Masi Oka Quotes

The nature of motion capture is only going to work for certain films. It's not going to put any other type of movies out of business.

I mean I've seen 3D films so far and I think it's a long way to go before they replace actors. It's a funny thing with 3D, I haven't quite got it yet. Yet.

When you take something that's inert, and through motion, give it life, make it appear to be alive, living, breathing thinking and having emotions, that's animation. But when you take something that's live-action, and move a part of it, that's a special effect.

I'm of a generation of director that came up understanding special effects.

I have a sneaking suspicion that if there were a way to make movies without actors, George Lucas would do it.

I did what we call dry for wet effects, some of the miniatures work and two animation sequences.

If people want to watch a CG movie, there's plenty out there.

Every 'Star Wars' film was about pushing what was possible in terms of effects, puppets, matte paintings, stop motion and, now, digitally.

I know a lot of games have been going to the facial capture. And movies like 'TinTin' are using it, as well.

Yes, actually. Animation's a very easy thing to watch on tour.

To me the biggest breakthrough was when we did Terminator 2 that just opened the door for Jurassic and all of the others and that was as big as when we did motion control on Star Wars. But I don't see another big thing coming.

I've always been into visual effects. It was something I took keen interest in before films happened. Ironically, I am a part of 'Raaz 3,' a film that is shot entirely on 3D. It has encouraged me to pursue my dream. Hopefully, if time permits, I will travel to the United States and attend a crash course in visual graphics and animation.

I'm not a big fan of visual effects.

The days when you needed amazing Silicon Graphics machines to run animation software are gone now.

Animation has completely changed, and I've always been a big fan.

We're in a time now where technology is such that we can create anything, and that's what's new about television and film these days.

Obviously, CGI in the last ten years has gone through such leaps and bounds that today, people are looking for these kinds of movies to wow audiences with technology.

Polar Express is not an attempt to do animation. It is a technology-based film.

You've seen how they make movies like Star Wars and stuff. They're never really there. They're in front of a green screen just pretending to be jumping around.

I'm not a big fan of CGI. I'm not a fan at all, unless they use it in a way that doesn't call attention to itself.

It's quite amazing what 3D is doing to movies. Just simple things like a paper plane flying at you or flower petals fluttering about are wonderful.

That's the trouble with anything which essentially has a lot of bits that are physically impossible: You're left, stuck, in the studio. And that's a shame. You're making a movie. You don't want it to stay put, you want it to be a movie - to move.

It's all about the special effects.

The thing with computer-generated imagery is that it's an incredibly powerful tool for making better visual effects. But I believe in an absolute difference between animation and photography.

I wouldn't want to do a whole movie with effects.