Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Most disappointing films.
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 14:18:52 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <vrejoc$10k6v$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vovrtm$18b9h$1@dont-email.me>
 <f0dc1e8c-b338-1261-cf4d-5ff6d5f503e4@example.net>
 <m1hut2FkdncU2@mid.individual.net>
 <ccfafd92-78a6-f626-3765-7dfd08946d58@example.net>
 <vp3du5$1v8ri$1@dont-email.me> <esugsjhbnubfl3hits46crphp9npmk67cb@4ax.com>
 <vqb061$2m7nt$2@dont-email.me> <74hjsjh8erakgh3pgggr1c73l1oqu68tg2@4ax.com>
 <vqfhkr$3mmft$1@dont-email.me> <jbtosj1h9rju6fj78d0tpru3olr83o19v2@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:18:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9de067c0aee986e2dfb5c8d593b7c33b";
	logging-data="1069279"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18b4AfJRRYI9ceH7O0YqSYpLBixFXaZqFo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QPAaLbON7TyYbPaiuht3NExEsJg=
In-Reply-To: <jbtosj1h9rju6fj78d0tpru3olr83o19v2@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4081

On 08/03/2025 16:54, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:32:43 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/6/2025 10:56 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 21:10:09 -0500, Cryptoengineer
>>> <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [_Andor_ (?)]
>>>> To my mind, its the best piece of SW material since the original
>>>> trilogy, and maybe the best piece of SW media, period.
>>>>
>>>> Its a very slow burn, and lacks cutesy aliens, children, and much
>>>> in the way of space battles. Its a series best appreciated by
>>>> adults, dealing with the gradual radicalization of the title
>>>> character.
>>>
>>> That's nice, but I've given up on series, TV or streaming.
>>>
>>>> Here's one non-spoiler clip:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RCme2zZRY
>>>>
>>>> Andy Serkis has a major role in the second act, without
>>>> Gollum makeup. He's superb.
>>>
>>> Huh. I thought that was CGI, not makeup. Didn't the "making of" show
>>> him in a motion capture harness?
>>
>> I guess that depends on your definition of 'makeup'. Does greasepaint
>> count, but not digital paint?
>>
>> In Andor, you see him with a minimum of makeup.
> 
> I think you missed the point I was making.
> 
> My understanding at time it came out and this was discussed in another
> newgroup was that Gollum was /entirely/ CGI, using Serkis' acting only
> as a series of reference points to be matched.
> 
> So, for Gollum, we are seeing Serkis' acting -- but not Serkis
> himself.
> 
> But that could, I suppose, be wrong.

I'd say that differently - that Gollum was
a CGI costume which Andy Serkis performed in.
However, this article calls it more complicated.
<https://www.polygon.com/lord-of-the-rings/22811800/gollum-lord-of-the-rings-actor-andy-serkis-weta-digital>
"The hands, feet, and, most importantly,
facial expressions of Gollum were all
animated later, using Serkis' performance
as reference footage.  At times, the animators
revised Serkis' performance, altering the
physicality or even the facial expressions,
to better suit Jackson’s needs.  Serkis
additionally dropped by Weta's offices to
help the animators, modeling gestures or
facial expressions they were struggling
to realize."

Also, the scenes were filmed with Andy Serkis
acting with the other cast, again with
Andy Serkis not in shot, and finally as
Andy Serkis doing the motion capture
acting on his own.  Evidently, the second
and third versions were used to compose
the film as seen.

Andy Serkis wrote a book about it, apparently.
<https://www.lifeisstory.com/nonfiction/gollum-how-we-made-movie-magic-andy-serkis/>