Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Autonomous Robots Could be the Future of High Flying Stunts in Hollywood (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.

From a report: Visitors to Disneyland and other Disney resorts could end up seeing robots tackling some pretty crazy, death-defying stunts usually reserved for Marvel superheroes and Star Wars Jedi Masters. Disney's latest Stuntronics experiments with robots include teaching them to crawl, row and now, more impressively, perform daring aerial acrobatics. A new video features the robots propelled into the sky to spin and leap like robotic superheroes. And they look even more advanced and human-like than the last time we saw them. The robots, initially nicknamed Stickman, work by using on-board accelerometers, gyroscopes and laser range-finding data to determine how to perform impressive stunts like single and double backflips.

41 comments

  1. Robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't all that CGI already anyway?

    Though as always, why do we still have humans around if we can just as easily replace them with {CGI,robots,direct mind manipulation,...}?

    1. Re:Robots? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering that for years. I mean, considering the wooden acting that is the standard these days, that could've been done in CGI two decades ago, why pay them millions when you could render a more appealing face with more emotion in a sweatshop in Korea?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Robots? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      > I mean, considering the wooden acting that is the standard these days

      Are you just being controversial or do you actually consider there being a strong decline in acting in film/TV since....? I'm trying to figure what decade you'd be setting as "peak non-woodeness" (50s, 60s 70s?) and when and how this decline actually came into play. Also, is there a total higher volume of media produced, thus dropping the overall average? Curious to hear your methodology for this explosive statement!

    3. Re:Robots? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I think plot, originality and content has generally gone down hill in recent decades- the writing has suffered. I think acting by and large has got better. If you look at a lot of TV or movies made in the 60's, 70's, and 80's there is a lot more shoddy acting that made it through to the final cut than today.

      There is still bad acting even today, but even low budget stuff frequently has a better quality actor than say something from the 1970s. John Wayne? William Shatner? Silvester Stallone? They've been in some great stuff- but would they be able to establish themselves today as a new actor? (granted Shatner still gets roles- but I think that's from fame power more than ability) John Wayne was probably the "Rock Johnson" of his age- and whereas the rock is far from a steller actor and is eclipsed by many, he's not John Wayne wooden.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:Robots? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 2

      Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).

      What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one. Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelitis, remakes, etc, but those are certainly not new in Hollywood, certainly not in the past 60-70 years. I think there's probably more of them because of the much larger market for these types of things, but does that mean there's an absolute lesser number of quality films being made each year? I'm pretty skeptical of that statement.

      Also, Stallone established himself right out of the gate with Rocky, which he got an oscar nod for. I think he'd still get a nod if they made that movie today, and probably Talia Shire too.

    5. Re:Robots? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).

      What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one.

          Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelitis, remakes, etc, but those are certainly not new in Hollywood, certainly not in the past 60-70 years.

      In any age there is good and bad films and television programs. You can probably pick out an excellently written show and a poorly written show from any decade. Picking out individual shows doesn't really help define a trend; and yes, for writing my complaints is more about movies than shows. I will concede, there are actually a lot of really good shows right now (and a lot of really bad ones).

      Any observation on a trend is subjective, I realize that... it's a very subjective industry.

      There probably are some well written films made too- but they're not the ones that make it big, it feels like all the big films are Marvel or robots fighting each other these days and completely devoid of plot. There may be some great films written too- but they tend to get lost- and maybe the fault of that is the audience.

      I do think acting has dramatically improved though; (especially in TV) if due to nostalgia I go back and watch a show from the 80's or earlier it's frequently quite shocking how bad some of the acting was back then- but I didn't even notice when I saw the shows decades ago.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  2. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CGI is cheaper. If not now, then it will be in the future and it will be ready a heck of a lot faster than robots will.

    The kind of functionality being built helps no one but Skynet. I used to joke about this. Nowadays I'm joking less and less.

    1. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new T-800 overlords.

      Dun dun dun da dun
      Dun dun dun da dun

    2. Re:Why? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      CGI also looks terrible. It's like no one even makes an effort to look physical, it's all stylistic now. You think an actual "Transformer" could move that quickly if it were made of matter in the real world?

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you propose they utilize CGI in a live stunt show at a theme park? Projections of pre-recorded video aren't very impressive.

    4. Re:Why? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a big disadvantage for robot stunts. Too realistic and boring.

    5. Re:Why? by dwywit · · Score: 2

      It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.

      If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    6. Re:Why? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Robot rowing units are ready to row the big boat ride up and down the candy themed factory ride all day. No human shift workers needed.
      No unions.
      Paying guests per day is better as robots can be kept to a set rate of speed. The need to hire an entertainer lowers wage costs.
      To tell tourists about the candy and how it is mixed.
      A full crew with skills and musical ability for the big drum is not needed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Why? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I feel no empathy for modern action movie actors. It's all so fake now. It doesn't help that they regularly show the 'behind the screen' action with every single thing covered in green sheets, and the actors full of white dots standing on a pile of mattresses.

    8. Re:Why? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, to be honest, with most of Hollywood's actors and how credible and sincere they can portray the hero, it doesn't help in the caring department either.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CGI is cheaper. If not now, then it will be in the future and it will be ready a heck of a lot faster than robots will.

      This is exactly the opposite of reality. CGI is expensive and slow. Some animatronics in a dummy will be much cheaper and faster and there isn't anything coming down the pike that will change that.

      The kind of functionality being built helps no one but Skynet. I used to joke about this. Nowadays I'm joking less and less.

      Seriously? Some motors and framework in a pile of clothes and you think Skynet? You need to step away from screens for awhile and get back to reality.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a big disadvantage for robot stunts. Too realistic and boring.

      No, it isn't.
      When you get the physics right things starts to look great.

      Many modern animators doesn't understand what happens when you drop a feather and a bowling ball at the same time in a vacuum chamber and they don't understand how force and mass interact.
      That is why the cave troll in LotR looks like a plastic toy and the Pacific Rim 2 trailer looked like a power rangers fight.

      To be fair I think a problem is that teachers are very bad at explaining how it works.
      I think that besides the bowlingball+feather experiment one should also demonstrate equal density but different mass.
      1) Drop a large heavy object as reference.
      2) Divide it in multiple smaller objects and drop. See if smaller lighter objects reaches the ground slower or faster.
      Alternatively:
      1) Drop a small object.
      2) Drop several identical objects next to each other and see if that is different from dropping a single one.
      3) Glue them together to get a larger heavier one and see if it changes the result.

      Of course, by the time the animators start working they have forgotten all they learned in school since they just studied to pass some arbitrary test score rather than actually learn.

    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stunts are fairly irrelevant with regards to this.

      Problem is that writing these days are too focused on one-liners that looks great in the trailer.
      There is very little character building and the interaction between the characters is often interchangeable.
      If you take the script and strip the names from it you wouldn't be able to tell who the two characters talking to each other were, or even if the next line is directed at the same person.

      Of course you don't feel any empathy. Even if the actor is capable they are not even trying to portray a person to feel empathy towards.

    12. Re:Why? by houghi · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Friends episode where Chandler says about the death of Bambi's mom "So I should feel sad because the artists stopped drawing?"

      There are plenty of examples where people feel empathy for innate objects (Insert joke about ex here). It could be that you are such a buzzkill that says "He is just acting, it is not real at all." with any movie and never read any book, because "how can you feel anything about some letters and punctuation.

      So here is some information for you: regardless if it is an actor, a stuntman, a robot or CGI: it is not real.

      Depending on how this is used, it could be bad (Michael Bay bad) or good (LotR good). It could mean that live actors can better interact with what is happening, while no restrictions that wires for a stuntman bring apply.

      This being Disney it will be used both for good AND evil at the same time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:Why? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      CGI also looks terrible. It's like no one even makes an effort to look physical, it's all stylistic now. You think an actual "Transformer" could move that quickly if it were made of matter in the real world?

      Quickly? Maybe, it depends on how much power it's got, and can expend. What's really offensive is how flying vehicles and animals are moved around scenes. They almost never look realistic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Why? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.

      If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?

      Ideally, the trick is to make it not look like a robot. If you can tell it's a robot then they've failed miserably... and yes, I do realize they fail miserably fairly frequently.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Acting is a doomed profession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The heyday of acting is long gone. The decline started in the 1970s when movie theatres started to become smaller and smaller.

    Eventually, most actors will be animatronic and/or CGI.

  4. Consider the options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Bill Hicks suggested we use terminally ill people, which is much simpler, cheaper and more accessible.

    1. Re:Consider the options by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, did he put his money where his mouth was?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Consider the options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, BIll Hicks. That guy who became Alex Jones.

  5. What's the point on watching robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How boring, watching robots would be very dull and dreary.. it would remove the awe and wonder from the show... 90% of people go for the spectacle of superhuman feats,and or the possible failure of the attempt..
    You might get a few nerds attending just for the kinematic specticle but other than that I don't see the point...

    To me that would be similar to the difference of buying a CD-ROM and going to a live show, no comparison!!

    I guess the Chinese and Japanese peoples would buy into it, they already have virtual pop starts that are holograms and recordings played like a live concerts, and attended by thousands!!!

    1. Re:What's the point on watching robots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How boring, watching robots would be very dull and dreary.. it would remove the awe and wonder from the show... 90% of people go for the spectacle of superhuman feats,and or the possible failure of the attempt.. You might get a few nerds attending just for the kinematic specticle but other than that I don't see the point...

      To me that would be similar to the difference of buying a CD-ROM and going to a live show, no comparison!!

      I guess the Chinese and Japanese peoples would buy into it, they already have virtual pop starts that are holograms and recordings played like a live concerts, and attended by thousands!!!

      Disney is a family experience, they probably don't want kids thinking humans might die in the performance. But they could pretend the robot is a human or superhuman. You can give the robot hero-proportioned body (huge torso, small head) and put them in a costume (no cape, obviously). As Disney owns Marvel, they have a few to choose from.

  6. It's all fun and games until someone loses a life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are talking about dynamic control of extreme forces here. If you do a stunt of a superhero with superpowers, supreme amounts of power are involved. Who are going to be the first to die? Camera men? Stunt operators? Bystanders?

  7. [BH]ollywood proves again.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have no idea what Entertainment is. It's really simple, using Robots defeats the ENTIRE FSCKING POINT of a stunt. You're supposed to sit back in awe over the act of a human, not Robot and not CGI. What is the point otherwise, to prove Robots can jump farther, move faster, take bullets to the head and survive?? GTFOML.

    I'm tired of seeing movies that are nothing but CGI, not even NEW CGI. AFAIC when you pull shit like this you should be disqualified from competing for accolades meant to honor human skill, not programming. And yes, that applies to animations.

  8. what is the point? by sad_ · · Score: 1

    the thrill of watching a stunt is knowing that a human is doing it, who cares about a stunting robot?
    and for hollywood mvie stunt doubles, isn't it cheaper these days to just do cgi?

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:what is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the point. By creating robot stunt doubles they have an object to map the CGI onto in a way that looks physically plausible. It's the advantage of physical stunts combined with CGI and no risk to living people.

      Your CGI model has to be perfect, otherwise the CGI looks wrong/fake or uncanny to the audience. The best CGI work out there currently maps to real physical objects and motion.

      Pure CGI might be cheaper, but it generally looks like crap. The best stunts are those done physically.

    2. Re: what is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cumming soon, Robot porn!

    3. Re:what is the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure Christopher Nolan would rather die than let CGI touch his films.

      I may be exaggerating, but he did do this:
      http://goodkin.org/inception-hallway-fight-bts/

      I mean look at the size of that rotatable hall way!

  9. This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense by gweihir · · Score: 1

    If you can do it by robot, you can do it far, far cheaper by CGI.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you can do it by robot, you can do it far, far cheaper by CGI.

      But, is it better or more realistic?

      I've seen a lot of movies where the CGI is .. well, garbage. There was a period where they were using "Digital Stuntman" or whatever it was called, and as soon as they cut to the CGI version, you could immediately tell.

      CGI is pointless if the image is so jarringly obvious that it is badly done CGI.

    2. Re:This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Somewhat more difficult to do CGI in a live show at a theme park, which is what this is about.

    3. Re:This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      How do you project a cgi image above a theme park where there is no display device? Maybe just make all your visitors wear VR goggles? What's the point of going to the park then?

  10. And they look absolutely fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing looks more real than a camera pointed at something.

  11. This isn’t going to end well... by Dru+Nemeton · · Score: 1
    Just imagine impressionable kids watching these “real life superheros” doing all these amazing stunts right before their very eyes! Then they go home and emulate what they just saw someone else doing.

    I foresee a whole lot of kids earning “Disney Darwin Awards”....