Something's Missing

I've always been fascinated by computer-animated movies. The more realistic the animation, the more I appreciate the movie. One of my favorite computer-animated films is The Polar Express, a "live action" movie that uses performance capture technology. Every time I watch this film, its amazing visuals make me think about the power of computer animation. With the new motion capture technology available to filmmakers, animated human characters are more realistic looking than ever. However, there's still something missing. Sometimes I look at the animated inanimate objects on the screen, and I forget that they're not real. Then they show a person. As amazing as the animation is, I can still tell that they were created by a computer. What's the difference between the inanimate objects and the people? Why, with all of their own complexities, are the inanimate objects and animals so much easier for me to accept as real-looking? What is it about people that makes it impossible to make them as realistic as their surroundings for right now? Most of what I notice as definitely being computer animated is the characters' movement. There's something too smooth about it. It's too perfect. Maybe that's what's wrong with the animation in general. The animators don't incorporate enough flaws. I still applaud them on their efforts. They create freckles and hair that are incredibly convincing. I just don't know if we'll ever be able to get to the point where computer-animated characters can be substituted for people like other objects can be for their real-life counterparts. Nor should we necessarily try to. That's kind of what makes people cool. That something that's missing from the animated characters is what makes us unique.