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."

66 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 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 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.

    4. 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)

    5. 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...

    6. 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
    7. 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.

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

      Mmmm, sagging manboobs

      --
      http://freelinuxguides.wikidot.com
    9. 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.

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

      Not to mention Fatty Arbuckle...

      Fixed that for you.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Re:Duh! by hoffmanbike · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    14. 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.
    15. Re:Duh! by JoelisHere · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      Sorry couldn't help myself.

    16. 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.
    17. 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
    18. Re:Duh! by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    19. Re:Duh! by tenton · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to mention Keanu Reeves...

      Fixed that for you.

      I thought he was already a robot?

    20. 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?

    21. 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.

    22. 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)

    23. 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.

    24. 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.'"
    25. 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).

    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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.
    29. 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...

  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 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 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 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.
    4. 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.

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

      Anyone remember SIM0NE?

    3. 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!
  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?

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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

  10. 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.
  11. 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 Binestar · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Judgement day?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
  12. 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
  13. Oblig Futurama by tick_and_bash · · Score: 2, Funny

    Lucy Liu Bots anyone?

  14. 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?

  15. 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 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.

  16. 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
  17. 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!
  18. 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."

  19. 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

  20. 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
  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. Re:This opens up a whole can of worms by haggus71 · · Score: 3, Funny

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