Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digital Schwarzenegger Set For New 'Terminator'

Posted by samzenpus on from the he-said-he'd-be-back dept.

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."

19 of 309 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:Duh! by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    7. 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)

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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).

      --
      StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
    11. 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.

      --
      StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
  2. 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 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?

    2. 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
    3. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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
  5. 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.