A Quote by Andy Serkis

I have a company in the U.K., a performance-capture studio. We're looking to push the boundaries of performance-capture technology in film and video games, but also in live theater, using real-time performance capture with actors onstage, and combining that with holographic imagery.
Motion capture is exactly what it says: it's physical moves, whereas performance capture is the entire performance - including your facial performance. If you're doing, say, martial arts for a video game, that is motion capture. This is basically another way of recording an actor's performance: audio, facial and physical.
My belief about performance capture is that it's a technology which allows actors to play extraordinary characters. But from an acting perspective, I've never drawn a distinction between playing a conventional, live action character and playing a role in a performance capture suit. And from a purely acting point-of-view, I don't believe there should be a special Oscar category because I think it sort of muddies the waters in a way.
Performance capture is a technology, not a genre; it's just another way of recording an actor's performance.
My take is that acting is acting. A performance is a performance. With performance capture, if you don't get the performance on the day, you can't enhance the performance.
In 'Uncharted,' we do the scenes the same way you would do a film or television show. The motion capture - the performance-capture process - is what makes such a difference for this franchise. So I don't approach it any differently. The other actors and I go in and rehearse scenes together, and then we go in the next day and perform.
What's fantastic is that there's a real growing appreciation for performance-capture technology as a tool for acting.
Performance capture, for me, is finding the essence of a performance.
It's really up to the acting community to be willing to be educated about what performance capture is in order to fully appreciate it as acting. It's not a type of acting, but rather the use of technology to harness an actor's performance and translate it into an ape, another animal, or an avatar of some kind.
Every film that comes out that incorporates CGI or performance capture is a little bit ahead of the last film that came out. You're on the cutting edge for a certain amount of time, and then the new technology comes out.
For me, I've never drawn a distinction between live-action acting and performance-capture acting. It is purely a technology.
Live performance has always been my thing. It’s my purpose to master and capture the moment every time I have you connected.
I've done a lot of films that are purely live-action roles, and even if I hadn't come across performance capture as a technology, I think I'd always consider myself a sort of mercurial actor.
In the theater, actors are the essential element of the work. In a film, it's a real collaboration - not that theater isn't, because it is - but it's a collaboration to such an extent that you can give a performance in film that sometimes you look at and you go, "Well, that's not the performance I was trying to give at all."
Look at how many great actors or entertainers have been lost to the world because they did a performance one night and that was it. With film, you capture that, it's shown all over the world and it's there forever.
I think being attracted to mistakes is one of the things that film can capture in a way that theater can't. Film can capture a moment of spontaneous life that will never be captured again.
Performance capture is a tool that young actors will need in the next 10, 20 years. It's on the increase, as you say. It's not going away.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!