Liste des Groupes | Revenir à as written |
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:32:43 -0500, CryptoengineerI'd say that differently - that Gollum was
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/6/2025 10:56 AM, Paul S Person wrote:I think you missed the point I was making.On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 21:10:09 -0500, Cryptoengineer>
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:[_Andor_ (?)]>
To my mind, its the best piece of SW material since the original
trilogy, and maybe the best piece of SW media, period.
>
Its a very slow burn, and lacks cutesy aliens, children, and much
in the way of space battles. Its a series best appreciated by
adults, dealing with the gradual radicalization of the title
character.
That's nice, but I've given up on series, TV or streaming.
>Here's one non-spoiler clip:>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3RCme2zZRY
>
Andy Serkis has a major role in the second act, without
Gollum makeup. He's superb.
Huh. I thought that was CGI, not makeup. Didn't the "making of" show
him in a motion capture harness?
I guess that depends on your definition of 'makeup'. Does greasepaint
count, but not digital paint?
>
In Andor, you see him with a minimum of makeup.
My understanding at time it came out and this was discussed in another
newgroup was that Gollum was /entirely/ CGI, using Serkis' acting only
as a series of reference points to be matched.
So, for Gollum, we are seeing Serkis' acting -- but not Serkis
himself.
But that could, I suppose, be wrong.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.