Smaug and facial motion capture

The dragon in Merlin looked quite bad, and a large part of the reason for this was its inexplicably human face and facial movements. Smaug should be animated manually.
 
Not about Merlin - because I've never seen it but on the idea of facial capture.

I'm pretty sure Andy Serkis was used for King Kong's Facial animation. Now I accpet that a Gorilla is more humanoid than a dragon - I trust Weta would be able to incorporate good facial mocap into a decent dragon design.
 
the creature will fail miserably. The fact that the Dragon must speak in a human tongue already handicaps the monster. A recognizable voice would place the creation on shaky ground and recognizably human facial features would destroy the illusion.
 
I'm not saying that Smaug has to look like the actor but rather that there is room there for WETA to track the actors face to see how his face reacts as he speaks certain lines. The Dragon's face does't have look human but it still can have facial reactions .

That being said, I'd be happy if instead talking, Smaug's lines were simply Heard. Implying that there was a certain amount of telepathy. While that might seem out of context with the book, it might look better on screen.
 
... makes me realise more fully what a challenge it would seem to be to bring Smaug to the silver screen in anything like a satisfying way.

It feels like a bit a show-stopper -- much in the way that not being able to produce a realistic and believable Gollum would probably have been for the LOTR movies.

The weight of expectation must be bearing down on PJ and the effects people -- I wonder if they think they have the Smaug situation properly sorted out already, or do you think Smaug's appearance will still be very much a work in progress as yet?
 
Everyone knows it - everyone working on the production and especially the animators and artists who are working on Smaug specifically.

GDT said that Smaug would be THE dragon to top ALL film dragons. And I believe him. It's probably one of the main special effects focal points of the film - NAIL THE DRAGON.

But I'll be shocked if I watch the inevitable behind the scenes of the Hobbit one day and discover that Motion Capture was NOT used on Smaug in some way.

It is the definitive technology for realistic animation - and we should all know by now that mapping a persons face for motion capture does not have to mean that we see that face in any way shape or form on the animated being.

WE think so literally on these boards because we are so afraid that everything is going to get botched.

The dragon has to be cool, it has to be believable, and it has to talk.

Having a detailed, photorealistic face-reference of the person voicing Smaug is going to be essential to them believably animating him. But that doesn't mean Smaug is going to look like Benedict Cumberbatch.

Don't worry - PJ will work it out.
 
Telepathy would be a "cop out" (as they said back in the day). Mynah birds, Crows, Ravens, Budgies and Parrots all talk without the benefit of human facial expression. Smaug should speak in a manner fitting to his design. He should speak like a real Dragon not some two bit MoCap beastie. And you know, I am willing to wager that he will. And that is my take on it.
 
I own a black and white tegu, used to have a green iguana and a couple ball pythons, and their mouths and the rest of their faces show no movement or expression. They are cold, staring beasts, who show absolutely zero expressions. Granted, a dragon is a much smarter animal, but not so far removed as to have facial expressions. That said, I did enjoy Sean Connery's dragon.
 
That you have lizards and snakes. I knew someone who had a lot of ball pythons, a bearded dragon, a couple geckos and even venomous snakes. They're pretty interesting things![:)]

Seeing how Smaug will be bigger and more intelligent, I think that even the smallest twitch on his lip (er, whatever) could indicate discust, rage and the like.
 
that they have some really great ideas that need to be tested (or many of which may already have been tested), but in the works none the less, and that they have a lot of talented minds working toward getting it right, questioning everything that we're questioning in this forum & more, and will continue making tweeks until they get it just right.

I think PJ has worked for quite some time now with many people on ideas of how this would work best, including when Del Toro was more involved and they were all sharing these ideas, and had the top minds from WETA involved...I have faith that they'll get it right. Whether it's animatronics or CGI or a combo of both, and whether the lips move or not, and how that fits with the actor's voice or not, will all have to be worked out.

I can't recall...did Treebeard have moving lips or just a mouth?
 
PETES-DRAGON.jpg
 
are exactly why I have chosen to make Smaug my least important aspect of these films (oh, next to the hope that there will be no tra-la-lally). I once said "you've seen one dragon, you've seen them all". What I really meant was, no one will get a dragon right for everyone. He's a pivotal "it" for so many that so many will be disappointed, and be disappointed with the film for that reason. I'm just going to let my brain say "dragon" , if it looks remotely like one, and let it go at that.
 
I don't know what it is about your post(s) but man you seem to go on the defensive so quciky or maybe its not the defensive, but I the tone seems so harsh or something...
 
Making Smaug static and having his voice simply appear in Bilbo's head would be quite pathetic, but I think a telepathically-communicating Smaug could work quite well if his mannerisms were carefully synched to punctuate and underline his telepathic words. Many people unconsciously gesticulate while talking; if Smaug's hand/claw movements, his various tics and twitches, the smoke in his mouth and the light in his eyes were all animated so that they perfectly flowed with his words as Bilbo heard them, I think we would soon forget that he was not talking with his mouth and simply accept the actor's voiceover as Smaug's speech. The dragon-spell Smaug exerts on Bilbo's will in the book could be taken as support for his telepathic ability; thinking of it like a palantír might help it feel more Tolkien-esque and less science-fiction. That's not to say that I'm wholly opposed to the idea of Smaug speaking vocally – assuming it's done right – but I do think the telepathic approach stands a better chance of looking good.
 
...than speech coming from a creature without the physical structures for speech.

Because telepathy has ramifications for who and what Smaug is, whereas Smaug not having lips just means I have to use my imagination. Which I'm doing already to accept the presence of a dragon in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top