Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
I only think in live action.
I think animation can tell more than live action.
Most Pixar films are better than most live action films.
If we had to go live action, I'd hold out for Tim Burton to direct.
Actors' performances do not stand alone in any film, live action or whatever.
Stop-motion is filmmaking at the pace of a glacier. In live action, you're moving so quickly.
There's a process in the movie industry in both live action and animation called development hell!
Live action movies are someone else's story. With animation, audiences can't think that. Their guards are down.
Saying someone's a fan of animation is as silly as saying someone's a fan of live action. That can mean anything.
Visual-effects shots should flow into the rest of the live action, and you shouldn't be able to see a difference.
It's mainly been the case where I do very few live action roles - not out of choice but more out of not getting asked.
In live action, sometimes a mood or a feeling can go on for quite a while. Animation is a lot more effort. There are a lot more notes.
I would not be allowed to be in the web series without playing 'Halo.' I'm awful, by the way. I'm much better at the live action version.
You can be moved by an animated film and not by a live action film. There could be great inspiration in and humanity in that animated story.
I was a huge fan of the Bruce Timm animated series and, of course, the live action 'Lois & Clark' series. I watched that when I was in college.
I prefer that animation reach into places where live action doesn't go, and it seems like all of animation nowadays is trying to go where live action is.
Just because somebody works in miniature does not diminish or invalidate their contributions to the art form compared to someone who works in live action.
Animation is awesome because there's a really bold type of comedy you can get away with that you couldn't get away with in live action: a broader, campier style.
Live action writers will give you a structure, but who the hell is talking about structure? Animation is closer to jazz than some kind of classical stage structure.
Animation is a great way to work. No early morning call times, no make-up chair. In live action, you're always fighting the clock; the sun is always going down too soon.
I played this character twice in live action, and now I've become an animated character. It was actually fun to see myself drawn - I've never been a drawn character before.
You're using such different muscles and you rely on physicality in live action, but in animation, you totally throw that out the window. But somehow, they're both as satisfying.
The question I get more than any other is, 'What does it mean to direct an animated film?' And the reality is that it's not a whole lot different from what you do in live action.
Scoring animated films, I have the exact same approach and philosophy as I do for a live action. It's all story- and character-driven. I don't care if it's a mouse or Tom Cruise.
Somewhere down the line, I felt the need to come to grips with the realistic - or live action - image which seemed to me central to the notion of film. And then a whole new world opened to me.
The Brady Bunch is a live action modern fairytale of family. In this context it's less odd that it's lasted for over thirty years; and why it may last in some respects as long as Mother Goose!
The fact of the matter is that an actor, if I'm playing a performance capture role and you're playing a live action role and we're having a scene together, there's no difference in our acting processes.
I think the biggest difference is in live action, you show up, and there's a set there and a ground to stand on, at least, and in animation, there's kinda nothing. You are making decisions on everything.
Going into live action, the perception I had was that to be a director, you had to be loud, you had be physically fit, wear cool hats, have a beard, and yell, 'Action!' really loud. And I'm none of those things.
'Coraline' is Neil Gaiman's book, it sold a lot, it has a big fan base. It was originally conceived to be live action, but I never really wanted it to be. I always thought that it would work better as an animated film.
I will be doing a film called Whispers, for Disney. It's about elephants, and doesn't have any people in it. It will be a live action film - I don't know how much I can say about it, since I still don't know too much about it.
I feel like I was hit by all of geek culture at once while I was growing up in the '70s and '80s. Saturday morning cartoons like 'Star Blazers' and 'Robotech.' Live action Japanese shows like 'Ultraman' and 'The Space Giants.'
Put on the game tape. The game tape speaks volumes because I'm in live action, I'm out there making reads, going through progressions, redirection protection, signaling hot routes, getting the offense in and out of the right play.
In live action movies, you just hope that everything works. Because the actor may had a bad morning and doesn't play good, or accidents happen continuously. Many things contradict what you are trying to say. But in cartoons, nothing contradict what you want to say.
In 'The Smurfs,' I was actually a live action character. So, I was a real person in that movie. But I was working with animated characters, which is very strange because they're off recording their work, and we're kind of reacting to nothing when we're doing the film.
The weird thing is, if I'd made 'The Incredibles,' shot-for-shot - exactly the same script, same timing, same shots - in live action, it would be perceived very differently, and somehow more adult than me doing it in animation. I find that fascinating and frustrating.
The marketing department is really an important part of getting an animated film to work. If the people running it are used to selling live action films and the hard rock music and the sex and all those things... Anything outside that, they just don't know what to do with it.
One of the things that I'm realizing is that in voice-over work, you have to actually do more work with your facial muscles and your mouth. You have to kind of exaggerate your pronunciation a little bit more, whereas with live action, you can get away with mumbling sometimes.
I'm not as successful as Pixar or Dreamworks, and that is disappointing to me, because I think my films are as valid as a Pixar film. I think there's an audience for my films. I know there's a market for someone like Quentin Tarantino, who basically does adult cartoons in live action.
I don't see a difference between playing a performance capture role and a live action role, they're just characters to me at the end of the day and I'm an actor who wants to explore those characters in fantastically written scripts. The only caveat is a good story is a good character.
I'd like to do more TV stuff that is live action, but I am so totally happy doing as much voice work as I possibly can. Because it really is the best work. It's so amazing. You just show up. You don't have to look good. You don't even have to brush your hair. You work for a couple of hours, and you go home.
The wonderful thing about 48 fps is the integration of live action and CG elements; that is something I learned from 'The Hobbit.' We are so used to 24 fps and the romance of celluloid... but at 48 fps, you cannot deny the existence of these CG creations in the same time frame and space and environment as the live action.
If you see a bad live action film, what are the conclusions you draw? Typically, it is that they made a bunch of mistakes, a bad script, wrong casting. You get into 2D, and you get a few films that are not strong films. And what is the conclusion? That it's 2D? I beg to differ. It's a convenient excuse, but it's just wrong.