Slashdot Mirror
Will CGI Collapse the Hollywood Economy?
Some Slashdot Reader writes "Computer animation is getting so cheap that it is practical for use in some TV shows. s1m0ne is an upcoming movie those story is about a guy who secretly creates a real-looking digital character who become famous overnight.
Eventually, it will become more cost-effective to produce whole movies on computer as a standard. And when the technology and costs permits, non-scifi TV shows with an all-digital cast(fully copyrighted of course) will come forth. But the real main issue is: If this takes off, what will happen to all the people like the background characters, costume makers, construction, caterers, cameramen, model makers, casting companies, etc."
Listen, I hear what you're saying, but you're talking about the near future. To say that in FIFTY or at most a HUNDRED years we won't have the technology to fully replace actors is lunacy. I personally believe that advanced hardware that mimics the human brain physically, and therefore in function, will be able to do ANYTHING a human can do but 1,000 or 1,000,000 times faster. I can picture these 'brains' watching movies and all sorts of art to feed them ideas and churning out art at incredible speeds. I think you're foolish to think that actors will NEVER be replaced.
Also we can look at the public's approval of Final Fantasy to see that people aren't really ready to accept CG as a replacement to real
Everybody I've talked to about FF was completely appreciative of the CG. They didn't like the story, and I can hardly blame them.
I'd look at Shrek, Toy Story and others as proof that if a story is good, people is more than redy to give CG a shot. If the story sucks, tough, there's nothing to do.
Every five years, this question comes up. In the early 80s, the question was raised in the form of the movie, "Lookers," directed by Michael Crichton.
In Lookers, actors and actresses are being replaced with computer-generated equivalents, to optimize their impact in advertisements. A techno-thriller "ahead of its time."
[
Most computer jobs aren't real jobs, either, unless one defines realness by how much salary the employee makes. Most of it is basically just modernizing paper-shuffling. Whoop-de-doo. That's hardly more meaningful than the support staff for movie-making, let alone the artists involved.
I mean, sure, I enjoy working with computers and it pays okay, but I don't kid myself that it has a big positive impact on the world. In ten years no one will care much what I did last week. In a hundred years, "Casablanca" will still be worth watching.
A character in a movie is always composite -- a combination of the character that was envisioned by the person who wrote their lines, blended with the personality and imagination of the actor that ultimately ends up portraying that character. It is because of this blend that you will be hard pressed to find two characters that are alike, even if they have had their lines written by the same person -- In fact, you may even find that different characters in different movies, portrayed by the same actor, have more similarities than any two characters whose lines were written by the same person.
If you replace the characters by CGI, suddenly not only are their lines written by a small group of people (sometimes even only one person), but the characters themselves become a presentation of an equally small group. There are two measures that can minimize this problem -- _really_ good writers and good voice talent. However, these measures cannot take things any further than you can expect from any other well-done cartoon.
So, unless or until the movie-going public is ready to accept cartoons (no matter how well done they are, that is what they would be) as the standard movie form rather than the currently more popular photographic form, we won't see CGI actually replacing actors in a large scale.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
For the time being, I don't think CG is lifelike enough to replace real actors in non sci-fi movies. The reason is that CG chacaters, even good ones, still seem to lack realistic motions... even if they have lifelike appearance as a still.
Over the long run, however, I still don't see it happening. The reason being is the entire culture that has been built upon the obsession of movie stars and their lifestyles.
For some reason, one that I can't explain, people seem to enjoy reading about the daily lives of their favorite celebrities. They like reading about the rediculous things these actors do with their money. They like reading about Hollywood divorces. They like obsessing over famous figures, and dream about someday meeting them. They like watching their favorite actors win academy awards.
If you replace actors with computer generated characters, all of this goes away. The allure of
celebrity vanishes because a computer generated character isn't real. They can't win awards in the same way. They can't have a lifestyle that the common person envies because they aren't alive. A common person can't ever hope to meet a celebrity who only exists as a computer program.
I believe a huge part of the film industry relies on the attraction people have to the actors themselves. I believe that replacing actors with CG will affect just about everything but kids films negatively from a money standpoint, because people will lose interest.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
And also, real actors will always be more interesting than CG ones. There is a reason that the industry for covering celebrities is so huge. The gossip columns, the awards shows, the parties, autographs, etc. People don't want some made up star to follow, they want a real person. And the personalities of the real people are more interesting than writers could ever come up with for fake ones. Think of Cameron Diaz's personality, or Robert Downy Jr's problems. You could make it up I guess, but it wouldn't be as intersting as a real person.
Think about it? I have it on my Linux box. (What do you think /dev/null is made of?)
I've never understood celebrity. "Look, it's a guy pretending to be a big-azz robot, and he blows shit up!" is all I need to know about Arnold. Once the credits roll, I don't need to know what Arnold's up to until the sequel.
But you're correct *sigh* in that there's a whole industry built around people who do care what the "stars" are doing off-screen. That industry is effectively a marketing arm of the movie industry -- if the proles don't see Arnold's name in the headlines every day and aren't motivated to see every film in which he stars, they won't see the three other movies that he's contracted for between now and the next blockbuster.
> You could make it up I guess, but it wouldn't be as intersting as a real person.
Don't be so sure. Have you read William Gibson's Idoru? :-) [Plot summary: A real-life rock star falls in love with a celebrity who exists solely as a piece of software.]
---Probably not. But in our existing system of economics, the system must find some way "they" can aquire basic needs or the system will ultimately fail for everyone but the most wealthy.---
The system already has a way. Namely, if things ultimately cost less to produce (like movies), then people will have more money left to spend on other things. Those other things will create jobs. The short run pain of dislocation needs to be dealt with, but in the long run, cheaper production is a good thing.
Step 1: CGI gets cheap
Step 2: Popular sitcoms start using more CGI
Step 3: someone figures out how to do the actors in CGI
Step 4: Actors get fired
Step 5: All the jobs move off to Delhi
What will the MPAA say then? What % of the biggest movies in the last year were made in the US? LotR wasn't. Harry Potter wasn't. Major parts of Star Wars weren't. Sydney is beccomming a hot spot to film major action films.
Bab 5 was using virtaul sets back in its 1st season. Trek has been using computer animated "actors". How long ago did the Simpsons production move off shore? This isn't new.
The claim that capitalism comes without a side of humanity is false.
Corruption has never been so blatantly corrupt since the the 1920s. While there are many good corporations out there, the large monopolistic companies have crippled a large section of our tech industry. The ripples have touched many companies I work with, and will cost everyone MILLIONS.
Hmm... yes. You are aware that the Ferengi were written as fictional characters to embody an absurdly extreme stereotype, right? Assigning the "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" as capitalist values on their face is either disingenuous or ignorant.
You never sat in a board room during a merger, this is evident.
I have never been in a multi-billion dollar merger, but the few dot.bombs I've seen made me sick. I was asked to leave the meetings when I asked about the employees, stocks and profits are the only value. The company I am at now actually wants employees to do community service, they even pay us for those days away from work... I've seen the extremes on both sides. The ferengi would fit right in.
Now STFU.
I suppose when Disney's first animated films were becoming popular there might have been a similar sort of discussion going on - although this is purely speculation and I'm certainly no film geek.
But it appears not be the case that Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willy, and all of their spirtual heirs, have failed to cost actual human actors jobs. Shoot, they've actually created jobs for humans: think of all the people who work at Disneyland & Disneyworld wearing overstuffed character costumes and you'll see my point.
And I really doubt we have much to worry about as regards Jar Jar Binks, other than if/when and (hopefully) how soon the hard drives containing his models & animations are formatted for all eternity.
In any event, it would seem that much of the attraction of human actors is that they are, well, people, and also that they provide entertainment value far beyond whatever they convey (or fail to convey) on-screen; in other words, they are celebrities whose personal lives are exposed for our amusement. When they get divorced and remarried for the nth time, we know. When they beat somebody up and go to jail for it, we know. When they make home videos of their lovemaking that end up on the Internet, we of course know.
I think you could argue that the majority of "entertainment value" human actors provide stems from their offscreen antics, and I will respectfully refer you to the nearest supermarket checkout line for evidence of same.
So how are CG characters going to compete with that? Mickey hasn't beat them yet in the seventy odd years he's been bouncing and squeaking around, and he and his kin don't seem to show much promise of being tabloid fare, so I suspect human actors may be around for awhile.
Hey - what if this means the return of the good movie? It seems to me that CGI movies are a natural way to go for the blockbusters - the high-power actors demand so much money that you can distribute that amount into CGI and marketing and make more money that way. Interestingly enough - if you kill the actors, maybe people will stop going to the movies to see Ben Affleck in another mediocre movie, and rather go to see that awesome new movie about two kids bonding through some interesting adventure?
On the other hand, real-life actors will still exist in the indie/international tradition. The cost of making a good indie movie is so low it will take years for CGI to be good and cheap enough to replace real actors and a hand-held steadicam.
Stop the brainwash