I think this is a unique way of acting. I wouldn't call it animation because the digital software is not changing the actions, instead, it is used to take the action and put it in a animated character. As long as the action is not changed when put into a animated character, I would call it acting.
2. Do you think that animated character should be eligible for acting awards?
I absolutely think animated character shouldn't be eligible for acting awards for many reasons. The animated character isn't real. The animated character did not move by itself. Only the actions of actors were put into the animated character. But I wouldn't say that the actors were cheating. They spent a lot of hard work and time in the process of Avatar. I think there should be credits given to the actors of animated characters if their movie does win an award.
3. Do you think that human actors will ever become obsolete? Why or why not?
I definitely think human actors will never become obsolete. First, human actors in movies are much better. Animated characters are often for younger age groups, so human actors will always be better in movies. Second, it is much more realistic to have human actors in movies and having said that, the movie will relate a lot towards present day. That is why human actors will never become obsolete in movies.
I mostly agree with your response Jeffrey, though I couldn't have worded my opinion this well. Even if they changed the actions a bit I believe it can still be called acting because the editors are just tweaking the movements but the actor's emotions are still there.
ReplyDeleteAlso the first point you raised on whether human actors will ever become obsolete is good, I never looked at it that way.
Nice response!