Rename or Redefine: Serkis Folk

Serkis Folk is supposed to refer to characters who are created entirely through CGI for either an entirely animated story or to "act" alongside live-action characters while not being physically present on set with the actual actors.

However, the Trope Namer is a reference to the actor who was physically present on set during The Lord of the Rings to do motion capture work for the character Gollum while also interacting with the other actors, presumably in a longshot attempt at getting an Incredibly Lame Pun in the title (all of this is even pointed out in the description).

Although I don't believe that in and of itself should be grounds for a rename, the trope is used in several examples to refer to characters who are created exactly like Gollum was, including Jar Jar Binks, Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen, and others who are even all pointed out in the description to have been portrayed by actors who were physically present on set to do motion capture work and interact with the other actors (and, therefore, qualify as misuse of the term).

I do believe that the Trope Namer is what's responsible for a lot of the confusion.

So what should we do about it?

edited 3rd Oct '10 3:28:37 PM by SeanMurrayI

Weird. A while back, it was solely for motion-captured CGI characters.

Redefine it, since it looks like Medium Blending/The Roger Rabbit Effect now.

Bumpity bump.

24 hours is not nearly enough for a bump.

Redefine to be strictly "motion capture was used to translate the motions of a real person to a CG character in an otherwise live-action movie"?

It says in the description motion-capture definitely counts:

There are drawbacks, however. Since the character is not present on the set, getting the actor's sightlines, reactions, and blocking to match the CGI is time-consuming. Ad-libbing is unlikely, except when the CG is based on motion capture performance where the actor can physically ad-lib on set. The cost-per-second of screen time for Serkis Folk can run far past the hourly wage for a typical TV actor.

So I'm for maybe pruning the description a little but otherwise letting it be.

edited 7th Oct '10 5:14:32 AM by BlackHumor

^ That means the definition is "It's not mo-cap and the actor isn't on the set except for the times that it is mo-cap and the actor is on the set."

That sentence really confused me; it goes straight from mentioning the difficulties in getting actors' eyelines right for a conversation with a non-existent character straight into bringing up something that would allow for the complete opposite to be possible.

edited 7th Oct '10 7:29:38 AM by SeanMurrayI

I simpled it up. The title is about cgi-over-motion-capture, so I made the article about that. All-CGI is another thing entirely.