Isn't it amazing that since making two films in 2000, Robert Zemeckis, one of my favorite modern directors, hasn't made a real film in nearly a decade. In the meanwhile he's made three, what can you call them? cartoons? I thought "Beowulf" was very good and "The Polar Express" less so, and we'll see what he does with "The Christmas Carol", but why isn't he going back to making actual films? Has he given up on that for good?

Animated films are actual films, you want some live action? He's sick of it and doing what he wants.

I'm sure he'll get back to live action once his obsession with dead eyed CG is over with.

Of course he's free to do whatever he wants, and watching the extras on the "Beowulf" DVD I can see his point. But these mo-cap films will never look real. We'll see how the technology has progressed from "Beowulf" to "The Christmas Carol", but I'm certain it will never look close to reality nor supplant live action. Zemeckis used to be famous for awe-inspiring live action shots. With the freedom of a digital camera, they're not so awe-inspiring anymore.

This is as much live action considering what performance capture is.

it's still obviously not the same thing.

I wouldn't put money on that bet.

The only time I've believed a mo cap performance is Gollum...I think that's the only one...that and Dr. Manhattan. Of course...those were live action films..so...

Yes. And it's not just the performances. The look of the frame doesn't have that feel of a real moment captured on film. It's hard to put into words what I mean but I'm sure we all know what that is.

And it's been nearly two since he made a good one.

Ugh, I hate when people refer to cartoons as something other than "real" movies. Do you know how much work goes into making an animated film, CGI or otherwise?

Cast Away? Contact? Forrest Gump? All within the past 15 years.

Zemeckis doesn't want his recent films to look real. He wants them to be stylized, that's why he uses this technology.

I never saw Cast Away, but I hated Contact with a passion and think Forrest Gump is really contrived. The last movie of his I loved was Death Becomes Her.

I'm a huge fan of animated films. But this is different.

But they're no less real films than the other films he made. Granted, I don't think they're very good, but how is that different from What Lies Beneath?

The fact that Zemeckis still directs a live human being on how to act, how to walk, how to interact is still very much live action, but because that actor's performance is then taken and rendered thru Maya or whatever they use nowdays makes his directing somehow different?

I see no difference between that and Bill Nighy being directed as Davy Jones.

I think all three of those films are very average.

I really hope "Death Becomes Her" gets the recognition and respect it so richly deserves one day. It really is a terrific film. And (like most of Zemeckis' movies) had state of the art special effects for it's time. The cast was great. Fantastic sets and production design. It has to be in the top 5 of movies I'm waiting for on Blu-Ray.

Cartoons are only real movies if they have a good script. If they dont they are a waste.
Beowulf wasnt that good and I would never watch the Polar Express.
Zemeckis can spend all the time he wants wasting time "directing" these computerized images. I think they look like absolute shit and I dont consider him to be making any mark at all in the actual world or film. If this is what he wants to leave in his legacy so be it.

These computer films look so sloppy and cheap I am always petrified when I see a budget on them cause they dont look any better than an episode of South park to me.

Live action movies are only real movies if they have a good script. If they don't they are a waste. How is Beowulf any worse than, say, Righteous Kill? And, as someone else said, how are these movies any different than Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers 2, where most of what you see in the frame is CGI? I would say Zemeckis got better performances in Beowulf than Bay did in Transformers 2.

That being said, I'm not looking forward to A Christmas Carol, but I wouldn't look forward to it if it were live action, either. I already own Scrooged.

He truly knows how to structure a film, CG or not.. Would love to see some live-action from him again some day.

This is just a thought, but given his relationship with Spielberg and his experience with motion capture, I'm guessing he would (or did) consult on Tintin.