Digital Actors

[Animated Ape]

So I was reading on another forum about photo realistic CG actors. One postee seemed to think that in the next couple of years that they will be a reality.

Why?

I love 3D and CG SFX, but why would you want to make a realistic human in CG? I understand characters like Golum, and even Garfield, but not a human. I think it makes sence for CG stunt dubbles, but after that, just use the real actor. Do the studios think it would be cheaper to make a CG human than to use real actors?

Any way, just ranting really. But if people want to add to this, I'd love to hear what others think.

The Ape

[ender]

Boy, I certainly hope that never becomes a reality. In stunts scenes or effects shots thats ok, but I want humans in my live action movies, please, not some third-order reality.

Hoy, what next.

Ender

[phacker]

I think finacial concerns would be the main reason. Anyone remember Max Headroom?

[Matt S]

i don't think its finance. It will cost far more to do a cg lead actor, than a real one. Many people forget that behind that cg character is a 200-300 person team. By the time you pay their salaries, it will usually far outway that of a single actor. i really don't think cg characters will replace live action people. People like seeing real people, just look at the reality craze going on right now. Cg will always be accepted in furry cats and creepy hobbits, but when it comes to human leads, It just to cold, and almost creepy, and thats not what you usually want.

[phacker]

For those that don't remember Max, here's a little background:

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/...axheadroom.htm

[swankaman]

Maybe its lip service to make the days of actors demanding 40 million a picture (or whatever) I just dont understand why the dont all split the pie evenly.If a movie makes 100 million and it took 100 people to make it, everyone gets a million?My example is uber simplistic but maybe its a little "rumor" to test the nerve and will of the thespians?Im sorry but all the CG in the world cant replace some of the great acting performances we have witnessed over the years!How bout a CG Godfather?or Gump?Or any number of your own favs?It wont ever get to the point where no actors are involved, even in CG dont they use the real actors emotions and facial expressions when creating the films?Like "Ants" for example, the "rocky voiced" ant looks just like Sly Stallone (if he were really a ant?!)

[jchap 03]

Even if the cost of using a CG character and a live action actor were about the same, i think the technology i still far from being good enough to mimic realistic movement for an entire feature. It's fine for shots here and there, but for an extended amount of on screen time, it'd be hard to make an audience believe it was live flesh and bone... but then maybe that wouldn't be the point of using a cg character after all...


Yes, I remember Max... and that God aweful New Coke

[Animated Ape]

Originally Posted by swankaman

How bout a CG Godfather? or Gump? Or any number of your own favs?It wont ever get to the point where no actors are involved...

Well here you go. This is a quote from Robert Zemeckis about his "The Polar Express" movie. "I wanted it to look like a movie in an oil painting, then have all the warmth, immediacy and subtleties of a human performance,"

And then they attatch that picture. Yeeech. Oh well I'll guess I'll spend my money seeing "The Incredibles" again.

You can find the whole article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/...-express_x.htm

The Ape

[keenasmustard]

I don't like the idea of actors being replaced and agree that they should keep CG to fiction, stunts etc. I thought of a few advantages though: Less legal concerns with actors being injured on set (although injuries still happen any place- you could trip on your PC cable or sue for RSI... but I think you know what I mean...). The other one was you wouldn't have the same problem with actors breaking bones, getting sick or even dieing midway through shooting a film. I'm sure the lead animator for example, could befall a similar fate, but it's not make or break as can be the case with live actors.

Here's another thought: are they talking about creating a CG actor and then giving them a screen name? In other words, "this is Buzz Lightyear as Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind" or "Max Headroom in Lawrence of Arabia".

[Animated Ape]

I remember Max Headroom. I even watch a few episodes of his show in the late 80's. But I don't think he was actually a CG character. Wasn't he just actor Matt Frewer, in heavy make-up and filmed with a posterizing filter or some type of after effectsy type thing?

Actually I thing that would have been a better way to go for "The Polar Express." To actually film the actors, and let them act, and then go in with After Effects, or digital make-up and apply it to the whole movie to give it kind of pastel on canson paper look.

Any way, what do I know. I'm just an animator, but I do know that the animation I've seen so far looks awful. So once again, I hold to my oppinion that techical directors shouldn't be animating.

The Ape