# data[].attributes.body
To my mind, each motion capture performance has its own quality and defaults. But, as a great LOTR fan, I’d say Bennedict Cumberbatch’s performance as Smaug is the best one for the reasons that he dind’t have to embody a character who does have physical human characteristics, but a legendary giagantic dragon, who’s will is to terriffy weaker beeings and keep with avidity dwarf’s enormous stolen fortune. The difficulty for the performer here was to totally rethinking the use of his body, by abandonning all of his daily-human habits. He wasn’t walking, he needed to crawl ; he wasn’t lifting his arm, but a wing; etc... Moreover, Cumberbatch had to imagine the whole universe of the movie and to apply the height and posture of the dragon to his play. With all of those parameters, Bennedict Cumberbatch succeeded to embody Smaug and delivered a real-life-like performance.

# data[].attributes.body
From my point of view, the motion capture of Gollum is one of the most impressiv ever made in cinema. He was one of the first characters to really show what this tecnology could do, and he became a big pillar of motion capture. What is very surprizing is that he still looks very good today, even if the movie came out in 2001.

Another famous example is Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean, who is also extremely well made and very realistic. But he was created some years later, when the tecnology was already better. That is why the quality of Gollum in 2001 is so impressiv and important in the history of motion capture.

# data[].attributes.body
I personally think that Dawy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean is the most realistic character made with motion capture out of all in the list. It is my opinion mainly because the movie came out in 2006, and some may agree that somehow no other motion capture or CGI has yet come close to this one's quality since. Also, he is a character who is a hybrid : he still somehow looks human even if his face is made to look like an octopus. His ambiguous and anthropomorphic face makes him extremely unsettling and terrifying. Other characters don't have this peculiar humanoid aspect because they are not meant to, and that is what makes this character stand out, at least in my opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the best motion capture performance is Ted in Ted. First of all, the character feels very real and expressive, even though he is a teddy bear. Seth MacFarlane gives him a unique personality through voice and movement. On the other hand, compared to Gollum, Ted is more humorous and less dramatic. However, both characters are believable thanks to motion capture. To conclude, Ted stands out because he mixes realism with comedy.

# data[].attributes.body
Both documents deal with the same subject: motion capture. First document is a picture of gollum side by side with is actor Andy Serkis from the website the conversation.com and document two is an interview of Andy Serkis point of view of motion capture. Although it shows how far technology can go, not everyone see this progress as real acting. We can ask ouselves if yes or no, motion capture is real acting. We will first see what is motion capture. Then we will see the point of view of Serkis and lastly, we will see why some people think it's not real acting.

1) What is motion capture

A) the technology

B) the diversity of playable chatacters

C) the emotions and body language

2) Serkis point of view of motion capture

A) the process of acting in a motion capture movie

B) the demonstration of acting a motion capture character

3) Why some people think it is not acting

A) what they see (cgi) and what they dont see (the actor)

B) the unrecognision of the work of the actor

In the end, motion capture is real acting. The actors have to incarnate they characters just like other actors do and even more because they also have to move exactly as they're characters.

# data[].attributes.body
Those documentsare an article written by Sohini Kumar and posted on theboar.org in 2017, as well as a photograph of the actor Andy Serkis next to the character he plays, Gollum. They both raise the question of motion capture, CGI and whether it is real acting or not. Following this description we will answer the following question : "From the point of view Andy Serkis, is mocap really acting or just vocal play ?" .

I) The start of the new technology

•a) Movies using motion capture

•b) Opinion of A.O.Scott and Christ Knight

II) Andy's point of view

•a) Motion capture as a form of acting

•b) Getting into a non-human character

To conclude, to Andy Serkis, motion capture is no other thing than acting, at the same level as other actors performing in front of a camera. Sometimes, Mocap can be even harder because it can include turning into a whole new different person, or even being non human, such as Gollum or even King Kong. Even if the actor is hidden by their character on screen, they still are the heart and soul of the said character who would never exist with the actor's performance.

# data[].attributes.body
The first document is an image from the set of The Lord of the Rings, published on The Conversation website.

It shows actor Andy Serkis next to the 3D model of the character he plays, Gollum.

The facial expression is the same, except that Gollum is entirely in 3D, he has a sharp teeth, skinny body and a big balging eyes

The second document is an article written by Sohini Kumar and published on July 27, 2017 on the website The Boar

Andy Serkis express his opinion in New York times.

He says for play a character in motion capture he says the process is similar to any other acting role.

He talks about speech delivery and physical work.

He compare the visual effect with make up.

Andy Serkis says the performance capture is a collaboration between the world of acting and 3D animation a mix of those two art forms

n conclusion, Andy Sekis expresses his vision of the profession through new technologies and the evolution of the acting profession through 3D effects.