Actor's beware!

CG generated characters will have a hell of a time generating the celebrity status that organic ones can obtain.

This also puts a hell of a lot of faith into the director being able to bring a character to life (in terms of performance) without the input of a real actor.

This is not very likely based upon what I see on set.

Most really good directors can recognize a great performance when they see it executed, but would be completely lost trying to create it out of thin air.
 
Another problem, a really big one is...

If this came to be, then how are the 2nd ADs gonna get laid if they can't dangle a SAG voucher in front of the nose of a really cute ingénue?

Virtual CG sex?
 
Nice. Now let's see him animate an entire 60 second clip of dialogue. And, ask him how long it took.

There are a lot of practical uses for CG: Vehicles, flight animation. I mean, just look at STEALTH. Not the best movie, but a great example. The terrain was CG, the planes were all CG, but the actors were human. They melded together well and created really intense dog fights.

There's no way that CGi is going to replace living, breathing actors, it's just a silly thing to even consider.
 
And after he does, it then lets tell him, that was great, but this time can I see you do it with a bit more of a hurt motivation.

Then lets try it with a surprised look..

and if that doesn't work, how about you just improve it to see what we get...

ACTION!
 
khmuse said:
And after he does, it then lets tell him, that was great, but this time can I see you do it with a bit more of a hurt motivation.

Then lets try it with a surprised look..

and if that doesn't work, how about you just improve it to see what we get...

ACTION!
Click to expand...

LMFAO. Exactly. Hours and HOURS of tweaking, render farms, etc. It's impractical.
 
Qlot of animators seem to overanimate facial expressions and movement...and it looks like duece. Motion capture is where its at....though I highly doubt actors will be replaced altogether.
 
Yeah, yeah... I see it... create your actors in CG and your scripts in a story generator. No need for cameras since it's all done in a computer which gets rid of the DP and cameramen... What else can we take out of the creative process... hmmmm :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)

to quote Griffin Mill:
Griffin Mill: I was just thinking what an interesting concept it is to eliminate the writer from the artistic process. If we could just get rid of these actors and directors, maybe we've got something here.
 
The one thing that we can be assured that would be removed from the process would be most human viewers.

Too bad other computers lack fiscal resources to pay to "view" these movies, they would be perfect for one another.
 
HorseFilms said:
Really, can a computer-generated actor tell the director to go poo poo himself and then storm off the set? I think not.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I haven't seen any progress on the digital prima donna front.
 
It looks cool and I'm sure there will definitely be a lot of movies with virtual actors but I can't imagine them taking over anything in our lifetime. More than ever, movies are being sold on "names" even in the indie level. Regular non-filmmaking people that pay to see movies want to see movie stars. It's pretty much been that way since the early days of cinema and I don't forsee that going away.
 
When someone says, "actors won't have a job in 30 years", I don't think it's that far off. Because while obviously we will never completely eliminate actors, some obvious steps have been taken to minimize the amount of working performers in a film. The "war extra" has been almost completely elimiated from the big budget movie. They are now usually digital. Sure it's not a big acting job, but it was someone's way in. Something to build on. That will stretch into very small speaking parts soon as well. One of the recent videos posted in the cafe showed a bunch of guys running around with guns shooting each other. A lot of THEM were digital. Seven or eight jobs taken away from actors right there. So it IS happening. And it will get worse and worse. And I can see a situation where only 2 or 3 "real" actors will be used in a big budget film while everybody else will be digital. So when someone says, "actors won't have a job in 30 years", it's pretty accurate. Most actors don't have a job NOW! So the more film depends on digital actors, the more anemic the actor market will become, making it very unlikely that Hollywood will need you.

p.s. Wouldn't it be really easy to just film a person, then build a wire-frame copy of that person, then reverse that sequence, showing the wire frame copy first and then the real face (like is done in this example), thus making it look like they built a 3-D model, when in actuality all they did was film a real face and trick all of us?
 
Let's not forget that the biggest hits the past few years have been character animated movies (Pixar, Dreamworks ). Also new very powerful plugins are making the whole process much easier and fast, it is not a frame by frame/animated by hand process anymore. And the processing speed gets faster every 3 month is seems. I can render things that would have take days just a couple of years ago in minutes( such as using a radiosity engine).
Also studios make a lot of money from merchandising.
 
c.g._eads said:
When someone says, "actors won't have a job in 30 years", I don't think it's that far off. Because while obviously we will never completely eliminate actors, some obvious steps have been taken to minimize the amount of working performers in a film. The "war extra" has been almost completely elimiated from the big budget movie. They are now usually digital. Sure it's not a big acting job, but it was someone's way in. Something to build on. That will stretch into very small speaking parts soon as well. One of the recent videos posted in the cafe showed a bunch of guys running around with guns shooting each other. A lot of THEM were digital. Seven or eight jobs taken away from actors right there. So it IS happening. And it will get worse and worse. And I can see a situation where only 2 or 3 "real" actors will be used in a big budget film while everybody else will be digital. So when someone says, "actors won't have a job in 30 years", it's pretty accurate. Most actors don't have a job NOW! So the more film depends on digital actors, the more anemic the actor market will become, making it very unlikely that Hollywood will need you.

p.s. Wouldn't it be really easy to just film a person, then build a wire-frame copy of that person, then reverse that sequence, showing the wire frame copy first and then the real face (like is done in this example), thus making it look like they built a 3-D model, when in actuality all they did was film a real face and trick all of us?
Click to expand...

That's not a trick, it's the real deal. Look at the insane gloss on the ear where the render was probably minimized for efficiency, versus the skin detail on the nose where you see pores.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
Let's not forget that the biggest hits the past few years have been character animated movies (Pixar, Dreamworks ).
Click to expand...

Right, but those are cartoons and making no attempt to convince us that the characters are actual people.
 
SomewhereinLA said:
Let's not forget that the biggest hits the past few years have been character animated movies (Pixar, Dreamworks ). Also new very powerful plugins are making the whole process much easier and fast, it is not a frame by frame/animated by hand process anymore. And the processing speed gets faster every 3 month is seems. I can render things that would have take days just a couple of years ago in minutes( such as using a radiosity engine).
Also studios make a lot of money from merchandising.
Click to expand...

But those character films are just that: characters. Finding Nemo, a fish. Chicken Little? A chicken. Everything from the expressions on their face to the buttons on their wardrobe are allowed to be exagerrated.

When you step into the realm of human, people expect to see HUMAN.

I get you on the radiosity engine (which is kick ass by the way), but to say that this will replace actors is a little far-fetched. You obviously have some kind of experience in the field... How much money and how long would it take to build a film from the ground up with the kind of realism that started this thread? A short? A feature? How many teams covering particles to set detail?

Sure, the war scenes are digital. But you have to realize that it's a conglomerate of assets. You've got your tanks, guns firing, explosions. You really don't focus on that guy with the blue smudge on his helmet, but the overall picture. It's a case of plausible and effective application.

Advent Children (yes I'm going back to this) looks extremely good, but it's also tailored to "style" and not "realism.". The hairstyles are exagerrated, the facial expressions are more "anime" than realistic; it just fits that movie. However, the majority doesn't see insanely wild storylines/plots. You've got hundreds of LITTLE MISS SUNSHINES that are tons cheaper by going with live actors.

It has it's place, and it might be taking the jobs of extras but I can't forsee it taking the jobs of key players.

And on the extras notes: How much money do you think someone would spend adding extras in a Cafe scene as opposed to just hiring some off the street for fifty bucks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top