The trouble with rotoscoping is it looks like rotoscoping. Simply overlaying animation on live-action gives it a strikingly different appearance than either format alone, one which, in every instance I’ve ever seen it utilized, seems lazy, gimmicky, and ultimately terribly distracting.
Having downloaded the trailer for the new flick, I can see modern technology has done little to improve upon the basic flaws of the rotoscoping approach. It still looks and feels like total shite, wasting both the efforts of the animators and the actors. Given the advances in CGI and motion capture technology (a prime example being the visually spectacular Gollum, and his almost flawlessly seamless interactions with live footage), I can’t understand why the artists involved wouldn’t move their creative vision forward to fashion something compelling, rather than try to rehabilitate a shabby animator’s crutch that never worked, and probably never will. The newer shades of lipstick have done nothing for the pig, and another P.K. Dick concept is essentially wasted (I guess I should be happy Ben Affleck isn’t somehow involved, but this isn’t much of a consolation).
So who’s brilliant idea was this? What gave these people the notion that a full-length rotoscoping of big-name actors who, in the flesh, are generally pretty easy on the eyes, and could operate in a world with convincing CGI effects, was a Really Great Idea for a Movie[sup]TM[/sup]? Instead we’ve got proof that this kind of aesthetic sucks, always has, and probably always will. Are sci-fi creators that bored and desperate as to delude themselves that threadbare tricks can somehow be legitimized if you use the right color tones or something? No new visual ideas under the sun? Feh.