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."

4 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It is possible in the future, but not now. by FurryFeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Susan Dey in "Lookers" ~ 1981 by Speare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  3. Re:Everyone would just get a real job by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Nah really, i don't see this happening any time soon. If these "laid off" support crews do anything, they will just learn computers.

    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.

  4. Re:Oh geez... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
    > 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 [...]

    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.]