Christopher Dorner: Will Killings Finally Spark Debate On State Of Police Force?

I don’t envy the life of a police officer. Those brave few who put on a uniform everyday to protect and serve innocent citizens are surrounded by an unsympathetic public, violent criminals, desperate victims, bloodthirsty lawyers, and the daily possibility of being killed on duty. It is an unfathomable burden and responsibility, and all too often officers who display great fortitude and diligence have their reputations tarnished by corrupt and sadistic colleagues.

Christoper Dorner is still at large. His calculated killing spree is a campaign of vengeance against those officers he believes mistreated him. Many facts came to light in the last few days, and the familiar public specter of one of America’s most notorious police departments has returned. The LAPD has been quick to paint Dorner as a deranged killer, claiming he’s delusional and has a history of emotional instability. They’ve offered up the unimaginable reward of $1,000,000 to aid in his capture, and have been so aggressive in their desire to kill him that they’ve shot at innocent civilians mistaken for the ex-cop.

Despite the cycled narrative, there seems to be some discord in the public perception of Dorner’s case. America has had to endure a lot of senseless gun violence lately. Last July, James Holmes indiscriminately fired at moviegoers in Aurora before strolling outside to wait for the police. Months ago, Adam Lanza mercilessly shot at school children in Newton before taking his own life. But Christoper Dorner’s calculated plan of vengeance targets specific police officers, forcing the public to ignore their knee jerk temptation to dismiss him as a lunatic, and ask one simple question: why?

Those who have read Dorner’s manifesto might be surprised by the overall lucidity of his words. In it, Dorner claims to have been fired for crossing the "blue line" – an unofficial code of silence among all officers to protect their colleagues, even in the presence of illegal activity. He accuses the LAPD of sustaining a culture of corruption, perjury, and racism. He illustrates a legal system whose laws have been purposely designed to target and imprison poor minorities over menial drug offenses. He describes officers who relish the opportunity to shoot suspects, and laughingly text each other pictures of the corpses. Even though the LAPD has been quick to claim the "Rodney King" days are long behind them, it is still far too easy to come across shocking stories of police brutality, sexual assaults, and murder.

This is where Dorner stands apart from the other incidents of violence which have plagued this country. He has committed heinous acts of murder, but significant portions of the public perceive him to be an intelligent individual who was wronged by the police and driven to his breaking point. No one would excuse his abhorrent crimes, but some citizens have been spurned to raise the familiar battle-issues of police ethics and conduct. By targeting a ‘corrupt’ police force, Dorner is trying to paint himself a hero. The unfortunate dysfunctions and failures of our society allow for many people to buy into that narrative. His base of support speaks to our larger societal problems. 

In 1971, Frank Serpico testified against his fellow officers and exposed widespread corruption throughout the NYPD. More recently, Officer Adrian Schoolcraft sued the NYPD after they dragged him to a mental asylum for secretly recording his superiors as they instructed officers to cook the books and arrest innocent people to fudge their crime stats. Serpico and Schoolcraft have joined forces to bring police corruption to light. 

Serpico: “This is the way they do it…they make you a psycho and everything you do gets discounted. But I told Adrian just to tell the truth as he knows it and to be himself. When you tell the truth, they can't do a damn thing to you.”

Their actions are valiant, virtuous, and self-sacrificial. They never stooped to the level of the officers they testified against, but they also garnered far less press coverage. Dorner is a calculating murderer who decided that his cause justified any actions. His killing of a policeman’s daughter is especially unforgivable, given that she is one of the unarmed innocent people he swore to defend. The unfortunately irrefutable fact about Dorner’s method, however, is that it will certainly garner far more media coverage and bring the LAPD under far more scrutiny than Serpico and Schoolcraft could ever have done.

If only in the sense that we will have to have an honest conversation about police forces in this country, Dorner has had his victory.

Grammy Nominees 2013: Is This the Death Of Big Rock and Roll?

This Sunday, the Grammys will dole out awards for the most innovative and celebrated artists of the millennial generation. As someone born in the 80s, I’ve enjoyed the various changing trends in music, but I can’t help notice someone has been missing from the party lately: Big rock!

When Governor’s Ball announced Guns n Roses were added to the lineup, I couldn’t buy my ticket fast enough. It made me nostalgic for all the stereotypes of 90s rock n roll: plaid shirt Nirvana-heads growing out their grungy hair, ripped denim wearing Axl Rose fans screaming “Sweet Child of Mine,” and Aerosmith’s hilarious “Pink” music video. I know the times are always changing, but why don’t we see any Rock giants like The Rolling Stones, Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin and The Who?

The old foursome dynamic of a singer, guitarist, bassist, and drummer held strong for decades throughout musical history. These bands offered up a unique sound, taking years to perfect their craft and the cohesion of their group’s harmony. What changes have come about in the industry to make this model such a relic? 

The quick answer is, technology.

Bands used to have to get together over time, audition talent, suffer infighting in their high school garage days, and develop passionate friendships over years that would feed into their music. Then, the brutal hunt for a manager would begin, playing gigs and hoping for a record deal. If you were one of the exceedingly lucky few who made it past this filtration process, you could look forward to the record label sending you around on tour to get your name out to the public.

These days, anyone with a computer can be their own band. With the internet and a little software, you can write, mix, master, and record any genre of music you want. A short trip down the virtual highways of Facebook, YouTube, and Hype Machine will instantly promote your work, and you can watch unique blended creations become overnight sensations. 

The overhead cost of creating an entire album is close to nothing, and you certainly don’t need any record label or manager’s backing — at least not until you’re really famous.  Consumers are in turn diluted by all the choices out there. They can get exactly what they want, and pick from a rich diversity of options. The splicing of genres, has created worlds of sub-genres to get lost in, and the old foundations of rock, hip hop or pop don’t strictly exist anymore.

Looking at the Grammys' ’Rock’ contenders we can see indie groups like Mumford & Sons, or multi-style blenders like Gotye — who regularly incorporates electric sounds into his music. I’ll give credit to the Black Keys and Jack White for holding down the old school style, but will they ever be held in as high esteem as the legends of old? Or perhaps that status doesn’t exist in a world with new sensations popping up every five minutes? 

Maybe I’m just being an old grouch. Bands still very much need big labels for promotional costs, and God knows there are a million broken dreams for every YouTube sensation. Maybe we’ve just exported the old model online and increased the critical mass. Maybe the big bands of today, don’t fit into the old labels and are still big in their own right. Arcade Fire, Kings of Leon, Muse, The White Strips, Coldplay, and Empire of the Sun can all be recognized for inventing unique sounds and amassing a significant following. Who knows what they’ll produce in the future, if given enough time.

It seems nostalgic, but before technological integration you had to save money to buy your records, really study the music, gather your friends around to make an ‘event’ out of hearing new songs, and work your fingers to the bone to hone your instrumental skills. The push of a button instant download culture we’re in now is probably a useful evolution, but as I watch my childhood disappear into high speed chaos I can’t help but feel a loss. People don’t ‘treasure’ music as much as they used to because it’s become too accessible, and if something becomes too accessible it usually loses value. So as a form of eulogy for the titans of my youth, I leave you with this farewell.

Nemo's Dreaded Snowfall Approaches, While Sandy Victims Still Wait For Relief

Kanye West has said a lot of stupid stuff during his time in the spotlight, but the reason his “Bush doesn’t care about black people” remark resonated so powerfully was because a lot of people shared his frustration over Hurricane Katrina victims being neglected by the administration. 

We’ve watched an obstructionist Congress gridlock every political issue into partisan nonsense for the last few years, and accomplish very little in the process. This snail pace politics was most heavily felt when Hurricane Sandy devastated New York and New Jersey last October.

To this day, Republicans are still holding the relief funds hostage as part of their grander budgetary debate, and victims who lost their entire lives are spending the next few hours preparing for another bout of merciless weather.

Natural disasters are unique in the political sphere, in that they are one of the few issues that genuinely cross party lines — or at least they should. Whether it’s wildfires in California, tornadoes in Kansas, hurricanes on the East Coast or crop-killing droughts, the mass displacement and damage done by these acts of God should always be an opportunity for us to display our unity and fortitude as a nation.

Politicians enjoy discussing the role of government — whether it is best to protect American interests by inflating our military might, or support citizens with education and social welfare. But I can’t think of a better example of why society agrees to pay into a taxable support system, then the oversight and aid needed to save us when the worst truly happens.  

The Republican stance of believing states and charities will take care of the problem has long been proven ineffective. Red Cross has as big a reputation for bureaucracy and minimalist relief as the governments they claim to circumvent. Massive federal funds for construction, supplies, food, shelter, medicine and workers are essential in stemming the initial and continual damages suffered during a disaster.

As we face the incoming of what is being called a historic storm, I can’t help but wonder if politicians will take the opportunity to prove their worth and role … or if they’ll see it as another chance to point the finger at their "incompetent" opponents across the aisle. For all the talk of what factors strengthen our democracy and economy, none is more important than the safety of our citizenry.

I was in New York for Sandy, when half the island lost power and was in complete blackout. I remember seeing people drenched in flooding waters, running to the NYU hospital to help carry generator fuel up stairs or help the national guard carry injured patients out to evacuating vehicles. We came together, and demonstrated the values our politicians claim to uphold. Those victims in Long Island and New Jersey who’ve had to wait several months, watching congress debate the merits of their relief — which is only now being released in installments — should have our sympathy and outrage.

How callously can the Republicans stick to a doctrine that federal funding for relief should be offset by spending cuts first? How impotent can the Democrats be not to realize this is among the few issues that they should be brutally foaming at the mouth to defend?

The infrastructure and safety of Americans is the paramount foundation on which we build all other ideals. There’s no lobbying group to push this agenda, and the government can’t necessarily win votes by heavily investing recovering people’s lives. It’s just the right thing to do. 

John Brennan's Biggest Confirmation Hurdle: Are Drone Strikes a Violation of our Constitution?

In 1972, the Black September terrorist organization kidnapped and massacred 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team. In response, Israel adopted a position of "pre-emptive" strikes against any strategist, financier, or assassin linked to the organization. The willful execution of "non-soldiers" away from commonly defined battlegrounds changed the nature of modern warfare, and we are still seeing the ripples of that escalation today. 

If a soldier spots a suicide bomber in a crowd, few would argue he would not be justified in shooting him before he could detonate. But what if the bomber was 20 feet away? Should the soldier try to arrest him instead and gather intelligence? What if the bomber was inside an apartment, surrounded by the explosives he’s constructing into a suicide vest? Should a sniper shoot him through the window to try to minimize the danger? 

You can see how with each scenario the lines start to blur. Every tactical decision has the potential to cause civilian deaths, endanger soldiers, and diminish acquired intelligence.

Initially, Americans accepted drone use as a "surgical" means to strike evasive targets and took comfort in the added benefit that soldiers on the ground had a helpful robotic ally. However, this method of execution-by-air has evolved into the military's main combat platform, and now includes the targeting of Americans themselves.

John Brennan faces his Senate hearing for the position of CIA director on Thursday. As the chief architect behind the evolving use of drone warfare, he is going to have to address the constitutional legality of circumventing the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.

After last year’s drone assassination of Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki (an American citizen) Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech outlining the administration's legal justification for the attack. He stipulated that targeting Americans was permissible only if a high-ranking government official deemed the target “an imminent threat of violent attack.”  

The recently leaked Justice Department memo, however, reveals a loose definition of who can be deemed a "terrorist" or "associated force." Moreover, it shows that no intelligence of an "imminent threat" is required, nor does the target have to be engaged in an active plot against America. Execution is justified if capture is "infeasible" or if the country where the targets are hiding might not consent to U.S. operations. 

The immediate concern was that the U.S. government had appeared to give itself near limitless powers to execute American citizens, using a swarm of flying robotic death-machines. Just like Black September's targeting of civilians and the reciprocal assassination responses by Israel, America has found a way to up the stakes against those who orchestrated 9/11. Unfortunately, this new war-paradigm has the potential to ensnare any region of the planet deemed to be "harboring terrorists." 

Drone critics are justified in their concern. One would have to have complete trust in the wisdom, competence and ethics of a government and their successors to allow them such unchecked power. Is the government accurately identifying people who pose a threat to national security? Are they utilizing drones as a measure of last resort only because no other feasible means are available? Or are they ignoring traditional intelligence gathering methods for the convenience of airborne robotic spies? The kind of faith we’re being asked to put in our leadership flies against the very reason the Fifth Amendment exists.

On April 30, 2012, John Brennan was Obama’s assistant for counterterrorism. In a speech in Washington addressing the use of unmanned drones he said the following:

"…let me say it as simply as I can.  Yes, in full accordance with the law — and in order to prevent terrorist attacks on the United States and to save American lives — the United States Government conducts targeted strikes against specific Al-Qaeda terrorists, sometimes using remotely piloted aircraft, often referred to publicly as drones…These targeted strikes are legal."

It would seem that the administration was eager to be as "transparent" as possible about the drone program, but what are the actual legal justifications Brennan used to keep this program in full "accordance with the law?

Brennan: "As a matter of domestic law, the Constitution empowers the President to protect the nation from any imminent threat of attack.  The Authorization for the Use of Military Force— the AUMF — passed by Congress after the September 11^th attacks authorizes the president 'to use all necessary and appropriate force' against those nations, organizations and individuals responsible for 9/11.  There is nothing in the AUMF that restricts the use of military force against Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." 

These overly vague definitions are the exact source of our current dillema. What would the Constitution deem an imminent threat or attack? What are the particular situational distinctions that would validate the use of drones? What aspects of drone use qualify as "necessary and appropriate force?" Who in the administration, exactly, qualifies as a "high level official" with authority to make these decisions? There is very little in these stipulations that control how a president or his underlings could be held accountable for the choices they make.

These are the questions that need to be addressed to ensure this massive increase in power doesn’t digress into a tyrannical global web of control. The truth of the matter isthat drones aren’t going anywhere. They are an essential platform of security and in a few years time will comprise a canopy of advanced surveillance and weaponry that fills the sky and exo-atmosphere alike. They will be able to deliver their payload anywhere on the planet with incredible speed, biometrically track people from great distances, and even take out enemy satellites. It is a necessary insurance policy and a response to the evolution of technology. However, it remains our dilligent responsibility to ensure that our government’s ability to incinerate human beings from the sky is checked with oversight, accountability, transparency, and scrutiny.

Google Automatons and the Future of Self-Driving Cars

Google’s incredible achievements as a search engine has led to their very name being synonymous with finding things on the internet. Their advancement into maps, email and phones have all been greatly successful as well. But these are just the information-absorbing platforms on which they will build the true future of their company.

When California Governor Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill permitting the use of "driverless cars" in his state, he heralded the advent of automation and the various ways it will utterly change the face of our society. Google has spent years developing cars that can drive themselves around complex metropolitan streets, perform high-speed emergency maneuvers and react to a wide variety of external factors. Soon, car manufacturers across the world will be utilizing Google's incredible software to universally change the driving experience. 

Forbes published a recent article, focusing on the way Google's driverless cars might reduce traffic, collisions, and the overall number of vehicles on the street. By their estimates, over $300 billion dollars could be saved in damages, hospital bills, loss of productivity, legal costs and travel delays.

Sebastian Thrun, the lead engineer behind this incredible innovation, has been on a crusade to make driving safer since his friend died in a car crash many years ago. You can see his TED talkhere, where he explains Google's new technology and how it will save lives for generations to come. It may seem like we’re one step closer to a scientific utopia, but let’s fully examine what impact this technology will have on us.

Firstly, let’s recognize that automated cars aren’t going to create new jobs … in fact they’re going to do quite the opposite. The field of mechanics will be entirely comprised of people who have a thorough understanding of computing and electronics, drastically shrinking the number of individuals who are capable of performing the task. Trucking companies will be able to use far fewer trucks, because they’ll run 24 hours a day and not be limited by a driver who needs sleep. Farmers will easily be able to maintain thousands of acres of farmland, using tractors that drive themselves, making their need for inefficient workers redundant. As we transition away from gas-powered vehicles we’ll see gas stations disappear, replaced by Tesla’s recently announced free solar-powered refueling stations. 

One look at a New York City street will tell you a lot about other significant changes. Why would we have any cars parked along the street, cluttering up space when everything moves in an automated seamless fashion? Need to get somewhere? Simply hit the button on your phone app and a nearby “taxi” station will send over a vehicle to your location. Actual taxi drivers are certainly done for. Want to “rent” a vehicle? Why not sync with other people in the city who are going on a similar route and save money by sharing a car?

Overall, car use will become temporary and rent-based. Sales will go down and dealerships will disappear. Many cities will lose millions of dollars in revenue from no longer being able to ticket citizens over parking violations.

This is going to be a massive hit to our economy, a complete game changer. Moreover, there will be a vicious debate about human autonomy versus computer autonomy. What if I want to drive my car? Will I be permitted to? Will the controls over these vehicles be tightly regulated, with computer tampering being a punishable felony offense? Ford recently introduced an open-source kit to allow hackers and computer experts to augment certain car controls like navigation. What about hackers that can over-ride safety protocols? You could easily kidnap or murder someone if you can control the 60mph box they're sitting in.

We haven’t even seen the introduction of these vehicles into the mainstream marketplace, but they’re already generating heated debate. This is a necessarily progression, but the ripple effects it will cause need to be planned for and addressed with great political foresight. Whatever else may happen, a generation from now Google will be known as the self-driving car company, and people will fondly remember that they also once had a search engine.

How Spy Cams and Cyber Trolls Violate your Civil Liberties

Not too long ago, grabbing your secretary's behind with a wink and smile was an acceptable form of praise. It took a long civil movement and sexual harassment laws to slowly push the tendencies of the vulgar out of the workplace. More and more aspects of our lives are being lived online, and as such the criminalities, inequalities and injustices we experience are felt there. We're still struggling to figure out ways our biggest collective environment can remain open, accessible and safe.

If you were a voyeur in the old days, you used to have to climb suburban tree branches and peer through a bedroom window. Nowadays, perverts never have to leave the comfort of their own home. Instead, they utilize a million proxy spy-holes already integrated into our computers. This weekend, a hacker was arrested for blackmailing over 350 women, and forcing them to strip off their clothing in front of their webcams. He accessed their Facebook and email accounts, locked them out by changing the password and mined through their messages to find personal, compromising pictures. He then threatened to send the nude pictures to all their friends, co-workers and family members if they didn't perform live strip shows for him via webcam – which he would also record. He used the women's captured identities to pretend to be them with other friends online, and lure further women into compromising situations.

This might be one of the most visceral manifestations of the ongoing privacy debate, but it's certainly not the only one. Criminals can exploit the vulnerability of our computers and personal data as easily as they can be by governments or consumer businesses. The internet has become the ultimate communal platform, where we experience our daily dose of humanity: work, socializing, entertainment, crime and news. No one is immune to the changing nature of privacy, but not enough people are fighting to preserve our safety.

General Petraeus' recent affair could have been just another D.C. sex scandal, but invading the CIA Director's email has wide reaching implications. The storing of digital content and cyber harassment are certainly open to debate as a result of the incident. News Corps made headlines when they got embroiled in a very public phone-hacking scandal, targeting celebrities to gain extremely personal information. Anthony Weiner's political career came to a crashing halt when his Twitter account was hacked. A Florida-based Hacker was recently arrested for stealing nude photos and scripts from several Hollywood celebrities, including Scarlett Johansson and Mila Kunis. To some degree, people haven't been that outraged by these events, as our tabloid culture has normalized invading the privacy of those in the public eye.

But celebrities aren't the only ones who are vulnerable. Our lovers, roommates, friends and employers all have an avenue to affect our digital lives permanently. A Pennsylvania high school was recently sued for spying on children in their homes via the webcams of school issued laptops — perhaps a misguided attempt to catch 'pot smokers.' Last March, Dhuran Ravi, a former Rutgers University student, was convicted on charges of invasion of privacy for secretly spying on his gay roommate and posting a video of his sexual encounters online. His roommate committed suicide as a result. Many sites offer jilted men opportunities to shame their ex-girlfriends on an immense and permanent scale by posting their pictures online.

We put a lot of faith in the security of our devices and passwords, but if someone gained control over your computer, how much damage could they do? Webfecting, for instance, is a common practice of remotely accessing someone's webcam and turning it on without their knowledge. How many times have you walked across your room naked in front of your computer? If targeted by a hacker, would you choose to perform demeaning acts via your webcam for one pervert, or risk everyone you know getting an email with a picture of you naked? The potential for embarrassment doesn't stop there. Have you ever written an email about how much you hate your boss? Confessed that you still have deep feelings for an ex-lover? Ever bought something online you wouldn't want anyone else to know about? There's an incredible amount of damage someone can do, if they're motivated to devastate your life, and once the bubble is popped there's no putting it back together.

We've taken a passive approach to this problem so far, by relying on the numbers game and hoping hackers are too busy targeting someone else. That is the way most civil issues began: someone else's problem that eventually becomes big enough to involve us. So how do we go about balancing privacy and security online? How do we keep the internet an open platform where information is available, but also safe?

When it comes to online legislation, there are very few lobbies with political juice. Most notable are the internet providers, who represent the infrastructure but have conflicting visions for what the future of the internet should look like. American representatives walked out of the World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai last year, demonstrating a looming divide between pro-censorship governments and anti-censorship governments. Media Conglomerates and the MPAA represent most of the content online, but they're far more interested in stopping piracy or going to war with Kim Dotcom, rather than protecting the privacy of their audience. Finally, we have Google, Facebook and Microsoft spending millions on lobbying. Their business model relies on selling their user's data to advertisers. They've often joined in on the fight against online censorship, going toe to toe with the MPAA to keep the internet open and free, but that does little to address security concerns.

These are companies motivated by profit, not civil movements motivated by ideology. The internet brings us together like nothing else, but it also separates us through the mechanical barrier of our devices. There is an inherent diffusion of responsibility for how we act, because we're doing it through a machine, and it feels less real. We have to reclaim a standard of humanity, and enforce it through laws we believe will affect our desired equality. Sexual harassment laws were a proclamation that abuse would no longer be tolerated as an acceptable standard. That very same notion of protection needs to be emphatically offered to the every day internet user.

To that end, there are flourishing movements that need our support. The F.T.C. is pushing for phone and internet companies to include "Do Not Track" software in their devices, and reduce the scale of personal data stored by various companies — a battle still very much being fought by both sides. Apple is among many companies trying to move away from passwords altogether, and use facial-recognition to access devices. Security is becoming an ever-increasing focal point in the debate, but the movement's tipping point will come when the punishments start reflecting the severity of the crime. As more victims suffer technological attacks, we will begin to understand that taking over someone's computer is no different than breaking into their home, reading their journal and looking at the private pictures on their wall. It is an appalling and unacceptable violation of our evolving personal boundaries. Most states and counties punish this offense with $10,000 and a year in prison, when those numbers go up, the offenses will most likely go down.

Motion Capture: Are Computer-Generated Actors the Future Of Filmmaking?

Andy Serkis has enjoyed a strikingly unique acting career. A classically trained performer, Serkis is best known for breathing vibrant life into computer-generated ghouls and apes. His portrayal of Gollum in the Lord of the Ringstrilogy helped launch his notoriety, while also highlighting the great potential for motion-capture filming — a technology which renders human performances into highly-detailed digital characters.

Rather than build on his successes and move towards more traditional roles, Serkis is choosing to double down on the motion-capture bet, launching his own specialty film studio – The Imaginarium. Serkis hopes to teach actors the craft of motion-capture performances, familiarizing them with the technology’s process. This is an investment in what Serkis believes to be the future of cinema, preparing a new generation of 'cyber-thespians.'

The movie industry has always adapted to the times — incorporating costumes, props, sets, technology, and locations to help bring imagination to life. The ever-increasing quality of computer-generated imagery (CGI) has helped engage audiences in a more immersive way. Steven Spielberg was once considered a pioneer for his use of an animatronic sharks in Jaws. Years later, he combined animatronic dinosaurs with innovative CGI for Jurassic Park.

Limited only by their imagination, animators and computer experts soon realized they could materialize any world for the big screen. The only limiting factor was that audiences often found computer rendered characters to look emotionally neutral, with “soulless” eyes and stiff movements. But motion capture places small sensory pins all over an actor’s body, including their various facial muscles, bringing every nuanced aspect of their movement into the animation. The result is a more fluid, expressive and “human” manifestation. Audiences are already getting used to seeing a film cast include, if not be dominated by, computer rendered characters.

To Serkis, this represents a new era of possibilities. An actor can be transformed into an alien, animal, demon or monster without having to utilize layers of make-up. They need only perform their role, and watch as the computer transforms them. Theoretically, this could allow one actor to play several roles — replacing a large cast with a few tech savvy performers. 

James Franco, who starred with Serkis in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, wrote about his awe for the technology's potential: "[Performance Capture] doesn’t mean that old-fashioned acting will go the way of silent film actors ... [it] actually allows actors to work opposite each other in more traditional ways, meaning that the actors get to interact with each other and look into each other's eyes."

The underlying skill required to bring these animations to life is still very much that of a talented actor. 

To that end, Fox Studios generated an aggressive campaign last year, pushing for Serkis' Oscar consideration for his performance of Caesar in the Planet of the Apes. This idea might seem laughable, but it was more than 80 years ago that Mickey Mouse won the first ever "non-human" Oscar.

Perhaps motion-capture is only a passing fad, and will simply be considered a skill any actor should know — alongside accents, stage combat or dance. But having worked in motion-capture for over a decade, Serkis believes it’s here to stay and worth investing in. Imaginarium Studios already has its own slate of films scheduled for production, including a motion capture rendition of Animal Farm. In his passion, we see a marriage between classic expressive acting and the endless possibilities of animation. As long as the boundaries and technology keep getting pushed forward, we may one day not be able to tell the difference between “real” and “make-believe.”