No actors required

Mino said:
Does anyone forsee a time WAAAY off in the future when actors could be replaced by their digital counterparts? I'm thinking in terms of the cgi artform to date with the characters in Final Fantasy etc. I can see the software and technique going in that direction...Of course, I see all kinds of strange stuff.
Click to expand...
They've been talking about this for years... I remember, probably 15 years ago, when digital first started taking off where they'd have movies with all the old actors, like Marilyn Monroe and Fred Estaire (or whoever) playing the parts and completely getting rid of real people... don't think it will ever happen. You would lose all the warmth of real people and it would be very fake (like it almost is now... hmmm)
 
directinglegend said:
Hey guys the world is going to end, because I just bought a new keyboard. Unfortuantly the more you pay for a keyboard doesn't improve my poor grammar and spelling. (like an HVX wont make uwe boll a good filmmaker, like CGI wont make a better story) :)
Click to expand...

But better tools make it easier for, and generally give the ability to produce better looking stuff. Why buy the 100 dollar keyboard over the 5 dollar discount bin one? Because it firstly has cool glow in the dark LCD light thingums...and also that its much much easier to type with it. HVX won't make him a good filmmaker but it'll make his images look better than if it was shot with a sony handycam(of course lighting and composition blah blah), but it still looks better. CGI won't make a better story, but it gives unexecutable stories potential. Imagine Terminator 2 without..terminator. Just not the same...
 
CGI furthed the story for T2 (IT WAS NOT THE STORY).If CGI was the only thing going for the movie it will not make it a good film.

An HVX will make a film makers images better, but not his story. So I'm saying if you have a good STORY than what you use to show your story is irrelevant. Although tools help visually they DO NOT change the appeal of your film.

If T2 was shot with a guy running around in tin-foil. I'm sure the story would have appeal. Again, we're not talking about CGI helping a story find grounding in reality, where otherwise it would have none. We're talking about CGI being the only imagery.

So, when you focus more on ONE rather than all the things that go into making a film you have a bad product. Everything has to be equal in your film. The story has to be just as good as the CGI. The actors reacting to CGI have to be just as good as the script and as the CGI itself.
 
If CGI were used for people, then I wouldnt see the movie. I have stopped seeing movies the are CG, no matter the content. They are always overhyped, and involve comedic animals or inanimate objects, which I have no interest in seeing discuss racing or a donkey or a clever raccoon. It has all gone to hell in a handbasket.
 
I'm a fan of Pixar's cars.... (Yes i really should act my age, shouldnt i?) But hey, i like the good naturedness of these CGI flicks. Not sure about the other companies but Pixar ones at least are always coupled with a good story, and great execution. And here speaks someone who put off watching cars beacuse i thought it was gonna be stupid. Heck i fell in love with the movie. Anyway, i have no intentions of creating animosity or threadjacking, so its just my 2 cents
 
No problem with Cars. It was one of the better ones, really. But my real problem with those movies is the voice actors. I dont see why anyone cares if someone famous is in a movie they're not actually in. And I especially cant stand it when they choose people for big roles that, they honestly are just not ready for. Take Gary Shandling from Over the Hedge. Never in my life have I wanted to strangle myself to death listening to this man try to pull off a role. I got in an argument with someone, them claiming that that is how Shandling talks in his comedy routines. I dont care! He was a terrible voice actor, and never should have been there.

Does knowing Merryl Streep and Paul Giammati are going to be in The Ant Bully make you want to see the Ant Bully? No. (Or maybe yes for you, I dont know. Not me though)

Also, I dont take to CG lightly because it has killed cartoons and stopmotion. Disney announced it would no longer make feature films using animation-cartoons. Thats like a harpoon to the heart.

And, lastly, I hate the fact that every CG movie has some wise-crackin idiot that makes the audience laugh, and makes me tighten my monkey grip around my neck.
 
My take is this:

Can 3D replace reality?

yes/no

Photorealism can be achieved now, even on your PC, BUT now matter how much "realism" you can get, next year another factor will be thrown in.

Reality is built from the sub-atomic level up, reality is far more complex than anything, 3d is merely a function of reality, thus acording to laws of thermodynamics a order within an order would never be able to be greater than the order it functions inside.

With CG its all about simulating reality:

(1) Objects can be modelled OR scanned, (scanned being more acurate)

(2) Motion of objects can be animated or the motion can be captured (more acurate)

(3) Textures can be painted or scanned from photos (more acurate)

in the end everything can be scanned in from the objects geometery to colour to motion, WHY not capture on film in the first place !! :)


Dont get me wrong I love 3d, but it has one flaw at best its only a simulation (bloody good though) why have a simulation when you can have the real thing?
 
In this moment, in many films there are many virtual actors and we don't notice them, I think the actors must not be replaced for 3d, but everybody must notice that today, behind thouse virtual "actors" there is a real actor, in the movements, in the expresions, take Golum for exmple, it is the best, for me, virtual actor till now, behind him, there is, not only an actor making his movements and expresions, but many animators taht perform through the virtual Golum.
 
chotoboto said:
In this moment, in many films there are many virtual actors and we don't notice them, I think the actors must not be replaced for 3d, but everybody must notice that today, behind thouse virtual "actors" there is a real actor, in the movements, in the expresions, take Golum for exmple, it is the best, for me, virtual actor till now, behind him, there is, not only an actor making his movements and expresions, but many animators taht perform through the virtual Golum.
Click to expand...

Chotoboto, you make a good point. But I have to say, I think that, in this day in age, you wouldnt need actors to make that movement. I think in terms of realism, they had to use motion capture on Gollum because he was unusually fast and twitchy. A real person doesnt act that way.

Look at king kong. You never know when your looking a Naomi Watts, or an animation. Its getting that good.
 
I was always looking at Naomi Watts...sure sexier than jack black or king kong

PS: so far i havent seen a decent cgi film coming out from anywhere other than pixar
 
Last edited:
ptio2212, yes I know you don't need actors today, but I can imagine the animator of KK, the people who make the expresions in the computer , with a mirror in fornt of them making like they are actors, in fact, to be a good CG animator, you must be a good actor.

Anyway, the KK performace was a Oscar performance. I WANT THE OSCAR TO KK in main role.
 
uhrgl said:
I forsee a time in the future where we all wear colored jumpsuits, denoting our position in society.
Click to expand...
well that would be kool! then we can switch into anything we want? instead of being stuck in our own colored skin?
 
tommyinla said:
They've been talking about this for years... I remember, probably 15 years ago, when digital first started taking off where they'd have movies with all the old actors, like Marilyn Monroe and Fred Estaire (or whoever) playing the parts and completely getting rid of real people... don't think it will ever happen. You would lose all the warmth of real people and it would be very fake (like it almost is now... hmmm)
Click to expand...
hmmm.....i see dead people
 
well the only way to go is...............................................cloning.....yes that's the ticket!............. it'll be cheaper to make a replica of that high priced actor with her/his body parts........... can you imagine...................PORN would be outrages to watch!
 
kimko said:
. . .it'll be cheaper to make a replica of that high priced actor with her/his body parts........... can you imagine...................PORN would be outrages to watch!
Click to expand...

Not only can the audience fast-forward to the good parts, the filmmaker would only have to have the good parts to shoot. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top