Slashdot Mirror


Digital Schwarzenegger Set For New 'Terminator'

Hugh Pickens writes "The Governator revealed this week that he may appear in the upcoming 'Terminator Salvation,' but when he said he didn't want to act, he left many fans scratching their heads. Turns out Schwarzenegger has been secretly working with helmer McG and the effects team to reprise his signature role ... without lifting a finger. 'I made it very clear that I don't have the time to do the movie,' says Schwarzenegger. 'I said that I would be willing to be in the movie if they get the technology together, and so they are working on that right now.' A body-cast mold of Schwarzenegger, created when he first appeared as the muscle-ripped cyborg, provided the basis for a digital-effects version of his famous character so the figure can appear in 'Terminator Salvation' as a living, breathing actor. Warner first screens the movie in early May, and opens it May 21. 'I think it's cool to continue on with the franchise ... in case I want to jump over again and get into the acting after I'm through here,' adds Schwarzenegger."

309 comments

  1. Duh! by Z00L00K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

    So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Duh! by Pingh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to mention Farley...

    2. Re:Duh! by negRo_slim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Digitized versions still make real money. I wonder what Arnold stands to gain from his participation in the film? Even tho personally I feel his presence in the film will be far more distracting than anything else.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    3. Re:Duh! by fisticuffs · · Score: 1

      May not work until they get the voice synthesis and the mannerisms right. They might as well start from scratch if they're going to develop digital "actors".

      Additionally, digital actors have less of an impact (episodes IV, V, and VI vs. episodes I, II, and II for example).

      Meatspace actors and stuntmen do take real risks on the set. They break real sweats in those chase scenes and they sustain bruises or worse when something goes wrong, even though it's all scripted. Don't forget about improvisation. It's a lot less exciting to know that what little existing element of real danger and urgency has been replaced by billions of triangles made with a keyboard and perhaps motion-capture sensors.

    4. Re:Duh! by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Square Pictures was so proud of Aki Ross in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within that they suggested the same digital model could appear in other films. Once the film bombed, that idea was quickly forgotten.

    5. Re:Duh! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Belushi...

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:Duh! by Megane · · Score: 1

      We still don't have the voice technology down yet. Participation by the governator's larynx is presumably still required.

      But someday we will all have our own computer-generated Majel Barrett voice!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:Duh! by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      May not work until they get the voice synthesis and the mannerisms right. They might as well start from scratch if they're going to develop digital "actors".

      The character is an emotionless cyborg. There aren't a lot of mannerisms to get right, and voice inflection is minimal as well.

      In this particular case, since he plays a robot, the only real way to keep him in the movies is through digital enhancement, unless they want to come up with a reason the unchanging cyborg turned into a wrinkly old man and why his giant muscles turned into sagging manboobs.

      I worry that the new movie will be too CGI-heavy, but the Terminator series has done pretty well with the special effects so far, so I guess we'll just wait and see.

    8. Re:Duh! by neildiamond · · Score: 1

      Who cares. There are a ton of people who can do bad impressions of Arnold's bad acting.

    9. Re:Duh! by cthulu_mt · · Score: 1

      Not to mention W.C. Fields... Fixed that for you.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    10. Re:Duh! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Bogart was already Schwarzeneggerized in 1987...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:Duh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Funny

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

      Computers can't act. Until Dr. Soong comes along and perfects a 'positronic' brain, this still statement cannot be true. Even animators need reference.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Additionally, digital actors have less of an impact (episodes IV, V, and VI vs. episodes I, II, and II for example). "

      Ahhhhh... so it WAS a robotic reproduction of Natalie Portman in the new Star Wars movies?
      Finally something explains that performance...

    13. Re:Duh! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      But never Paul Newman. He had this little bit in his will which said his executors should prevent any:

      "virtual performance or reanimation of any performance by me by the use of any technique, technology or medium now in existence or which may be known or created in the future anywhere in the universe."

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    14. Re:Duh! by kungfugleek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CGI-heavy is kind of relative. The more lameness in the storytelling (acting/script/direction) the easier it becomes to feel like a movie is too CGI-heavy.

    15. Re:Duh! by LeonN · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mmmm, sagging manboobs

      --
      http://freelinuxguides.wikidot.com
    16. Re:Duh! by moniker127 · · Score: 1

      Well, actors aren't just pretty faces (well, in some cases). So it isn't exactly the same.

    17. Re:Duh! by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

      So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      Oh, you mean Remake: http://www.amazon.com/Remake-Connie-Willis/dp/0553374370/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240514628&sr=8-16

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    18. Re:Duh! by huckamania · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since the terminators are based upon real people, he could play an older spec ops type that Skynet captures and studies. Perhaps would make a good sequel/spin-off some day. The finale would have the digitized, younger, cyborg Ahnuld fighting the grizzled veteran real-life Arnold. Bale could cameo as John Conner and save the day, or if Ridley Scott is directing, get there in time to watch the old guy die and join his family in the wheat fields.

    19. Re:Duh! by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention Fatty Arbuckle...

      Fixed that for you.

    20. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In this particular case, since he plays a robot, the only real way to keep him in the movies is through digital enhancement, unless they want to come up with a reason the unchanging cyborg turned into a wrinkly old man and why his giant muscles turned into sagging manboobs.

      Not necessarily. Recall that (at least in the movie) they say that the meat exterior of Schwarzeneggar's series of terminator is human flesh. One could argue that they would create a particular "series" by creating many identical copies of (from a particular DNA sequence). Though Arnold was destroyed in the movie T1, one of his "brothers" could be alive and in an older state at some future date.

    21. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, wouldn't Keanu Reeves have made the perfect Data... or Spock?
      I mean, no visible emotions at all... Even Nimoy couldn't do that.

      They would have had to skip that episode where he got a emotion chip though...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    22. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Funny

      If someone can do this, he's hired:
      http://eeuauaughhhuauaahh.ytmnd.com/
      (No crap, I promise. But turn on the sound. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    23. Re:Duh! by spydabyte · · Score: 1

      Ever see Benjamin Button? Sure they created a digital version of Brad Pitt for the entire first half as he aged backwards, but it's not like he wasn't involved in that process at all. S1M0NE isn't exactly possible yet, they're still a human under those bits.

    24. Re:Duh! by hoffmanbike · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention Keanu Reeves... Fixed that for you.

    25. Re:Duh! by fisticuffs · · Score: 1
      I was referring to this

      So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      portion of my parent's comment. Arnold is a bad example.

    26. Re:Duh! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Not to mentioned all the actors (*cough*) in Plan Nine From Outer Space.

      Fixed that for you.

    27. Re:Duh! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      That was a cool thread and it all fit.

      I wonder if that is an archetype and there are silent movie/vaudeville performers before Fatty who we have simply forgotten about?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re:Duh! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So is Spock.

      It takes a good actor to pull of a supposedly "emotionless" character.

      Pixar and Dreamworks have gotten pretty good at "improvisational" stuff for their animated actors tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    29. Re:Duh! by JoelisHere · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not necessarily. Total(ly) Recall that (at least in the movie) ...

      Sorry couldn't help myself.

    30. Re:Duh! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And wouldn't that at most apply for 50 to 100 years after his death?

      Then his works are in the public domain (even by today's ridiculous copyright standards) and folks can use them to create new works.

      It might be a lot less-- look what happened to Leona Helmsly's will.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    31. Re:Duh! by blincoln · · Score: 1

      There aren't a lot of mannerisms to get right, and voice inflection is minimal as well.

      Voice synthesis technology is still nowhere near capable of convincingly simulating an actual human voice. It's a bit of a head-scratcher for me - especially the dead-end "sample a bunch of phonemes" approach that has been in vogue for the last couple of decades, instead of using a physical-modeling approach.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    32. Re:Duh! by rho · · Score: 1

      Paul Newman: a class act, and pretty smart, too.

      I bet his obits were chockablock full of people calling him a "class act".

      Ob: digital actors, can we resurrect William Powell and Myrna Loy first?

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
    33. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parent had it correct...

    34. Re:Duh! by cthulu_mt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fat drunk people are funny.

      Look at classical depictions of Bacchus...never skinny.

      --
      Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
    35. Re:Duh! by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I thought it was a reaction to the hot grits being dumped down her pants...

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
    36. Re:Duh! by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, actually no, the real way to get it right is to build an Arnold robot.

    37. Re:Duh! by rockbottoms · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Marilyn Chambers unmentionables

    38. Re:Duh! by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Makes you wonder just how much he'll get paid for letting them use his likeness in a movie... in a non-satirical manner.

    39. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arnold was destroyed in T2 and T3 as well.

    40. Re:Duh! by dwye · · Score: 1

      > So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      They already did this with Laurence Olivier in the otherwise-forgettable Something Something and the Something Something, with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, but it really was that forgettable, just as The Last Starfighter would have been, despite the best CGI available at the time, without Robert Preston).

      And, as my parenthetical indicates, you may get Katherine Hepburn's body, but you will get someone else's acting.

    41. Re:Duh! by Triela · · Score: 0

      Keanu for Data, Costner for Spock. Ya know, so they could appear in the same movie simultaneously. Cuz that's the people want.

    42. Re:Duh! by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn and Garbo weren't good in their movies just because they looked the way they did. They were actors (Wayne perhaps excluded) who interpreted their characters in the story and the script. They were unique personalities, sometimes unique to each role, who enabled audiences to relate to them and how the stories in their movies changed them onscreen. Not just familiar images programmed to go through the motions.

      Their genius was in their empathy and projection, not just their ownership of a body who could walk and talk through screens.

      Besides, Hollywood today mainly lacks producers with courage to take a risk on a story that isn't just a franchise of some characters licensed from some brand or put through some other formula. We've got plenty of talented actors, with far too few good movies getting funded to employ them.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    43. Re:Duh! by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Heh, all of Arnold's dialog in the first three Terminators would probably add up to 5 minutes :)

      "Get in"

      "I'll be bock"

      "You are terminated"

    44. Re:Duh! by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Bunny Breckenridge was a successful legit theater actor and Shakespeare interpreter, I'll have you know. I think he's so bizarre in Plan 9 because he wanted Ed to stop pestering him to act in his films. So Bunny did an awful performance, only Ed didn't really pick up on the point.

      On the other hand, was it any worse than Harvey Firestein in Independence Day? Or Bill Pullman for that matter? The only diff is the VFX are on a different level. Well, and Will Smith basically carries that movie. I dunno where I'm going with this...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    45. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I would only wanna see that, if they would make a child together, and then create a sequel out of that. Complete with a Muffit-Ewok dance-and-cuddle scene.
      And if I were a total masochist. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    46. Re:Duh! by tenton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention Keanu Reeves...

      Fixed that for you.

      I thought he was already a robot?

    47. Re:Duh! by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Now you're talking! Think about all the Marilyn Monroe porn...

      Seriously, this technology is not far away from your desktop. Imagine scanning the actors images and voices for a TV series, say Star Trek (TOS). With enough images, software could build a 3-D library. The sound samples could be used by a sophisticated voice synthesizer to sound like the original actors. You could make your own Star Trek episodes, starring the original cast in their prime. Of course, Paramount would want their take.

    48. Re:Duh! by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Your control over your likeness is created by US State law. In California, it lasts for decades after your death.

      At some point, you could have a Paul Newman remake against his will.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    49. Re:Duh! by ChinaLumberjack · · Score: 0

      And the episode were Spock became all emotional after seeing Kirk alive. Actually, while perfectly emotionless may make the perfect Vulcan, I don't think they make interesting characters. In fact, Vulcan's aren't supposed to be emotionless, but rather suppress their emotions. Spock both frequently expressed intrigue, puzzlement and fascination. Spock's raised eyebrow "intriguing". "Emotionless" Data also expressed those emotions in his own way. Take Tuvok's character. The actor over-emphasized the emotionless part giving us a boring Vulcan.

    50. Re:Duh! by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      One's likeness is not copyrightable; the use of one's likeness is governed (at least under US law) by the individual unless waived by them signing a model release. Note that you can be photographed on the street or in a public place by news photographers because you have no expectation of privacy in these places, but narrative productions will generally post a sign saying "if you cross this line you grant the irrevocable right..." etc. to cover their bases.

      If you read a modern blanket model release, it generally uses language meant to cover "re-animation" technology, but not everyone signs a blanket release. Wether the producers of Giant could make a sequel with Newman's character would depend on the model release he signed, though the ones a powerful actor signs are generally restrictive and forbid the use of their likeness beyond the scope of the film (named specifically) and any marketing associated with it, saying something like "I agree to permit my likeness to be photographed and used by the production presently entitled 'Star Wars,' to be produced in 1977 by Lucasfilm Ltd." Any use on another product requires another release.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    51. Re:Duh! by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

      So, I just had to cynically jump in on the "anywhere in the universe" clause. I think his estate would have a difficult time enforcing that in quite a few places on the planet, let alone how enforceable it would be if the Vogons decided to create their own cinematic reproduction of Mr. Newman. Give me a break.

      Our self-centered view of the universe becomes quite laughable when one realizes that we are not.

      --
      We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    52. Re:Duh! by Kleen13 · · Score: 1

      Enter the lawsuits....

      --
      That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
    53. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that follows. Full-blooded Vulcans would likely be boring. Spock's character was interesting because he was half-human.

    54. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Damn, I forgot to add that it would be a Christmas special. With the new gay Wookie brother, who marries a Muffit-Ewok that got raped by a Oliphant.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    55. Re:Duh! by Intron · · Score: 1

      Olivier's made like 30 appearances since he died. You can't get some actors off the stage.

      One amusing thing about Sky Captain was the way Angelina Jolie is in all the ads and trailers and only appears in the movie for about 5 minutes. "Launch the amphibious attack!"

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    56. Re:Duh! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So? they need a reference, that doesn't mean they need actors. You can reference some who acts like they are upset, or you can reference someone who is actually upset. Or happy, or whatever.

      As much as actor like to poof it out into some sort of magical mystical thing, acting is just voice and expression.

      These will be created digitally eventually. Based on some RnD stuff I have seen recently, this will happen a lot sooner then people think.

      For clarification, I am specifically talking about actors that appear on screen in a movie. Soon after TV. Not Stage, not Voice actors.

      They could easily make a completly different movie starring ';woody' and 'Buzz' Just use there models in a new setting.
      Now those models are primitive by todays standards, but you get the point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    57. Re:Duh! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Farly had said he wanted to be like Belushi, and now he is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    58. Re:Duh! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Belushi was nothing Like Fields. Two completely different styles8. Farly was always trying to imitate Belushi. I think That's the point, not that there were other fat actors.

      *Both of whom I enjoy immensely.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    59. Re:Duh! by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them. So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      Wow I'd TOTALLY pay to see that terminator movie!

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    60. Re:Duh! by trinity93 · · Score: 1

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

      Soon we no longer need politicians, we just need digitized versions of them.

      --
      We substituted the coffee Slashdot normally drinks with "Sandoz Crystals", Lets see if they notice the difference
    61. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since when does Arnold say anything in the terminator series that couldn't be cut from T2 or T3 audio?

    62. Re:Duh! by blameline · · Score: 2, Funny

      Robert Zemeckis already did use Bogart in a 1995 Tales of the Crypt: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0716912/ It's good to see Paul Newman's clause in his will. I only hope that Rob Schneider uses the same clause in his will.

    63. Re:Duh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can reference some who acts like they are upset, or you can reference someone who is actually upset. Or happy, or whatever.

      Acting is far more complex than chaining together a handful of emotions listed in a kid's book.

      As much as actor like to poof it out into some sort of magical mystical thing, acting is just voice and expression.

      Yeah, that's why all those youtube videos and student projects have such wonderful acting. On an unrelated topic, space travel's not a magical mystical thing, it's just an air-tight tube with thrust coming out the back.

      These will be created digitally eventually. Based on some RnD stuff I have seen recently, this will happen a lot sooner then people think.

      No, it won't. Just like mocap didn't kill keyframed animation. Just like photographs didn't kill painting. Jsut like TV didn't kill movies. What would really be needed to pull off automated digital acting is for a computer to have talent. That breakthru is much farther away than tech demos imply.

      They could easily make a completly different movie starring ';woody' and 'Buzz' Just use there models in a new setting

      Yes, with the right acting talent supporting it. Go watch the maknig of videos of Pixar's movies, there's all kinds of acting involved. Heck, go find that book the Illusion of Life. Look at how Disney animated movies back in the 40's. You're going to find that behind all of that great work are people talented at acting.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    64. Re:Duh! by murderswitch101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bill Pullman's presidential speech in Independence Day is better than any speech our last five presidents have given, just putting that out there.

    65. Re:Duh! by Keanu+Reeves · · Score: 0

      Whoa. I agree.

    66. Re:Duh! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What, no <voice style="schneider"> making copies</voice>!

      Although I wish he had said "making copies" when he entered the cloning vats near the end of Judge Dredd.

    67. Re:Duh! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's no way the SAG would let this happen if he didn't get paid just like he was there, because it sets a very very bad precedent, much worse than letting him get paid just as if he were there. Or at least that's my interpretation of their mindset, I could be fuck-all wrong. Who knows? Somebody will probably chime in to regulate me if I'm wrong, which usually gets an answer faster than just asking around here, so I'm not sure what to hope for.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Duh! by Keanu+Reeves · · Score: 0

      I thought he was already a robot?

      Really!? Sweet.

    69. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fantastic that you think this will matter, in the end.

    70. Re:Duh! by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      And the least CPU processing power requiring will be? Keanu Reeves. In fact, they better set the machines not to sleep after inactivity.

    71. Re:Duh! by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

      We will have digital version of them, but we still need actors. The whole human digitalization so far is in very large parts based on motion capture. If you don't have an actor, there isn't any data to render. Even completly hand animated stuff, like Pixar movies, still have a human voice actor for reference. So far the whole digital side of things has done *nothing* in reducing the need for actors, it has done quite the opposite, you now not only need actors, often you have multiple onces for different tasks in a single role, you also need graphic artists, modeler, programmer and all that stuff to drive the digital puppet.

      One day we might reach a point where we can generate the actual acting, but we are still very far away from that point. There really hasn't even been much research into that area aside from really basic stuff (i.e. walk cycles and such). What you however don't need in the future is a specific actor, since you can just capture a similar one and transfer his movement onto the other one.

    72. Re:Duh! by Anarchitect_in_oz · · Score: 1

      Exactly the digital version is going to have better acting skills. That is to say it may have some instead of none.

      --
      "Call us when the New age is old enough to drink" Beck
    73. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Computers can't act.

      That's good Schwarzenegger was great in the first film as a killing machine, no personality just efficient and unrelenting. In the second and third films they got it into their heads that he was supposed to be a star actor and should therefore do emotional range and witty comments and stuff... as an inhuman killing machine. I think there was even some drivel about a sort of 'intelligence on' switch. Fucking stupid. A computer generated actor will hopefully revert to the original performance.

    74. Re:Duh! by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      So we may see new movies with Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      So we can see all the greats in movies with crap story lines, yaa

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    75. Re:Duh! by irenaeous · · Score: 1

      The character is an emotionless cyborg. There aren't a lot of mannerisms to get right, and voice inflection is minimal as well.

      Are you talking about the cyborg character or Gov. Schwarzenegger? I don't think I could tell the difference. I guess this is an easier CGI effort than most.

    76. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, that's swell and all, but 100 years after his death, who is going to have standing to sue, and even if they do, will they bother?

    77. Re:Duh! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure that SAG isn't even an issue here. I have a feeling that Arnold is more than capable of creating an agreement with the studios that he is happy with.

      That aside, I think your point would be a valid one for a less well known role played by someone who didnt have such clout in the role - so good point anyway (at least IMHO).

    78. Re:Duh! by irenaeous · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Computers can't act.

      And ... why is this important? Particularly in Arnold's case?

    79. Re:Duh! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spock (at least Nimoy's portrayal) was highly emotional. Nimoy just portrayed the emotion through subtle facial mannerisms (the raised eyebrows, how much he opened or half closed his eyes, the tilt of his head, and the way he would glance at certain people - much of the time, those "people" being McCoy, or the (many a time) "I'm glad you're safe, Jim" look to Kirk (for instance, end of "Doomsday Machine"s "Welcome aboard Captain")).

      Because all of the mannerisms were there, and were more subtle, and quite often; Spock (as portrayed by Nimoy) would be far more difficult to pull off. Harder to make it noticeable, believable and yet still understated.

      The Terminator (as portrayed by Arnold) on the other hand showed no emotion and at best, an obviously faked smile when commanded to. Much easier to portray via a CGI actor.

    80. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "virtual performance or reanimation of any performance by me by the use of any technique, technology or medium now in existence or which may be known or created in the future anywhere in the universe." ... But that provision can only last while someone retains IP rights to his image. I suppose it's possible that Newman's Own brand could keep a trademark on his image indefinitely, but any copyright protection will last only as long as Disney keeps bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"successfully lobbying" congress to extend copyrights.

      I suppose it might become standard practice for estates to trademark the name, voice and image of famous people when they die, with the trademarks lasting as long as there's commercial value to them.

    81. Re:Duh! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because computers, regardless of which method is used, create perfect versions of the speech - and proper use of inflection is still a problem. Humans (at least very few) almost never perfectly say a sentence - or at least almost never say that sentence the same way - and that's not even taking into account inflection which is something second nature to humans.

      This is also why it took so long for speech recognition programs to get to even the point they are at now.

      Thus when a computer speaks something, it just doesn't sound right.

      The same problems existed (past tense) in creating things digitally (CGI), where the object created would be too perfect. And then (round 2 of CGI) even the "random" (ie: not so random) imperfections added for realism were still not quite right. Since then, they've gotten much better on the CGI front - but it too is still not perfect. A perfect example would be the CGI Enterprise in TOS-R... they keep trying different things - yet only rarely got it right. Some of the (better quality) FX footage from the 60's looked better (sans perhaps the graininess - but I am not talking about the filming quality). The model just looked more real - instead of like some shiny piece of plastic. Of course, there are others (companies/people) who have done better - and CGI object technology has come a long way... my point(s) were that voice synthesis has yet to overcome those very similar obstacles.

    82. Re:Duh! by grahamd0 · · Score: 1

      There's no way the SAG would let this happen if he didn't get paid just like he was there, because it sets a very very bad precedent, much worse than letting him get paid just as if he were there. Or at least that's my interpretation of their mindset, I could be fuck-all wrong. Who knows? Somebody will probably chime in to regulate me if I'm wrong, which usually gets an answer faster than just asking around here, so I'm not sure what to hope for.

      I doubt it's that big of a deal to SAG. Obviously they'll want him to get paid, but there's no reason for them to demand he be paid as if he were physically there.

      Here's why:

      1. Big stars will always be paid by legitimate studios for their likeness, if only to clear any potential legal hurdles.
      2. Big stars won't get to be big stars without taking on roles as an unknown actor to build their reputation.
      3. Paying a good special effects house will likely always cost more than paying an unknown actor.
    83. Re:Duh! by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Nah, it was just Russ' portrayal of Tuvok. Remember, Sarek was full Vulcan - and nearly as often showed emotion in similar subtle ways (amusement at the end of "Journey to Babel" - anger elsewhere in the episode, apologeticness (sorry, at a loss for the correct word) and later disgust in the end of ST:IV, anger and contriteness in the beginning of ST:III, concern and empathy and love in the end of ST:III and more).

    84. Re:Duh! by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      But think of the outrage...

      --
      It is what it is.
    85. Re:Duh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      And ... why is this important? Particularly in Arnold's case?

      Not that I don't appreciate the humor, but check out the Terminator in the original movie. The endoskeleton I mean. Then look at the Terminators walking over the wreckage at the beginning of Terminator 3. The original was done with puppets and stop motion, the most recent was done with mocap and keyframed animation. One had a whole lot more human motivation behind it than the other. Watch the two and you'll find one is far far more convincing than the other.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    86. Re:Duh! by zymano · · Score: 1

      love that blue grayish look in all cgi movies. nothing says quality like that.

    87. Re:Duh! by bruno.fatia · · Score: 1

      But he is a terminator cyborg...

    88. Re:Duh! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Uh, relatives? Children's Children?

      The question would be, would anybody care about Paul Newman's image in 100 years. Arguably, the people who would recognize him and go, "Wow! That's Paul Newman!" would be dead. Which means using his image would be about as useful as using, say, mine.

      Go look at the names in movies 100 years ago (1909). Frankly, if they used Julia Arthur, Flora Finch, or David Miles, who'd know?

    89. Re:Duh! by thekm · · Score: 1

      Which will be awesome if we get to see Hepburn and Garbo with their gear off!

    90. Re:Duh! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Corporations are immortal.

      You can't even cut their heads off with a sword.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    91. Re:Duh! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bill Pullman's presidential speech in Independence Day is better than any speech our last five presidents have given, just putting that out there.

      That's because it was written by a professional writer and rehearsed dozens of times.

      Oh, wait...

    92. Re:Duh! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      well it seemed to be very good to me. i remember my new winxp install disc had the final fantasy trailer bundled. i actually thought it was live action the first two times i saw it. then i was able to spot some unnaturalness in the faces and then i realized. but it was really good. just unfortunate that it got such bad reception.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    93. Re:Duh! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      what was that?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    94. Re:Duh! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      i think the point is that normal people exhibit all emotions too. an animator may refer to their faces and expressions instead of an actor's.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    95. Re:Duh! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      pardon me, but what does ^H mean?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    96. Re:Duh! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      That's an expression, not a performance. Not the same thing, not by a mile.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    97. Re:Duh! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.

      Not at all - we still need actors, we just don't need their physical bodies.

      The human voice is much more expressive, and much less well synthesised currently, than appearance. As technology advances it will be easier to generate but for now, voice actors are far easier to work with.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    98. Re:Duh! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      The character is an emotionless cyborg. There aren't a lot of mannerisms to get right, and voice inflection is minimal as well

      In that case, why not cast Emma Thompson?

    99. Re:Duh! by daveime · · Score: 1

      Will Smith basically repeats every line twice in that movie ... oh, wait, he does that in EVERY movie.

    100. Re:Duh! by daveime · · Score: 1

      The effects in Terminator 2 was the pinnacle of CGI in it's day.

      Remember Robert Patrick walking out of the fire as a silver blob and transforming back into a humanoid ? I was in the cinema the first day that movie came out, and I remember being gob-smacked by that one scene.

      However, the story has been done to death already ... it was groundbreaking in 1984 and 1992, but these days, meh ... even Southpark had Goobacks (although Simpsons did it, Simpsons did it) ...

    101. Re:Duh! by c-reus · · Score: 1


      ^H represents the backspace character.
      </offtopic>

    102. Re:Duh! by daveime · · Score: 1

      ^H is essentially a shortcut to send a chr(8) i.e. backspace ... used on very old TTY terminals I believe.

      Used here instead of strikethrough to allow posters to type something bad and then appear to have corrected it to something more pleasant before posting.

    103. Re:Duh! by daveime · · Score: 1

      Rob Schneider is ... a stapler
      Rob Schneider is ... a carrot
      Rob Schneider is ... de dum de dum di tiddly dum de dum dum

      Sorry, got Southpark on the brain today.

    104. Re:Duh! by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      He was also declaring war on aliens. Presidents get to make great speeches when fighting unambiguous enemies. You don't have unambiguous enemies when you strike first, unprovoked.

      Ahem.

      Oh, and George talking with the bullhorn on the WTC rubble? Just as good, really; halting but very powerful use of context and simplicity. Barack Obama's speech from the '04 convention is superb rhetoric -- doesn't make you wanna kill anyone, but still a great speech. Clinton made great speeches, just no one real standout. Reagan didn't make great speeches? Excuse me?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    105. Re:Duh! by Spacezilla · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work in Internet Explorer, I just see ^H a lot.

    106. Re:Duh! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      i think its just a reference. it doesn't work because it isn't supposed to. its like some sort of an inside joke or something.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    107. Re:Duh! by Grismar · · Score: 1

      So we may see new movies with virtual actors looking like Bogart, Wayne, Hepburn, Garbo and many others.

      Fixed that for you.

      As many people have pointed out, these virtual actors won't be these people, they just look like them. Their acting performance will only be as good as the combination of the software creating them and possibly the actors controlling them. Motion capture, digital overlay, whatever technology will be used to turn the actor's input into a rendering that looks like a famous actor from the past.

      Sounds like good news for impersonators.

    108. Re:Duh! by bami · · Score: 1

      "Hasta la vista, baby"

    109. Re:Duh! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      Fat drunk people are funny.
      Look at classical depictions of Bacchus...never skinny.

      *Ahem* I hate to be nit-picky, ... well, actually that's a complete lie, I live for being picky. But Bakkhos is not noticeably fat in classical depictions (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).

      I'm guessing you're thinking of Silenos ... except that, usually, he's also not distinctively fat (1, 2, 3), except when painted by Rubens -- a painter of the modern period. And I defy anyone to regard the Silenos in that painting as jolly -- he's revolting! We're not talking goatse revolting, not quite, ... though I can imagine him pulling a goatse after a couple more goblets of wine.

      Oaooow. Now my brain needs washing to get rid of that mental image.

    110. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact the entire plot of T2 centred around the fact that he wasn't totally destroyed in T1.

    111. Re:Duh! by Inda · · Score: 1

      Acting is just reading aloud.

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    112. Re:Duh! by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      So, I just had to cynically jump in on the "anywhere in the universe" clause.

      I think what he meant by that portion is that if sometime in the distant future, when/if we're traveling among the stars, we come across some technology which we do not have/know about which would allow his likeness to be reproduced, he does not want that to happen.

      Not necessarily that if an alien race broadcasts his image (though obviously, how could his executors prevent it and what legal process would be in place to challenge such use?)

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    113. Re:Duh! by UltimApe · · Score: 1

      see: 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'

      The face is 100% cg, with facial animation done using a similar setup as half-life2's (only amazingly more detailed)

      http://www.ted.com/talks/ed_ulbrich_shows_how_benjamin_button_got_his_face.html

      --
      "Infecting minds with my own memetic virus, one post at a time." Ultimape
    114. Re:Duh! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that SAG isn't even an issue here. I have a feeling that Arnold is more than capable of creating an agreement with the studios that he is happy with.

      As you suggest, and as I outright said in my comment, it's not about Arnold. It's about precedent. See sig. Thanks.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    115. Re:Duh! by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Our self-centered view of the universe becomes quite laughable when one realizes that we are not.

      Except that we are. It's hard to determine a true "center" to the universe as we understand the term because current physics indicates that what is not space is simply a stretched version of an infinitely small space. It doesn't really have a "boundary" where it stops where you can trace from one in to the other and find a midpoint and declare it the center.

      And when it comes to actual LIFE - I'll agree that there's quite likely other forms of life, but there is no proof yet. No "Vogons" have been discovered, no ET's, nothing. So aside from saying "gee, I guess it's pretty likely", without in any way being able to calculate the odds of life evolving elsewhere, we can't yet make an informed decision. And with that in mind, for all intents and purposes, for now, and possibly forever, humanity IS the focal point of the universe as we know it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    116. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I's a montage of samples of a Mad-TV parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a short part from the movie "Last Action Hero".

      Or it's Arnie, telling you his deepest feelings... in a very funny way. XD

      You decide. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    117. Re:Duh! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, you should know that he went insane from a disease that did destroy his power to control his emotions, in some TNG episode.

      But I always wondered why anyone would think that it would be an ideal to not have emotions. Is is a horrible, weak, lame state, that drives you insane by not letting you use the natural psychological repair functions of your brain. And well, it would just suck to never feel a thrill, love, and all the cool stuff.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    118. Re:Duh! by Touvan · · Score: 1

      I thought it was cheezy and overdone.

    119. Re:Duh! by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      Whoa ...

    120. Re:Duh! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "In this particular case, since he plays a robot, the only real way to keep him in the movies is through digital enhancement, unless they want to come up with a reason the unchanging cyborg turned into a wrinkly old man and why his giant muscles turned into sagging manboobs."

      Simple: Show us the real soldier the cyborgs were modeled after.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    121. Re:Duh! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "But never Paul Newman. He had this little bit in his will which said his executors should prevent any:

      "virtual performance or reanimation of any performance by me by the use of any technique, technology or medium now in existence or which may be known or created in the future anywhere in the universe.""

      Which will of course quickly be overturned and found illegal on the grounds that it unfairly prevents greed.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    122. Re:Duh! by murderswitch101 · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean that none of those presidents gave universally bad speeches, just that none of them were as good as Pullman's. Either way he was a movie president and my comment was meant to be funny, not quite sure why it was moderated Insightful.

    123. Re:Duh! by murderswitch101 · · Score: 1

      I mean that those presidents have given good speeches. I should proofread before hitting the post button.

    124. Re:Duh! by conejo+especial · · Score: 1

      He was all of history's great acting robots, including Thespomat, Acting Unit 17, and David Duchovny.

    125. Re:Duh! by celle · · Score: 1

      "Bill Pullman's presidential speech in Independence Day is better than any speech our last five presidents have given, just putting that out there."

      Forget Pullman, Douglas in "The american president" was better.

    126. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It takes a good actor to pull of a supposedly "emotionless" character.

      Or Keanu Reeves.

    127. Re:Duh! by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      Bill Pullman's presidential speech in Independence Day is better than any speech our last five presidents have given, just putting that out there.

      Reminds me of Family Guy:

      "Because today, we celebrate...our Independence Day!"

      SEE,...THERE! He said it!!!

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    128. Re:Duh! by the+donner+party · · Score: 1

      Well, way back when even terminal connections could be implemented in multiple incompatible ways and you had to configure each end properly to get the text interface to work without glitches. If you got some setting wrong, pressing backspace could result in the letters ^H appearing on screen, instead of deleting the previous character. That's what the inside joke is about. In a 1990 usenet discussion you could actually expect everyone involved to have at one time or another encountered problems like that, so the joke didn't need explaining.

    129. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arnold would be distracting because he was the face of the franchise so everyone concentrates on him in the movies. What will be most distracting is if the digitized Arnold looks as bad as The Rock did in The Mummy 2 when he was digitized.

  2. Oh the irony by mir@ge · · Score: 5, Funny

    He did not act in the first one either!

    1. Re:Oh the irony by PalmKiller · · Score: 1, Funny

      LOL, I'd mod you up if I could.

    2. Re:Oh the irony by SlipperHat · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, he's just afraid of walking into Christian Bale's eyeline.

  3. Even cooler is the voice actor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They tapped Henry Kissinger to do terminators voice.

  4. Good news, but not great by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's better than not having him at all I suppose. A Terminator movie just wouldn't be the same without him...or at least something that looks like him. Are they going to be using his real voice at least?...Not that there was a ton of dialogue for the terminator role.

    1. Re:Good news, but not great by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It's better than not having him at all I suppose. A Terminator movie just wouldn't be the same without him...or at least something that looks like him. Are they going to be using his real voice at least?...Not that there was a ton of dialogue for the terminator role.

      That's the only reason he's such a successful actor IMHO. He can't deliver lines with any authenticity; the droning monotone of an android is the only role he can play convincingly.

      (This isn't off-topic, please read to the end before modding.) During the recall election campaign he wasn't even able to deliver a single convincing line about any policies he had. Every time he was asked to list all the things he was going to cut back spending on, he sat there and rattled off a list of things that needed MORE spending. He pummeled Gray Davis for daring to raise the motor vehicle registration fee, pretty much basing his campaign on that. What did he do in February of this year? Raise the vehicle registration fee. Looks like politics isn't as easy as you thought it would be, is it, Arnie?

      The guy is a fraud no matter what profession he goes into whether it's acting or politics.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:Good news, but not great by Kokuyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And how, exactly, did he fail to do what any other somewhat successful politician does? He avoided answering questions and did whatever the hell he wanted to do after he was elected.

      So far, I'd say he does a pretty darn good job as a politician... just not as a leader of a state. But if we wanted leaders we wouldn't elect politicians in the first place, now would we?

    3. Re:Good news, but not great by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      But if we wanted leaders we wouldn't elect politicians in the first place, now would we?

      And if we didn't elect people into office, there wouldn't be a market for politicians.

    4. Re:Good news, but not great by evilviper · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the droning monotone of an android is the only role he can play convincingly.

      Arnold was rich and famous years before he acted in The Terminator.

      Conan the Barbarian was a decidedly non-android role.

      And after Terminator, he had many very successful human roles. "Predator", "The Running Man", "Commando", "True Lies", "Total Recall"... anyone?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Good news, but not great by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah because the terminator movies were totally known for their dialogue.

    6. Re:Good news, but not great by Kozz · · Score: 5, Funny
      How dare you forget the epic action film Kindergarten Cop?

      "It's not a too-muh!"

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    7. Re:Good news, but not great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His acting in CtB was pitch perfect, watch the scene where he his debating religion with Subotai, it's quality work.

    8. Re:Good news, but not great by Chabo · · Score: 1

      I thought Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles was excellent, despite the lack of Arnold.

      (past tense because of rumors that the show's finished... :( )

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    9. Re:Good news, but not great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ... Junior

    10. Re:Good news, but not great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conan the Barbarian was a decidedly non-android role.

      Perhaps non-android, but decidedly androgen.

    11. Re:Good news, but not great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iz no'ta tou-mah!!!

      And let us not forget the epic phrase:
      "Geev da people da aiah!"

    12. Re:Good news, but not great by linuxguy · · Score: 1

      You forgot "Twins". One of my favorite Arnold movies.

      Granted I was a kid when I watched it and may not like it as a grown-up. Something that happened to me with "Electric Dreams", Knight Rider etc. etc.

    13. Re:Good news, but not great by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! We should start taking nominations for King of California!

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    14. Re:Good news, but not great by JudgeFurious · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'll save you the trouble. It's mine.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    15. Re:Good news, but not great by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The TV series shows how deep the story that first movie was based on.

        Interestingly, there is no person on earth who can fill the place of Arnold in the first movie. Without Arnold, the Terminator would be a regular 1980s sci-fi movie.

    16. Re:Good news, but not great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conan the Barbarian was a decidedly non-android role.

      Really? You could've fooled me.

    17. Re:Good news, but not great by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "So far, I'd say he does a pretty darn good job as a politician... just not as a leader of a state. But if we wanted leaders we wouldn't elect politicians in the first place, now would we?"

      Newsflash: Most people ARE voting for who they think is a leader.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    18. Re:Good news, but not great by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Kindergarten Cop was shit, but it gets partial credit for perhaps one of the best one-liners Arnie ever delivered. In the history of ever:

      [Kimble knocks out two gang members with ease, then turns to two others standing by his car]
      Detective John Kimble: Oh, excuse me. I forgot to introduce myself. My name is John Kimble...
      [racks shotgun]
      Detective John Kimble: And I love my car!
      Street Tough #3: Yo, man, I'm just gonna keep a eye on it for you, all right?
      Street Tough #4: You got a beautiful ride.
      [as soon as Kimble is out of hearing range]
      Street Tough #3: Shit. Who he think he is? He's lucky I didn't kick his ass.

    19. Re:Good news, but not great by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      >perhaps one of the best one-liners Arnie ever delivered

      what about this classic Ahnold line?

      Low Life #1: So who are you, man?
      [Kimble racks his shot-gun]
      Low Life #1: Shit!
      [he scrambles out of the way just before Kimble blasts the couch apart]
      Detective John Kimble: I'm the party pooper.

      Except when Ahnold says it, it's more like "Ahm the pahty poopah."

  5. Running Man anyone? by Satanboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Am I the only one that remembers the bad guys digitally changing the face of a guy who dies in the Running Man to be that of Arnold?

    I find it interesting that we are now getting to the point where the future in sci fi films is becoming the reality. . .

    1. Re:Running Man anyone? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Running Man? Try Logan's Run. They used robots with Fricken Laser Beams to change peoples appearance.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:Running Man anyone? by Mendoksou · · Score: 2, Funny

      YES! Now we need a sci-fi in which Humphry Bogart and his sidekick Charlie Chaplin to investigate an evil cartel of cyberninjas headed by Bruce Lee and Toshiro Mifune. In the end it truns out the mastermind was Cary Grant and his minion Peter Lorre. Epic!

      --
      DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
    3. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I still want to see a movie done that actually reflects the book. The only thing that the book and the movie have in common are the same names of the characters and the name of the game. NOTHING else is the same.

      The Running Man book predicted the prevalence of reality TV, unfortunately the reality of reality TV is no where as good as the reality in the book.

    4. Re:Running Man anyone? by needs2bfree · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyone remember SIM0NE?

    5. Re:Running Man anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I'D BUY THAT FOR A DOLLAR!

      --
    6. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As did The Six Million Dollar Man as did Mission Impossible, etc etc..

      I think it all started that time Joseph put lambskin on his forearms to trick Jacob (who admittedly didn't see too well) into thinking he was Essau...

    7. Re:Running Man anyone? by m50d · · Score: 1
      The Running Man book predicted the prevalence of reality TV, unfortunately the reality of reality TV is no where as good as the reality in the book.

      If you want an astonishingly prophetic look at the rise of reality TV, track down a copy of the BBC television play "The Year of the Sex Olympics". (Sadly, the colour version seems to have been lost, but it's still an excellent production).

      --
      I am trolling
    8. Re:Running Man anyone? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Wait, don't the bad guys blow up the studio?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    9. Re:Running Man anyone? by TurboNed · · Score: 1

      That was a great film.

    10. Re:Running Man anyone? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was trying to forget it.

      THANKS A LOT.

    11. Re:Running Man anyone? by unitron · · Score: 1

      If you want an astonishingly prophetic look at where television programming was going to go, read Arthur C. Clarke's short story "I Remember Babylon", and just change the bad guys from Red China to corporations.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    12. Re:Running Man anyone? by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      The Running Man book predicted the prevalence of reality TV [...]

      It also predicted the use of a very effective method for the destruction of a skyscraper.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    13. Re:Running Man anyone? by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Anyone remember SIM0NE?

      Hmmm... I was thinking further back to Looker.

      --
      Ask me about my sig!
    14. Re:Running Man anyone? by Itninja · · Score: 1

      So Jacob was tricked into thinking Jacob was a small town in NW Gambia? That's pretty impressive. I always thought he was impersonating Esau.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    15. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was Robocop...
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daoV-LsINiA

      The Running Man had Climbing for Dollars, which I'm surprised Fox hasn't replaced Dollhouse with yet.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntz0_besT04

    16. Re:Running Man anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      It was also part of SmashTV on arcade and SNES platform. It was probably elsewhere to, but that's what I know.

      --
    17. Re:Running Man anyone? by kaiidth · · Score: 1

      I would pay serious money to see that.

    18. Re:Running Man anyone? by lgw · · Score: 1

      *SPOILER ALERT*

      I still want to see a movie done that actually reflects the book.

      I do as well, but I don't think we'll be seeing any movies where the hero heroically flys an airliner into a skyscraper in my lifetime.

      */SPOILER ALERT*

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be honest... watching wallpaper slowly turn slightly brown over the course of ten years is more interesting than Dollhouse.

    20. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I didn't know we had bible nerds.

    21. Re:Running Man anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Jacob was tricked into thinking Jacob was a small town in NW Gambia?

      God moves in mysterious ways.

    22. Re:Running Man anyone? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      * FURTHER SPOILERS *

      While trying to stop his own intestines from falling out the gaping hole in his gut, and slipping on them on his way to the cockpit.

      Also, flipping off the baddie in his office on the top floor of the skyscraper as he crashes the plane into it. The ending is ridiculously gruesome and awesome in a cheap horror movie kind of way.

      * FURTHER SPOILERS *

      --
      Eat the rich.
  6. Shwarzenrubber by Wrexs0ul · · Score: 4, Funny

    Remember that the first terminators were made of rubber and could easily be identified as robots from close range. Arnie should totally reprise the role: old, wrinkly and saggy parts would make for an awesome first generation terminator.

    -Matt

    --
    --- Need web hosting?
  7. So, is there still time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to get a digital Shatner in the new STAR TREK film?

    1. Re:So, is there still time... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually one thing that hasn't been brought up is the concept of keeping actors perennially young for the sequels and such.

      Imagine a 1980s Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones fighting Nazis in movies spanning 20 years. Or a 1960s Sean Connery as James Bond fighting bad guys in 2008. Or Sitcoms that can go on forever (a la "The Simpsons") because the actors never age.

    2. Re:So, is there still time... by zonker · · Score: 0

      That's a great idea until you realize that you also need to create 1980's writers for Indiana Jones. I mean really... have you seen the past 15 years of stuff that passed George Lucas' desk?

  8. For the love of god by esocid · · Score: 0

    stop the CGI! I would prefer a puppet to a CGI model.

    Before we know it there will be movies completely in...oh wait. My original point still remains valid.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
    1. Re:For the love of god by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Toy Story is not really realistic. It's just an enhanced cartoon. A better example would be Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4747223420939375550)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:For the love of god by geekoid · · Score: 1

      What point? That would would ahve preferred Wally would have been a large muppet? or that the Robot in terminator should be a large muppet?

      You make a statement with no point.

      And CGI is awesome.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:For the love of god by FTWinston · · Score: 1

      While I loved both of those films, there's no denying that replacing the protagonists with muppets is only ever a good thing. Especially for terminator. And then maybe a couple of musical numbers?

    4. Re:For the love of god by esocid · · Score: 1

      I was being facetious, but my point was that CGI has its place, and just because you can use it doesn't mean you should use it.

      --
      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  9. looker by SolarStorm · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember a movie called Looker? was about actors not being needed any more and once they were digitally reproduced being killed. I wonder if that was what happened to arnie?

    1. Re:looker by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Susan Dey nekkid!
      That's all I remember about it though...

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:looker by Chabo · · Score: 1

      This past year's "Treehouse of Horror" had a story along the same lines; actors were refusing to put their likeness on certain products, or star in certain movies, so they used Homer's new-found affinity for killing celebrities (found after he accidently put Krusty through a woodchipper) to kill off a bunch of celebrities so they could posthumously endorse products.

      For all of you who stopped watching The Simpsons in the past few years, check out that one episode, at least.

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    3. Re:looker by intheshelter · · Score: 1

      Luckily he's not an actor any more, he's a Governor. It should only be a few more years now until the Schwarzenegger Prophecy (from the movie Demolition Man) comes true and Arnold is President. Lucky for me I LOVE Taco Bell, and will adapt to the new reality easily.

      Joy Joy thoughts to all!

  10. !Governator by esocid · · Score: 1

    I like the Gubernator better.

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  11. Why? by whimmel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why was a body-cast taken in the first place? Did the producers send someone back in time to get the mold so it would be available for 'Salvation'?

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    1. Re:Why? by Ben+Newman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you even seen the original in all its pre-CGI glory? There's that ultra realistic rubber Arnold head featured prominently in one scene that would have at least required a full torso mold of him. They might have made a full body cast at the same time just to have it available for other effects shots they had in mind. Total Recall would have needed one too. Hell, there are probably several full body casts of Arnold from various points in his career floating around because of all the special effect heavy movies he was in.

    2. Re:Why? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And somebody probably got a ultra-realistic blow-up doll of him at home. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Why? by yabos · · Score: 1

      How did you know!!!???

  12. Do they have to pay him? by GPLDAN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This probably makes the Actor's Guild shit themselves. Technically, they may have an intellectual property clause wide enough to drive a Freightliner full of liquid nitrogen through. They could digitize him, and as long as he didn't have a speaking part, they could even have an action sequence with him fighting Bale/Connor and all of that, and say "hey, it's all covered under the same contract that lets us use your likeness for Terminator toys, etc. We don't owe you anything."

    That, of course, would probably put a halt to actors willing to be greenscreened and bodysuited, and do voiceover for tie-in games like Jackman and Wolverine.

    1. Re:Do they have to pay him? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They could digitize him, and as long as he didn't have a speaking part, they could even have an action sequence with him fighting Bale/Connor and all of that, and say "hey, it's all covered under the same contract that lets us use your likeness for Terminator toys, etc. We don't owe you anything."

      That strikes me as incredibly unlikely. There's no way he'd sign a generic 'use my likeness for everything' contract. Everything's isolated on a per-movie basis, even the merchandising, down to the point that the production companies are often created just for that particular movie to make all those arragements. Let me give you an idea: Crispin Glover sued, and won, because footage of him in Back to the Future was used in Back to the Future II without his permission. Even if the contract is open ended, there's still an understanding that movies, even in a series (which Terminator Salvation barely qualifies for), are individual entities.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Do they have to pay him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably underestimating the Screen Actor's Guild. They'll get the rights for digital like-ness sorted out by the time it becomes an issue. Take a look at Back to the Future II, for example. Imitating actors the old fashioned way: with different actors.

      Now of course, the studios will still find any excuse they can to avoid paying, but it'll probably be in violation of contract.

    3. Re:Do they have to pay him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could digitize him, and say "hey, it's all covered under the same contract. We don't owe you anything."

      That strikes me as incredibly unlikely. There's no way he'd sign a generic 'use my likeness for everything' contract. Everything's isolated on a per-movie basis, even the merchandising, down to the point that the production companies are often created just for that particular movie to make all those arragements.

      Yeah, its not like there are a million other people in LA who'd sign their souls away to be on the radio... tv...movies... Hell, if you have a nice camera and a studio, you can get women (the dumber, tawdry kind anyway) to do a screen test for porn for free, just for the chance at exposure...

      Not like those contracts would become standard and then comeback to haunt someone 20 years later...

    4. Re:Do they have to pay him? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      What about the Film Actors Guild? They seem like the kind of people who can get shit done.

    5. Re:Do they have to pay him? by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quick clarification, Universal Studios settled with Crispin the day before it was to go to trial - supposedly because they didn't want to reveal their accounting practices. It hasn't been an issue since as "the Screen Actors Guild later rewrote their rules regarding the derivative use of actors' works in films or TV series, setting terms under which to require the studios and networks to give payment and credit to the actors." Citation: http://www.answers.com/topic/back-to-the-future-part-ii#Replacement_of_Crispin_Glover

    6. Re:Do they have to pay him? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its not like there are a million other people in LA who'd sign their souls away to be on the radio... tv...movies... Not like those contracts would become standard and then comeback to haunt someone 20 years later...

      You're right, those contracts wouldn't become standard. What do you think the Actor's Guild is around for?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Do they have to pay him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe Silent Bob cleared this all up nicely when discussing likeness rights with Banky Edwards.

    8. Re:Do they have to pay him? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Of course there is a way, it's called money.
      If he doesn't do it now, his estate will after he dies.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Do they have to pay him? by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      As I recall, there was a bit of a shitstorm back in 1997 over the use of a digitally generated Bill Clinton in the movie Contact. Apparently they forgot to ask permission.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    10. Re:Do they have to pay him? by mikael · · Score: 1

      There was a story some time ago about how one of the actors in the Batman movie (Jack Nicholson?) who signed a contract giving him royalties from the Batman movie. Due to a slight legal typing error, an extra comma crept in instead of a full stop, which gave him royalties from all future movies and not just the one he had acted in.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    11. Re:Do they have to pay him? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Copyright is theft

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  13. Why is by koan · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why is Arnold calling he does acting?

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Why is by unitron · · Score: 1

      The same reason that he calls what he does now governing?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    2. Re:Why is by gnick · · Score: 1

      Why is Arnold calling [what] he does acting?

      Because he's a politician.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:Why is by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      Why is Arnold calling [what] he does acting?

      Because he's a politician.

      But still, it's amazing how many different and hugely successful careers this guy has had in one lifetime. Whatever you think about Arnold, and I'm not a fan, he has a knack for excelling at what he does.
      Each of the feats below alone is more then most people accomplish in a lifetime:
      - Mr. Universe.
      - One of the most successful actors of our time.
      - The highest office an immigrant in the USA can achieve.
      - Married into the Kennedy clan.
      - A successful business career, making him a millionaire even before he got into acting.

      If anything, he's a very determined overachiever, and I think that's why a lot of people don't like him. I think it's much to simple to put the label Politician on him.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
  14. I'll be back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right after they figure out how to create my digital clone....

  15. Let it go by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Funny

    You know, when your main actors are getting so old they have to be digitally reproduced - that might just maybe possibly be a sign that you should let it drop already.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Let it go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like they did in Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Why develop new content and actor/actresses when Hollywood has the best recycling program around.

      Mij

    2. Re:Let it go by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      To be fair he only gave up acting because he was governor. He may have very well been able to handle the role (let's face it his model of terminator didn't move much) but he would have went back on his promise of taking the role of governor seriously and not going off and acting.

    3. Re:Let it go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indiana Jones?

    4. Re:Let it go by Failed+Physicist · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our eternal, digitally reproduced robot overlords.

  16. It's aliiive! by PMuse · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... so the figure can appear in "Terminator Salvation" as a living, breathing actor.

    To recap, we will have a CGI farm pretending to be an actor pretending to be a robot pretending to be a man.

    Imagine if we could get a Beowulf cluster of these things.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:It's aliiive! by rts008 · · Score: 1

      To recap, we will have a CGI farm pretending to be an actor pretending to be a robot pretending to be a man.

      Yes, sometimes even Hollywood writers can't outdo the weirdness of reality.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    2. Re:It's aliiive! by Binestar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Imagine if we could get a Beowulf cluster of these things.

      Judgement day?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    3. Re:It's aliiive! by ZOmegaZ · · Score: 1

      I know! We'll call it Skynet!

    4. Re:It's aliiive! by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

      To recap, we will have a CGI farm pretending to be an actor pretending to be a robot pretending to be a man.

      Imagine if we could get a Beowulf cluster of these things.

      It would strip naked, scream "Beowulf!" and rip the arm off of something?

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    5. Re:It's aliiive! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our uhh..wait ..what?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:It's aliiive! by mgiuca · · Score: 1

      To recap, we will have a CGI farm pretending to be an actor pretending to be a robot pretending to be a man.

      Wait, that should be...

      We will have a CGI farm pretending to be a man pretending to be an actor pretending to be a robot pretending to be a man.

    7. Re:It's aliiive! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, I just can't bring myself to post another one "I, for one..." comment... ...I'm sorry, I just can't do that, Dave...

  17. And for payment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll give the digital Arnold a flight sim.

  18. dear god, not another child fantasy bent over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, quit raping my childhood!
    Kirk is now a fat old has been doing priceline commercials and a spoiled emo brat. (Talk about talent!)
    Darth Vader is a pussy whinny mama's boy.
    Indiana Jones is an old wannabe who is married and has a kid.
    Superman has a kid.
    James Bond gets played and used by a women and Q is dead.
    And the terminator is now a cgi sprit.
    Dear lord what is the world coming to?

    I understand the need to create sequels but this need to add to a series who's last installment was greater then 10 years ago needs to stop. Come up with some new ideas or at least rename them more then just slapping a increment onto the title.

    1. Re:dear god, not another child fantasy bent over by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      Come up with some new ideas or at least rename them more then just slapping a increment onto the title.

      For me, a "Plan C" would be to "Make the damn movies faster!"

      Take James Bond - If you're worried about the actor getting all old on you (a la Moore) then release a Bond movie every year - Apparently we're not getting Bond 23 until 2011! In my mind that's an unnecessarily long period of time.

      Contrast that with the early 60s:

      Dr. No: 1962
      From Russia with Love: 1963
      Goldfinger: 1964
      Thunderball: 1965

      In their day, Goldfinger and Thunderball were some of the most complicated movies ever made (Gadget DB5, Fort Knox, Vulcan Bombers, Underwater Battles) yet they were a year apart.

      If you want to get max dollar from your franchises Hollywood, then take advantage of the damn franchise, and don't make us wait forever for each release!

  19. How long by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Until we don't even need the flesh to model after, and have 100% digital entities as actors?

    Ya, i know there was a movie about that, but how long until its actually going to happen? I think we could just about do it now, technically.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:How long by Paralizer · · Score: 3, Funny
      All My Circuits: The Movie
      • Directed by Directing Unit 4
      • Written by Writing Unit 5 and Writing Unit 12
      • Based on Original Characters by Original Character Unit 17
    2. Re:How long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'mean cartoons? ...

    3. Re:How long by geekoid · · Score: 1

      a couple more hard ware revision to the animation cluster should just about do it, so 10 years, or so.

      They can, right now, make an animated person that looks and acts just like a real person. 15 seconds takes about 3 months to render.
      And I mean, real looking. Completely on our side of the uncanny valley.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:How long by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      There must be a company at Hollywood to do 3d scans of actors for future. I remember some actor talking about it on TV but forgot which one. It makes good sense, today we may not have the technology or even the languages to write such code but in future, the data can be used.

      Better than freezing them with the hope of some technology will wake them up you know :)

  20. Tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is this tagged "diealready"?
    Insensitive assholes!

  21. I don't know about you by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    ...but I think the world would probably be a better place without that particular movie. Don't you?

    See "Nuking the Fridge" for details.

    Link

    Link

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:I don't know about you by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      I personally disagree. I thought the movie was decent, although certainly not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark or Last Crusade. It was certainly better than Temple of Doom, so you can't even say it was the worst in the series.

      Seriously. Anyone who can look me in the eye and call Crystal Skull worse than Temple of Doom is most likely lying to themselves, bitter because they had impossibly high expectations built up over time, or on drugs. I will never understand how the fans can bitch about Crystal Skull, but apparently accept Temple of Doom.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:I don't know about you by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Anyone who can look me in the eye and call Crystal Skull worse than Temple of Doom is most likely lying to themselves, bitter because they had impossibly high expectations built up over time, or on drugs.

      Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid. Right.

      I will never understand how the fans can bitch about Crystal Skull, but apparently accept Temple of Doom.

      Crystal Skull was OK, but it's not as good as Temple of Doom. There are several huge plot holes (why didn't the Skull just tell the crazy man how to get into the chamber, after telling him where the city was? Why the alien at the beginning was unable to regenerate, even when the other aliens regenerated from skeletal state in seconds?), and lets face it, Soviets simply aren't very good villains. Apart from that, it felt quite rushed at the end, and there are no real high points in the film. Finally, aliens just plain didn't do it for me.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  22. Well, obviously! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A body-cast mold of Schwarzenegger, created when he first appeared as the muscle-ripped cyborg, provided the basis for a digital-effects version of his famous character"

    I mean, where do you think Skynet got the data for an appropriate human body? It just used the data that was already conveniently available from the combined MPAA/military database of the future. That's why all the terminators "coincidentally" look like actors.

    1. Re:Well, obviously! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It just used the data that was already conveniently available from the combined Skynet/military database of the future. That's why all the terminators "coincidentally" look like actors.

      FTFY.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  23. guv no longer has to appear in person by bugi · · Score: 1

    Soon we will no longer need human governors.

    No more need for blackmail or extortion or bribery to make sure the puppet politicians stay in line.

  24. Come with me if you want to live by stevedmc · · Score: 0

    Need I say more?

  25. Hitler lover by Tgeigs · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Does the body cast also "admire Hitler"? Otherwise, I would have to say its authenticity is in question...

    1. Re:Hitler lover by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Does the body cast also "admire Hitler"?

      Polly wanna cracker?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  26. Oblig Futurama by tick_and_bash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lucy Liu Bots anyone?

  27. Why Schwarzenegger? by RManning · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All that technology and they do Arnold? Why aren't they putting digital Jessica Biel in more movies?

    1. Re:Why Schwarzenegger? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      over 1o years ago I said they should replace Vanna White with Lora Croft. Just animator her in there, the letter already change on there own.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  28. Diamond Age by KTheorem · · Score: 1

    This is just one step closer to ractors and mouse armies.

  29. Doesn't Have Time? by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I suspect this is less about Arnold not being able to find the time than about the changes in his appearance. He's 25 years older, he's had heart-valve-replacement surgery, and although he's still physically active, he doesn't have the muscle-bound physique of his Pumping Iron days. A CGI Arnold will be a lot more convincing than the real thing!

    A standard problem when you have people playing "android" robots. Actors age. (So do machines, but not the same way.) I think the main reason they killed off Data in the last Star Trek movie was the difficulty explaining away Brent Spinner's signs of age. So they set up a new character who's supposedly a sort of continuation of Data, all ready to to play the role in the next sequel — which, I dearly hope, never gets made.

    BTW, every time our Governor is on the news, I keep expecting him to turn to the camera and say, "Ai ahm ah macheen!"

    1. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      all ready to to play the role in the next sequel -- which, I dearly hope, never gets made.

      I never understand comments like these. While another Next-Gen movie is highly unlikely, why do you care if they make one? I'm sure many people would be happy to see Picard, Riker, Worf and the gang go at it again. If you don't want a sequel then don't go.

    2. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by tzhuge · · Score: 1

      It probably also has to do with the PR problem of appearing in a movie while there is a serious recession/crisis on. The public expects their politicians to be hard at work in these times. I'm don't know what that really means and I doubt politicians do, but they have to at least do a good job of appearing to be hard at work.

    3. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They killed Data? huh.
      Maybe now I'll watch it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by LateArthurDent · · Score: 2, Informative

      They killed Data? huh. Maybe now I'll watch it.

      Don't. They didn't, and it's a horrible movie. Yes, Data "dies" but not before transferring his memories into another Android that was a prototype to Soong's other androids. They did this specifically because they wanted to be able to resurrect him in another movie (but then Nemesis bombed, and that was it for TNG movies), so I'm pretty sure they didn't kill him because of his appearance.

    5. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Logically, I shouldn't care. The fact that I do is probably the last vestige of my Trekkieness.

    6. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      They didn't, and it's a horrible movie.

      I assumed it would be. That's why I made a point of reading as many spoilers as I could stomach, so I wouldn't be tempted to actually see it.

    7. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by LackThereof · · Score: 1
      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    8. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by Trojan35 · · Score: 1

      While Arnold has made some mistakes, he's actually been our hardest working governer in decades. Oh, and he works for free. He might not be perfect, but I really like having a governor who is following his conscience as a leader.

    9. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by Snaller · · Score: 1

      "I think the main reason they killed off Data in the last Star Trek movie was the difficulty explaining away Brent Spinner's signs of age."

      Which is weird, because of one of the first episodes they say that his skin grows older. That was apparently quickly forgotten.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    10. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      T-1000, like Data, should not age.

      T-1000 has an external shell made of flesh. Shouldn't that age normally? For that matter, the internal joints will wear down, just like those of humans... So, when will we see: "Terminator: Gray Death" and "Terminator: Arthritis" ?-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Doesn't Have Time? by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      The T-1000 was consctructed from a mimetic poly-alloy, and was masterfully portrayed by Robert Patrick in the second (and final, dammit!) Terminator movie.

      You're both thinking of the Arnie T-800/T-850 model Terminator.

      --
      Eat the rich.
  30. it would be a nice meta-commentary by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if a real life skynet evolved out of the computing power needed to make the next terminator movie realistic ;-)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  31. After HE's through here by ccool · · Score: 1

    There will be nothing left

  32. Replacing Arnies voice? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    They could cut and splice existing Terminator dialog like they did in South Park for Chef after Isaac Hayes went goofy with scientology. Or mabye have Seth MacFarlane do the voice ala Stewie. That would be cool.

  33. Schwartzeneggar as terminator != acting by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Governator revealed this week that he may appear in the upcoming 'Terminator Salvation,' but when he said he didn't want to act, he left many fans scratching their heads.

    I don't see why, that's perfectly lucid if you ask me.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  34. TIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus people are so pretentious with this 'Typo in summary' tag! get a life.

  35. So this is different than his other movies? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1, Redundant

    When has he ever really acted?

  36. And if the executors are dead? by gosand · · Score: 1

    What would happen then? Maybe he has an estate who could fight it. Weird legal ground I bet.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:And if the executors are dead? by Chabo · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Paul Newman Foundation is his executor. As long as you see Newman's Own food on the shelves, I think they'll be able to fight it. ;)

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  37. Data (was: Doesn't Have Time?) by erko · · Score: 1

    Actors age. (So do machines, but not the same way.) I think the main reason they killed off Data in the last Star Trek movie was the difficulty explaining away Brent Spinner's signs of age. So they set up a new character who's supposedly a sort of continuation of Data, all ready to to play the role in the next sequel

    That sort of makes sense, but I'm thinking they replaced Data because, like his replacement, the earlier robotic/child-like Data is much more interesting than grown up Data (or any android) who has emotions and acts pretty much human.

  38. Schwarzenegger. by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    Schwarzenegger does not make Terminator, Terminator.
    Linda Hamilton does.

  39. Uncanny valley by Traa · · Score: 0

    That's all cute and all, but until I see it I'm not convinced that digitized versions can replace the real thing. As far as I am concerned we are at the worst part of the 'uncanny valley' right now. Sure it will get better but that could be a while out.

    Also, I think it will eventually work great on those actors who *cough* can't act. A digital Bogart doesn't make a great movie.

  40. So in 10 years... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So in 10 years when we have the hardware to do this kinda thing on the average home PC... how scary is THAT going to be?

    Poser pr0n is already bad enough now, can you imagine when it's a) Photorealistic and b) Based on real people?

    I can see the scandals now.

    "IL&M Apologizes for accidental leak of 3d Model Data"

    "Jamie Lynn Spears / JFK sex tape confirmed fake"

    "George Washington Punk Rock Show a surprise hit on new Youtube 5.0"

    "'Jesus' starring in new Talk show on UPN, Neo-Christian groups object."

    1. Re:So in 10 years... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Great, of course at that point we would need actors for movies..why?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:So in 10 years... by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      Great, of course at that point we would need actors for movies..why?

      Because CGI constructs can't give in person interviews and the like. Extras will be replaced by CGI (and already are to a certain point), and "actors" will end up being multi-functional personalities (actor + musician, actor + author, actor + stuntman, etc etc).

    3. Re:So in 10 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    4. Re:So in 10 years... by PMBjornerud · · Score: 1

      So in 10 years when we have the hardware to do this kinda thing on the average home PC... how scary is THAT going to be?

      Poser pr0n is already bad enough now, can you imagine when it's a) Photorealistic and b) Based on real people?

      I can see the scandals now.

      "IL&M Apologizes for accidental leak of 3d Model Data"

      "Jamie Lynn Spears / JFK sex tape confirmed fake"

      "George Washington Punk Rock Show a surprise hit on new Youtube 5.0"

      "'Jesus' starring in new Talk show on UPN, Neo-Christian groups object."

      This, and several other issues, are the reason that the Internet is incompatible with big media.

      Celebrities/Superstardom as we know it today is actually quite strongly linked to a one-to-many information distribution.

      --
      I lost my sig.
    5. Re:So in 10 years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extras will be replaced by CGI (and already are to a certain point), and "actors" will end up being multi-functional personalities (actor + musician, actor + author, actor + stuntman, etc etc).

      Actor + musician, actor + singer, actor + dancer... I have seen the future of film, and it is BOLLYWOOD!

    6. Re:So in 10 years... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Because CGI constructs can't give in person interviews and the like.

      Of course they can. Staged (scripted) ones, currently, but as AI technology advances they should become "real" ones eventually.

      CGI is actually the easy part of a real digital actor; the AI is the hard part. Currently the animator control every little nuance, and that's horrendously inefficient. A better AI would allow the DA to follow higher-level commands ("walk menacingly") and a human-level one could simply be given a script.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  41. Just Like As Governor by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Schwarzenegger has run California as its governor the same way: his image plastered on a scripted, empty performance that a Hollywood computer could do better.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  42. new terminator movie is garbage by SethJohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

    I worry that the new movie will be too CGI-heavy, but the Terminator series has done pretty well with the special effects so far, so I guess we'll just wait and see.

    Don't pin your hopes on this one being worthwhile. It's directed by McG, who is best known as the visionless tool who does producers' bidding to churn out crap like Charlies Angels. Other than music videos, Charlies Angles has been his biggest gig. This isn't the kind of movie where a creative genius presents a bunch of images and concepts that expands our imaginations. This movie is the product of a bunch of meetings among studio executives who asked each other, "What would the audience like to see?" Their answers to that question is derived from other films. From the trailers, it looks like a lot of what will be in this movie is Transformers imitation.

    Seth

    1. Re:new terminator movie is garbage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David Fincher also made videos, and then crap, then Fight Club and Se7en, then crap again...

      So there is a chance, you never know...

    2. Re:new terminator movie is garbage by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Yes but he's also behind Supernatural, which IMHO is one of the best series on the box at the moment.

      Yes, knowing he is behind charlies angels is worrying, but I'd like to think that Christian Bale isn't dumb enough to star in a stinker.

    3. Re:new terminator movie is garbage by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Christian Bale isn't dumb enough to star in a stinker

      Bale isn't a star anyway. He's the actor Hollywood needs, just not right now...

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:new terminator movie is garbage by mordred99 · · Score: 1

      He also does NBC's "Chuck".

  43. It has begun! by ArcadeNut · · Score: 2, Funny

    They will have to build a server farm code named "Sky Net" in order to reproduce Arnie!

    --
    Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
  44. He doesn't want to act? so same as alway, right? by geekoid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Another step to obsoleting actors.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  45. This opens up a whole can of worms by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1, Informative

    they can now digitize any actor or actress and put them in a movie via CGI effects. Even dead ones, as long as they don't have a clause in their contracts that says they cannot.

    Did you know that they almost went with OJ Simpson as The Termination instead of Arnold Schwarzenegger? Imagine if OJ got that role? They'd have to use his image because he is in jail for a long time now and couldn't be allowed to get out of jail to film the movie.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:This opens up a whole can of worms by haggus71 · · Score: 3, Funny

      OJ as the Terminator? that makes no sense. Oh, wait...

  46. Can we switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give Hollywood the fleshy Ahnuld and install the digital reproduction as Gov. ?

  47. I do not think "rape" means what you think it does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got another one from your childhood... your mama's old and fat now! Ha! SNAP! She got raped.

  48. I like the Gubernator better.

    Ditto.

    It's the logical construction from "gubernatorial" & "terminator".

    Rolls off the tongue with the same number of syllables, the same stresses, and last two syllables identical to those of "terminator".

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  49. Obligatory Pr0n by FunkflY · · Score: 0

    Penetrator 2: Fudgement Day

    was the best of the series...

  50. Yes, we do by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

    Convincing voice morphing technology was demonstrated as early as 1999:

    When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

    By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.

    Presumably, it's only improved in the last 10 years.

    --
    "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  51. If the star wars prequels has taught us anything by AbRASiON · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's that a puppet version of Yoda for $5,000 is far, far superior to a pixel version of yoda for 5 million dollars.

  52. Actually by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    The Governator is a CGI character.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  53. This was done reasonably well on The Sopranos... by VinylRecords · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livia_Soprano

    After the second season, a storyline was planned where Livia would be called to testify against her son in court, giving evidence on stolen airline tickets she had received from him, but [the actress who played her] died in 2000, before it could be filmed. Existing footage and computer-generated imagery was used to create a final scene between Tony and Livia in the episode "Proshai, Livushka" in Season Three before the character too passed on.

    Arnold should have acted in this movie and taken as much money as he could and just donated it to his state's budget.

  54. "Get to da choppah!" by haggus71 · · Score: 1

    Now I get to see Ahnald yell to Jon Connor, "Get to da choppah, Jon connah!"

  55. Should do that for his office! by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

    Actually, he should just act in person and use CGI for his governatorship duties. It would be better for California as well as himself...

  56. I, for one... by bronney · · Score: 1

    welcome our Yaol Raol Yaol Raol GET TO THE CHOPPER!!!

    Oh man who's doing his voice in the movie?

  57. This means that... by hardboiled.tequila · · Score: 1

    We can get Star Wars Episodes I-III remade into *good movies* with synthetic actors. And finish Episodes VII-IX. If we get Pixar involved, the CG actors will definitely be able to show emotion.

  58. Re:This was done reasonably well on The Sopranos.. by hackiavelli · · Score: 1

    Not only did the SFX in that scene look bizarre, the recycled dialog made the conversation largely nonsensical. It was a sad send off to the character.

  59. Re:If the star wars prequels has taught us anythin by Siener · · Score: 1

    Amen to that!

    I hate CGI Yoda almost as much as I loved the original puppet version.

  60. Re:If the star wars prequels has taught us anythin by stiller · · Score: 1

    I don't agree. For me the performance of Yoda in AotC (especially the Dooku scene) was the highlight of the film and far superior to that of Hayden Christensen.

  61. Duh indeed! by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Never mind them, I want the software on my computer and then make my own movie with Morena Baccarin and Yvonne Strahovski!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  62. Isn't that a bit late? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    What can they do in a month? If the article talks about they might try to see if they can squeeze something it.

    Unless they did this a year ago it can only look crap.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  63. No they didn't by Snaller · · Score: 1

    He was perfectly fine. What they thought us that Lucas can't write and direct.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  64. OT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not quite sure why it was moderated Insightful

    Probably because Insightful is the new Funny.

  65. Not OJ, Lance by Dareth · · Score: 1

    I believe the were planning on using Lance Henriksen as the terminator. The original concept was to have a plain ordinary looking person turn out to be a robotic killing machine.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling