear in the Big Blue House, and and all purely drawn/CG/stop motion movies.
                If the primary focus is the animated charters, but there can be live action people involved, it become both Cinemaphile and Cinemaphile related.
                This would be stuff like the Muppets, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, IF, and yes, Planet of the Apes.
                If a Movie has some animated characters but they aren't the primary characters, or they only have 1 or two of them, I would classify it as Cinemaphile since it is no longer about the animated element, or the mix of them with the real elements, and it is mostly there to enhance a story, or because using something real becomes impractical.
                This would be stuff like Jurassic Park, Monster-verse movies, or The Thing.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, but at that point, then, the definition of animation as a medium now grows so broad as to include animatronics and other mechanical practical effects in live action films.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t see the big deal. If it’s being used to lift set sidewalks during a disaster movie’s earthquake it’s a stretch, but if it’s being used for a character why wouldn’t it be a form of animation? An animatronic isn’t that far off from a stop-motion creation, you’re just animating it in real time instead of frame by frame.
                You seem strangely obsessed with definitions.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You seem strangely obsessed with definitions.
                At a certain point people need to agree on what things mean; whether that's clarifying what astronomers mean by a "planet" or specifying whether starting a thread on movie animatronics is now considered on-topic for Cinemaphile threads.

                If we don't know or can't agree on what words mean, i ósanwëcenta na hranga.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >What the frick did you just fricking say about me, you little b***h? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class at Full Sail University, and I've been involved in numerous games on Early Access, and I have over 300 confirmed character animations. I am trained in model skinning and I'm the top rigger in the entire 4X gaming industry. You are nothing to me but just another player. You think you can get away with saying that shit is animation to me over the Internet? Don't frick with me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            nice

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Motion capture does it all for them.
      watch some behind the scenes stuff
      motion capture helps inform the artist in the same way rotoscoping does, but the artist has to do a lot of heavy lifting to make it look good in either case

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The polar express is considered animation

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I think his criteria are silly but you're double moronic. EVERYTHING in that movie is animated, not just the motion puppeted people, but the objects and scenery around them

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It is if you think about it, but animation has a childish connotation so it’s not treated as such. But who cares? It’s just a technicality.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not done in animated medium bro, they're real actors in the real world with a bit of CG. There are planet of the apes comics if you want to talk about it here.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mostly just what people consider animation and intent of such. This, Avatar, and Lion King want to trick the audience into believing it's completely real, it's technically animation but the creators don't want that to be the thought. Where as Roger Rabbit wants you to be aware it's animated characters contrasting with live action people. And that's not getting into negative opinions of animation in the first place.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This.
      The diference is all on the branding, like when they started labeling graphic novels the non-cape comics sold in bookstores.
      Even if they act it all with motion capture there are still animators polishing the performances in post ( not sure at what extent nowadays, but I doubt its all direct output yet)

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's supposed to be real life

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    these movies are so good i’m so glad people are watching them again

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That meme is making me laugh too much.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love how all the orangutans are wisdom/int casters in these movies, it makes me smile. Dawn>War>Kingdom>Rise but I like them all.

      Also Proximus's death was super satisfying, I love these apes. They're just so good.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Underrated franchise in my opinion. Even the older POTA is kino.
    Its a movie and we have a dedicated board for that Cinemaphile

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Cinemaphile is cancer tho

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Boco

    The two live action humans and all the live action locations they filmed in.

    Man, I love PotA.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Roger Rabbit and friends are literal cartoons coexisting with an acknowledged divide from themselves and regular people
    The CGI monkes in those movies are not diagetically CGI, the people in universe and the audience are supposed to accept them as "real" within the setting

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      how is that any different from pete's dragon?
      the people in universe are supposed to accept elliot as real within the setting, and so are we
      though he is clearly not
      just as the apes are not

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ok? Pete’s Dragon is a live-action movie with an animated character. Why are you so hung up about this? Are you on the spectrum? Don’t answer that.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Animation is the illusion of movement
    These movies are an illusion of moving monkeys
    Puppets someone actually moving it
    Guess which is allowed on Cinemaphile?

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I say this is hybrid movie but something like Avatar is an animated film like completely almost.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      dont let james cameron hear that or he will throw another fit

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    So is any digital effect animation?

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit is also not an animated film either.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no mention of Rango (2011)
    Someone tell me why Rango is animated and this isn't

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Rango wasn't mocapped. They just acted out as references, just like Disney used to do back when Walt was still alive.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks was genuinely curious

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ask yourself this
    If this was Japanese, would Cinemaphile have threads about it?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    By that notion live action movies are theater too.
    Hell, 2d animation started out as being a part of vaudeville acts, often having a live actor interact with the animation in real time.
    Gertie the Dinosaur is a good example.

    Thanks was genuinely curious

    Np. The behind the scenes look is actually pretty interesting.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I'd say it absolutely counts as animation.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If something like the Lion King counts as animation I think this counts too.

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The Monsterverse movies are animation like Roger Rabbit.
    Hollow Earth is their equivalent of Toontown.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    you really want to discuss this shitty movie?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shitty? None of these movies have been shitty.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who Framed Roger Rabbit isn't counted as an animated film either, its mixed technique
    also real actors were involved, the monkeys aren't simply animated

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >real actors were involved
      So? Motion caption animation is still veru much animation.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        So is every CGI that involves movements.
        Do you count the majority of the movies released in the last couple of decades as animated movies?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          If it's a big part of the movie I'm gonna say yes.
          You wouldn't count Smiling Friends as live-action for all the live-action humans, but you would count it as live-action if it was the opposite, a full live-action show with some CGI characters as gags.
          There's a line somewhere in here that needs to be drawn I think.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but it's problematic, because stuff like modern marvel movies are made with frick ton of cgi

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And they're talked about here, aren't they?
              But that's cause they're Cinemaphile adaptations, surely there are better examples that are way less obviously Cinemaphile-related.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Star wars movies? The new ones?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think it's the intention that counts. Who Framed Roger Rabbit was clearly made to be a mix of toons and live action, Beowulf was intended as an animated movie - same with the latest Spiderverse movie that had live action sequences in it, all the modern sci-fi, capeshit and action movies are meant to be live action. If we start to count visual effects as animation then we can go back to all the practical effects used in the past and say that's stop motion.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Planet of the Apes is Cinemaphile.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But only the comics the same way Batman comics aren't Cinemaphile but the games are

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, the new movies too because they use copious amounts of CGI for their apes.
        Also you forgot the cartoon you fricking casual, it's not just comics and movies.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is Tokusatsu Cinemaphile?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm really NOT a Toku guy, if I were you, I'd go ask Cinemaphile, but I was under the impression that those shows used mostly practical effects, so I'd say uhhhh... probably not?

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I firmly believe that movies that utilize animated special effects to such a high degree absolutely count as animated movies.
    Avatar is an animated movie.
    The new Planet of the Apes movies are animated movies.
    The Monsterverse movies are animated movies.
    You get my point.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >United ape tribes against human menace for their own good
    >Didn't beat or abuse ape
    >Hyped ape up when ape tried to open vault
    >Only wanted vault to protect ape against human
    >Warned Noa human would betray ape
    >Only attacked ape after ape betrayed ape

    Name one thing he did wrong

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >>Didn't beat or abuse ape
      His group went out to catch other tribes then put them to work in his not slave camp for the daily pull. And I only say not slave camp because it has all the makings of a slave camp except for someone holding whips at the edges.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *