ILM Artist Predicts Future of CG Actors

[PhilOsirus]

Yep, now with good animators and modelers and creative artists behind the characters, we will have characters whom's appearance and attitude will be 100% based on the idea the writer had, and not an actor chosen because he looks like the character. Animators have absolute control over every single movement, from the blinking eyes to breathing. With a good team, a CG character can definitly be more believable than a real actor, of course it should not be over used as its usage is not useful in all cases.

[heavyness]

i hope they mean the Academy will be ready to give away an Oscar to a bunch of pixels instead of a human being. Gollum is living proof CG actors are as good as there meat bag side kicks.

[malducin]

I would be willing to take on that bet, it ain't gonna happen. There is more to good actors and stars than just saying lines. What about the happy accidents and adlibs actors do on a set, which the director can then choose duriong editing. Imagine how many diferent takes someone like Robin Williams or Jack Nicholson go through (for different reasons). It would be tough and certainly pointless to do it via CG. If anything that's what VFX should do, things that can't be done by a human, creatures, VFX, stunts, etc.

Many pros have said they are not interested in CG humans.

[Craneb]

Very interesting,thax for the link.:thumbsup:

[Joril]

Hmm, of course some actors are genious in their own ways..
And I have to say that the "emotions" on the FF movie puppets were a little blank. Though The ones in the final flight of the osiris were a little better.
I think we need to look not only to improvement of technology but also of animationskills.
Of course there's always motion capture to get the bulk of the motion.
You can't ignore people are willing to push the edge as far as possible, as far as technology and skill will allow it - for the time being.
And where there's a will...

[MelC]

That's great.All will be CG soon.:p

[moovieboy]

Quote:
"Anielewicz now predicts the field is on the verge of achieving the ``holy grail,'' a fully digital, computer-generated human character that is indistinguishable from flesh and blood. Within five years, Anielewicz wagers, such a character will beat out the carbon-based competition to win an Oscar."

Could there be a truly realistic-looking CG human in five years? Sure, why not... but win an Oscar? Absolute nonsense.

If it looks like, talks like and moves like a human where you can't tell the difference... then, except for SPFX/Stunt work, there's no need for it beyond the novelty factor.

I think the "holy grail" analogy is appropriate, because once we have it, it'll change everything and nothing at the same time.. or not :D

-Tom

[fattdex]

Gollums award speech : http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856 : language warning!!!

[jeremybirn]

It took decades of lobbying (mostly by Disney) before they created a "best animated feature" oscar catagory - the academy waited until Disney had real competition so there'd be a contest. The ironic thing was, when the first was finally given away, Shrek won, and no Disney Feature Animation films were even nominated.

Now, will they create an academy award for best animated/virtual character? Perhaps to be picked up by the voice actor, mocap performer, or lead animator? Not likely. It's a group effort, and if there are multiple characters in the film, then different animators might work on different characters. So, best virtual character, best fight scene, and so on will go to MTV awards, but not academy awards.

Of course I agree that photoreal virtual humans are increasingly possible to pull off, vitally useful, and will be more and more popular each year, but the academy award prediction is a bit much.

-jeremy

[LEEBLEEB]

What about in 30 years the robotic and cyborg actor awards.:shrug:

[Joe2003]

I would be willing to take on that bet, it ain't gonna happen. There is more to good actors and stars than just saying lines.

I will to. It's just not going to happen. Gollum was good, but he sure as heck didn't deserve an acting Oscar. He nor any digital character comes close to the nuanced performances of actors such as Pacino, Nolte, Crowe, Hanks, Judy Dench, etc. I could go on and on.

What they'll do is probably add best CGI character, or best CGI actor.

[heavyness]

the ONLY way a studio can pull this is off is by NOT telling anyone the character is CG. the minute you do, the humans watching will watch the character and spot every mistake. but if we are fooled and we do not know the character is CG, the human brain will accept it until it knows better.

if i where Lucas or Weta, i would pay an actor alot of $$$ to keep his/her mouth shut and tell everyone they worked on the movie but replace them with an CG character.

[malducin]

The problem is not the actor, but the "brilliant" minds at studios. You know that they would want to promote that way regardless of protest from the filmmakers. Final Fantasy was a classic example where the Sony touted the "indistiguishable" CG actors, even though I've heard from people at Square that they were slightly stylized and never meant to pass for real.

Im with Joe2003 here. It should be CG character at the most and should reward the team (voice actor, VFX supe, Animation Supre, etc.). In that way the VFX Oscar covers that. And besides the VES awards is indeed recognizing CG characters in their own category (Gollum won for the first edition).

Besides it was kind of silly this campaigning this past Oscars. What about all the other actors that had superb performances last year but were not nomianted (Dennis Quaid in Far From heave coms to mind, and Robin Williams didn't do too bad either). Kinda dsirespectful and in a way kinda doing to them what they are doing to CG and VFX, whch I think there are better ways to go about.

If people need a cause, why not for starters have the VFX and Sound categories have 5 nominees instead of 3 like most other categories.

[E.Z. Schwartz]

As much as I like CG, I like people better. A CG actor to replace a human actor is just a stupid ass idea. Virtual stunt men and things like that is cool, but there's absolutly no point replacing a human actor, except for the challenge of doing it I guess. I just dont get it, even if they succed it'd be impressive, but stupid and pointless. That's like dressing actors in virtual clothes, people won't be able to tell they're fake, but the filmmakers will have full control over how the cloth moves. Real clothes are fine, why replace them? People are so interested in if they can do it, they don't stop to think what a stupid idea it is.

[danteort]

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
Yep, now with good animators and modelers and creative artists behind the characters, we will have characters whom's appearance and attitude will be 100% based on the idea the writer had, and not an actor chosen because he looks like the character. Animators have absolute control over every single movement, from the blinking eyes to breathing. With a good team, a CG character can definitly be more believable than a real actor, of course it should not be over used as its usage is not useful in all cases.
You are aware that there are actors out there that get the roles because they can ACT, not because they "look the part", no?

Yes there are multitudes of talented animators with years of experience, but there are also multitudes of actors with years of experience. When it comes to acting like a human, humans are better at simply DOING it than making someone/something else do it. And if you think that good actors don't have control over every little movement they do, then I'm sorry to say you are mistaken.

As of now, a CG character can't improvise. They can't simply 'do it another way.' In five takes a human can present five radically different performances.

I just don't see the point in attempting to replace a human actor with a CG character that looks exactly like a human, unless it's to perform some task that is impossible for a human to do. It just seems like such a waste of time and talent to make loads of people spend countless hours trying to replicate the movements that a trained actor could do in ten minutes. Just my opinion.

[PhilOsirus]

I understand you point, but I don't beleive CG actors will replace real actors, but that soon they will be so real that they will enable movie makers to have complete control over the character.

Is it necessary to have such control over a character? Not in most movies, therefore there is no point to replace the human actor with a CG character in a movie like "Analyze That". But that's the traditional kind of movies, CG opens to the door to a new kind of cinema without replacing the former, it enables us to go in new directions, not just expand or ameliorate what has been done before.

A movie made in the artistic style of Yoshitaka Amano for exemple. How do you illustrate such characters:

http://www.amanosworld.com/html/work/publications/rampo/images/rampo1.jpg

Or such backgrounds:
http://www.amanosworld.com/html/work/games/images/g3.jpg

In today's Holiwood, you don't. Period, because the combinaiton of real actors portrayed as those above in the CG settings seen above would not match properly. The whole thing would have to be CG, and therefore such characters could come to life with adavanced 3D animation techniques and being very real in nature at the same time. A meaning coul dbe given to the slightest breath taken by the character, the blinking of his eyes at a certain moment, or moving in a way only a circus acrobat could, taking a position that could only be satisfactory with complete control over every inches of the body. Making every images worth a 1000 words.

Don't forget, as real as they would be, it would remain an animated movie, made by artists, animators, etc. Altho since complete control would be possible, it would be like a painter animating his canvas from one end to the other, as long as the overall project is well directed. No, it would not be a movie like "Analyze That" that would require realistic human CG characters, but the ability enables movie makers to go forward with new projects.

You can say that such a movie would fail, but that's merely an opinion, a lot of things that would have failed ended up being successes once the new media was in the hands of capable people.

[eshiu]

THe examples above are certainly what I would call stylized and thus may warrant cg characters. Bu tI do believe that that there's no way to replace real actors. If I am a director I would certainly cast a real person if I could. THe only time I would agree to use a CG character is if I need some kind of creature that can't be done by traditional methods. I dont doubt that the technology in the future will permit full realism when it comes to CG characters, but personally I still like the soul in a human being.....there's something about lookin into a real persons eye that I dont think CG will ever replicate!


E

[malducin]

Ahhh but if you want that, why not have actors and just composite the hell out of them into whatever we want. Films like What Dreams May Come and the Star Wars prequels have already shown that, and wait next year when Polar Express comes out. heck last SIGGRAPH there was this animation frmo Japan (which was like 25 min. long) with actors composited into some slightly surreal environments, and another called Le Crabes or something like that which was kind of quirky and funny.

Hey if an artist want to control even the slightest blink or breath, well sure go ahead, though that sounds a bit anal ;-). A movie is mostly a collaborative process for the most part. And in the other case you are making an animated movie so it's probably stylized anyway and the point is moot.

It'll be done but just to reach the Holy Grail, and that's that ;-).

[PhilOsirus]

The exemples above are stylised, but they could look 100% real yet keep their strange form. That's why I say you couldn't use real actors for such a setting, the special effects used with the world would have to match that used with the characters both in style, animation, and realism. And obviously, if a movie looked like that it would not play out like an normal movie.

[Dominique]

and the evolution goes on,

why would they want virtual actors for?? Ok for Star-Wars, no acting except for Joda, ...,
they will in a first place replace all third roles to save organisation-costs, ...,
maybe they are thinking doing a T4 and have bought the rights of Schwarzies digitized face and body and voice, (he ain't that young any-more),

sure they'll come to it, in Japan they have 3D-popstars now and very popular,

why not X-rated movies with CG-actors,

...weird ideas,

Dom

[Pixelmaestro]

The Academy Awards are a Public Relations event designed to promote and advertise movies. The fan fare and event is to put butts in the seats and breathe life into rental sales and wanning public appeal.

Milli Vanilli was awarded a Grammy Award, the "top" award show in the music industry.

[moovieboy]

Originally posted by Pixelmaestro
The Academy Awards are a Public Relations event designed to promote and advertise movies. The fan fare and event is to put butts in the seats and breathe life into rental sales and wanning public appeal.

Well, if ya want to be that cynical, then there is no such thing as a "good" award, even the ones you get for being good...

The Oscars are no where nearly as evil as I've seen many of you parrot on these threads...

-Tom

[Chewey]

Originally posted by Pixelmaestro
The Academy Awards are a Public Relations event designed to promote and advertise movies. The fan fare and event is to put butts in the seats and breathe life into rental sales and wanning public appeal.

Milli Vanilli was awarded a Grammy Award, the "top" award show in the music industry.

Sad but all too true. Award shows generally suck donkey gonads.

[rock]

Interesting article - More Human than Human? More Bruce Li than Bruce Lee? :)

[vrljc]

In the meantime, he will have to continue toiling in the San Francisco suburbs, putting hair and skin on fierce creatures, and answering calls from his wife, Vanessa, as to when he'll be home, with: ``I'm rendering dear,'' meaning, ``anywhere from 15 minutes to three hours.''


hhmmmmmmm.....how many times have we gotten this call? lol

[Boone]

Hmm...I belive ILM will accomplish this for Episode III. I have a gut feeling...

After watching the "Matrix Reloaded", I decided that with a dedicated crew who is upto the challenge, they can create a CG human that can be mistaken for a real actor. If only they had put a little more effort into Neo's facial animation, the "double" would have worked...

[Cman]

Originally posted by E.Z. Schwartz
As much as I like CG, I like people better. A CG actor to replace a human actor is just a stupid ass idea. Virtual stunt men and things like that is cool, but there's absolutly no point replacing a human actor, except for the challenge of doing it I guess. I just dont get it, even if they succed it'd be impressive, but stupid and pointless. That's like dressing actors in virtual clothes, people won't be able to tell they're fake, but the filmmakers will have full control over how the cloth moves. Real clothes are fine, why replace them? People are so interested in if they can do it, they don't stop to think what a stupid idea it is.

Yeah!! :applause:

[Aluuk]

I do not think it has anything to do with replacing real actors with cg actors just because it will be possible. What I really think is going on is VFX and 3D people are just like every other human. We strive to create. No one has ever created a completely realistic human down to every last detail. That makes it a challenge. Something to accomplish that has never been done. That is what feeds us as artists and humans. Once that bar is reached (and it will be) we will move to a new goal. Maybe it will be a computer program that actually references the 3d models vocal cords, mouth shape, teeth, lung capacity, nasal intake, tongue and what ever else to determine what that characters voice would really sound like (just an example that I made up). It doesn't matter if it is practical for production or not.... people will always strive to push the limits of what is deemed impossible.

[Martyr]

thats the problem Aluuk:The "fabulous" human conscience always want more, one day we will create a replicant of the human race...and we will replace...Many stories and movies have already warned us...2001, terminator serie, Matrix etc...

[MarkSnoswell]

Of course there will be Oscars for cg Characters ... and they will be as good or better than living actors. The cg Character is really just an expression of a whole team of actors that include the voice talent, motion capture talent and the animators -- it's that team's combined effort that *is* the cg Actor.

well that my 2 cents worth

[Boone]

Re: Mark.Snoswell.

Lets hope the people who run the Oscars sees it that way...:rolleyes:

[PhilOsirus]

When there will be more numerous usage of such characters there is no doubt that there will be something like "Most convincing CG character" award, otherwise it would be an aspect of movies purposely ignored, which movie awards are not supposed to do.

[MarkSnoswell]

What's really interesting is a little bit more in the future -- when we have really convincing cg Caracters that can be driven by just one or perhaps a few talented animators... now you can build virtual stars -- any they don't have agents or demand mega fees, spit the dummy, refuse to travel .. heck, your virtual star can appear in several places at once, do multiple interviews at once -- even have elicit affairs and be involved in caerfully orchestrated scandals just to boost publicity.
Of cource you then get the animators with their own agents -- demanding more fees -- and the voice tallent... but of course you can get a synthesised voice to replace them.
It's very attractive for a corperation to own a virtual star rather than a living one. Disney is the most experienced company in the worl that has owned and managed a whole troupe of virtual stars for decades -- and it's a major component of the success of Disney.

ah -- you get the idea ... anough of a rant from me tonight -- back to work now.

[Boone]

I think the best example of "Virtual Idol/mega star/ actress/actor" is Sharon Apple from Macross Plus.

When that girl found out that Sharon was just a "puppet on a string" and didn't have an AI, she was crushed!

To create a "Cyber-being", you must give it it's own AI, voice etc...only then does it become a living, breathing life form.:wise:

And I'm speaking as a programmer myself.:beer:

[moovieboy]

Originally posted by Mark.Snoswell
now you can build virtual stars -- any they don't have agents or demand mega fees, spit the dummy, refuse to travel ...

All virtual stars have agents/managers in spirit, if not in specific title. Try "casting" your next piece/advertisement with someone's work from, say, Expose without informing the creators... and see how soon you get contacted by someone who'll sound just like an agent! :D

"Demand mega fees?" How much is it to put Mickey Mouse in a 30-second spot again? :p If a character is desirable, even in CG form, it'll cost ya. Talk to the people behind Lara Croft... and I bet Andy and Weta doesn't come cheap if I want Gollum to have a cameo in my next comedy, yes?

heck, your virtual star can appear in several places at once, do multiple interviews at once...

Several places at once? How is that better, than say... A simulcast of Sting or Al Pacino or Pink over a global network? A virtual star can't really be anywhere except on a screen. So, "come to the mall to meet Gollum" events or "see Gollum on Conan tonight" just to see someone talk to a monitor... well... that's not exactly great, is it?

Or, do you mean by "several places" that they can do several projects at once? Well, that's great except Hollywood also runs on being exclusive in a way. "We're doing the next Julia Roberts/Adam Sandler/Tom Cruise movie..." If a virtual Tom Cruise could now do 50 movies a year with every production house, you've now blown one of the major attractive ingredients to audiences... It's virtual saturation and as soon as you can say "talking Taco Bell dog," your audience is bored and has moved on...

-- even have elicit affairs and be involved in caerfully orchestrated scandals just to boost publicity.

Okay, that's just weird :D... However, it's also a HUGE can o' worms. You may want Gollum to be hanging with Lara Croft ala Billy Bob and Angelina Jolie... Until some hacker breaks the code to your virtual character and now has "authentic proof" that Lara Croft has been having sex with the whole band from Gorillaz. Since it's all digital... whose to say Lara isn't banging the kids from South Park too??? :p

Of cource you then get the animators with their own agents -- demanding more fees -- and the voice tallent... but of course you can get a synthesised voice to replace them.


Yeah, why should all those talented animators get something in return (hee hee)... Am I the only one who shivers when I see how easily the word "replace" is thrown around regarding actors/voice acotrs? Be careful what ya wish for, animators can be next!

It's very attractive for a corperation to own a virtual star rather than a living one. Disney is the most experienced company in the worl that has owned and managed a whole troupe of virtual stars for decades -- and it's a major component of the success of Disney.

And if there's one thing we can learn from Disney is that a virtual character can be squeezed for every last dime, the animator is expendable... and copyrights are forever! :p

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

-Tom

[Goon]

On the bright side if the Matrix had used a digital double for Keanu they might have actually been able to sqeeze some emotion out of him.

[gmask]

Originally posted by Mark.Snoswell
Of course there will be Oscars for cg Characters ... and they will be as good or better than living actors. The cg Character is really just an expression of a whole team of actors that include the voice talent, motion capture talent and the animators -- it's that team's combined effort that *is* the cg Actor.

well that my 2 cents worth

Even though this may happen it will be in a seperate category..

Personally I think that at a certain point this kind of technology will suffer from the same poor decision making process that most committee decisions suffer from.

Every see the epsiode of the Simpsons with Poochy the dog well that stuff happens real life.

You will hear executives say make it 10% more rastafied it's need more attitude add sunglasses etc.

I think we have a long way to go before CG talent really competes with actual living human actors. Even though the technology improves every year so does the viewers awareness and sensitivity to flaws in CG.

What is more likely to happen is that as the young become more and more inundated with virtual characters they will become less appreciative of real actors. The ability to discern the difference will become weaker but not because the technology is so good but because they don't know any better.

[BrainFaucet]

I think it's pointless to replace human actors for movies and TV shows in most cases.

It's a lot cheaper and easier to just film a person talking than to prepare shots for, model, shade, record speech, motion cap a performance, clean up of the data, lip-synch, light, render and composite a photo-real human.

As far as movies and TV shows, stunt doubles and crowds are where this technology will continue to shine.

I could however see how it'd be extremely useful with interactive media. I think this is where virtual performers will be popular.

[entertainment]

This has been an interesting thread...

I must say, the idea of creating believable humans is a shaky one. The cost of animating them to carry a feature film is outrageous. The fact is, good CG talent is expensive, as is office space, hardware, etc. No producer or director in his right mind would contribute the massive resources required to make a believable human, and then animate it as a lead or supporting actor (oscar goes to these, not extras). It just takes too long to perfect the CG, and really, you can always tweak it. The fact is, making 50 or 100 (human) artists create 1 actor would cost more than just paying Jim Carrey, or Brad Pitt, 20M. Also, we need to remember that the 'Star System' is what drives the box office (which is ultimately how we get paid). Studios are not going to spend 20-50M marketing (tv etc.) a film that isn't carried by well known actors. There is a reason there are only so many actors working with so many studios. They are publicly recognizeable, and they draw audiences. The best way to get a movie financed is to attach a big name actor.

For stunts, animals and other non-human forms, CG is the solution...

For actors? Hey, let's use actors!

I wonder how many CG artists really want this to happen so they can <maybe> get a job in the film business. Maybe they should just take up acting :)

Jon

"If it works, it's obsolete"

[Andy741]

I can see cg as becoming a tool for a great actor. Isn't Tom Hank's digital double starring in Polar Express. Wouldn't it be cool to see a digital actor performed by Al Pacino or Halle Berry? I mean it's kind of experimental and exciting for actors, no? And how about actors who have to spend hours in the make up chair. If they can capture their performance in a digital double, they don't need makeup. That's a big 'if' though.

But when did the goal of animation change from breathing life to imitating life?

Muscle simulations in the face is a big step though isn't it? That Frankenstein on the http://www.cgcharacter.com/ site is amazing.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.