Actor's beware!

That is really amazing. The eyes are almost there, which is usually the thing that gives stuff like that away. But some of the movement needs to be worked on.
 
Holy Crap.

Thats so good I wouldnt be surprised to find out the wireframe model was made around the real guys head.

But, holy crap.
 
That's a great animation, but like I've said in the past, it's ridiculous to think that actors won't have jobs in 20-30 years......why?

We have plays, voice over artists, radio, etc...these all need actors to portray characters and make it authentic, not some computer generated person making fake tears.

But great animation!
 
I'll never understand why people would want to spend time motion capturing/animating a human in 3d space when you can just grab a camera and film a real actor. Plus it looks to clean.
 
It's just another tool in the toolbox, not a replacement.

Just like years ago when people warned that soon computers would take over all our jobs and we'd be without work. They have become tools to make our jobs easier or more efficient (at least that is always the goal), not a means to replace.

Just my $0.01 9/10 :)
 
Because, there are things a computer generated actor can do that a real one can't.

Please see: Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

The camera action and action in general in that movie would be very VERY hard to reproduce with real actors in live action situations.
 
Really, can a computer-generated actor tell the director to go **** himself and then storm off the set? I think not.
 
Kholi said:
Because, there are things a computer generated actor can do that a real one can't.

Please see: Final Fantasy: Advent Children.

The camera action and action in general in that movie would be very VERY hard to reproduce with real actors in live action situations.
Click to expand...

Yeah but really, was this a movie that ever need to be made in the first place? :)

My only beef with these digital actors is: how do you get them on the casting couch? That takes half the fun out of making a movie...
 
desperatecomfort said:
Yeah but really, was this a movie that ever need to be made in the first place? :)

My only beef with these digital actors is: how do you get them on the casting couch? That takes half the fun out of making a movie...
Click to expand...

I'm a huge Final Fantasy/Squaresoft/Square-Enix fan, so my answer is going to be HELL YES. I loved it, at the level of a fan. As a writer, the story sucked my toes right off. It was horrid and really blocky. It's sad how much they could've done with the material. BUT, as a fan... it was dope as hell. Don't EVER talk about Advent Children like that, Mark. Or you'll recieve e-threats on a daily basis from me.

=D

Actors won't disappear. It's crazy to think that they will, also. Do you know how much time goes into rigging a plausible character in 3d apps? You replace Spiderman with a computer generated model when he's swinging, but not when he's walking the streets.

The quality of rendered beings will advance until there's nowhere else to go, but there''ll always be PLENTY of room for actors.

P.S. The action in Advent Children is lightyears beyond most action I've seen in live-action movies, which drives me to use it as a reference. The scene where Cloud is fighting Kadaj and gang in the forest is crazy and shows off what a well-directed "computer generated" camera can do.
 
Kholi said:
I'm a huge Final Fantasy/Squaresoft/Square-Enix fan, so my answer is going to be HELL YES. I loved it, at the level of a fan. As a writer, the story sucked my toes right off. It was horrid and really blocky. It's sad how much they could've done with the material. BUT, as a fan... it was dope as hell. Don't EVER talk about Advent Children like that, Mark. Or you'll recieve e-threats on a daily basis from me.

=D

Actors won't disappear. It's crazy to think that they will, also. Do you know how much time goes into rigging a plausible character in 3d apps? You replace Spiderman with a computer generated model when he's swinging, but not when he's walking the streets.

The quality of rendered beings will advance until there's nowhere else to go, but there''ll always be PLENTY of room for actors.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree with that. I was going to say, as good as that model looks at the top of the thread, actually I think costs will keep actors employed. It would simply cost SOOOO much more to animate all actors, than just to hire them. Cost and time.

until, of course they off shore all of this stuff...
 
desperatecomfort said:
Yeah, I agree with that. I was going to say, as good as that model looks at the top of the thread, actually I think costs will keep actors employed. It would simply cost SOOOO much more to animate all actors, than just to hire them. Cost and time.

until, of course they off shore all of this stuff...
Click to expand...

Yeah, the off-shore point is a valid one. Then again, it's already being done over-seas. What's going to be a problem for American filmmakers that want to go overseas to get a CG movie done would be finding a top-notch artist that speaks fluent in your-choice-language that would be able to run a team of animators. So that you could relay your specific needs/wants to the lot. It'll be a serious hassle, and probably not a worthwhile situation if you've just got an animated movie with computer generated actors doing the SAME thing that regular actors can.

Ninja Turtles - CG worthy
The Constant Gardener - Not with a ten foot pole.

And there are more "Constant Gardeners" than there are "Ninja Turtles" in the world of filmmaking.
 
Besides which, movies will continue to be star-driven, and since no star would give away their likeness for free, you're still not going to really save any money.

The best example of this stuff I've seen in recent years was in "History of Violence." That was a good use of CG.

Sorry, that was more compositing, but still a transparent use of effects that didn't call attention to themselves.
 
desperatecomfort said:
Besides which, movies will continue to be star-driven, and since no star would give away their likeness for free, you're still not going to really save any money.

The best example of this stuff I've seen in recent years was in "History of Violence." That was a good use of CG.
Click to expand...

The chroma-key head thing? Is that what you're talking about? With the glass breaking over the stuntman's head while he's wearing the green hood?

And yes, that's another totally valid and obvious point. CG has it's place in the motion-picture world as another TOOL, like Larry said earlier. But, don't expect it to account for any major share outside of children's movie, where it's applied the most.

See. Chicken Little ( That little furry thing with four legs and three eyes was cool as hell, though. Not that I watched that movie... last night... or anything... errr. )
 
Yeah, there are a few things they did like that, that were impressive. The coffee pot, the nose, stepping on the throat.
 
desperatecomfort said:
Yeah, there are a few things they did like that, that were impressive. The coffee pot, the nose, stepping on the throat.
Click to expand...

That's another thing that CG is good for: giving Director's a chance to push the bar on shots.

Chopping off arms can look very realistic just by taking the time to rehearse and expirement with compositing in post, saving an assload of money on animatronics or even make-up for the fake arm. Now you can just composite a real, moving arm over the scene and you get a really twisted image.

Don't hate, embrace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top