View Full Version : SLASHDOT: Will CGI Collapse the Hollywood Economy?

08 August 2002, 07:51 PM

as allways, the discussion is more interesting than the article :)

08 August 2002, 08:17 PM
I think this is still years away.

Not that the hollywood economy doesn't deserve to fail utterly...

Seriously, however, one thing that would seriously speed up the process would be a uniform character animation tool that sets a common standard.

So far, Messiah's the only entry on the high end. (with Poser on the low end).

I think it's still way to easy to film and/or tape things like Sitcoms and Soaps.

When those are in danger, then Hollywood is history.

08 August 2002, 11:11 AM
I love the way this one gets bendied around. It's a ridiculous idea frankly. Yes, everyday we do get closer to being able to produce a convincing CG actor. But close is all we'll ever get. The human form is far too complex to ever completely replace with a digital equivalent.

08 August 2002, 02:05 AM
What's that movie coming out with Al Pacino?

Simone I think it's called about a virtual actress which takes direct aim at the concept of a virtual actress and, YOU AND ME :D the 3D Geeks of the world....

08 August 2002, 02:24 AM
I watched a bunch of stuff about S1m0ne on TV today. I think we still have quaite a ways to go before artists are able to make a convincing human in 3D. The CG S1m0ne looks great, a bit painterly, like a Stahlberg model, but it's completely obvious that they cut to a live actress when she speaks. These models always look great until they move. I have a feeling most of the movie is going to feature the actual actress who plays S1m0ne (Rachel Roberts (III)) rather than a 3D model. Even as good as the tools are we are so accustomed to seeing actual people in motion that even the least observant viewer could spot a fake a mile away. We'll start seeing a whole lot of CG on TV (I mean just look at the way news and sports broadcasts have changed over the last couple years) but I don't think we are going to put actors out of work. Besides, artificial actors are no fun. They don't go to rehab after wrapping their Porche around a tree at 80 miles an hour, and they don't get caught bagging the famous actress wives of their colleagues.

08 August 2002, 03:50 AM
naw, the industry is still VERY bitter about Final Fantasy..
it will be a LONG time before serious CG human replacment is tried again..
and well..cost effective?
How cheap will we work for ?
I hope not more so , we gotta make a living guys.. do NOT sell your sell like a 5 dollar whore please..some of us have morgages and acualy want a family one day.

08 August 2002, 03:54 AM
You know who could change the 3D Landscape in a heartbeat is Playboy Magazine.

They won't, of course, being so entrenched in Hollywood, but they could if they wanted to, present Virtual Girls...

08 August 2002, 03:56 AM
yea that;d be GREAT..
haha naw..I'd rather see the real thing..or as close to real as those playboy girls seem to be..
CG pinup girls thanks guys.:thumbsdow

08 August 2002, 04:02 AM
Hey, it costs playboy $40,000 a month JUST for a Playmate, not to mention photographers, make up artists, travel, etc etc etc...

Playboy is a powerhouse, and CG Girls would cost them peanuts by comarrison.

If Playboy Magazine came to you and offered you $5,000 for 20 renders of a CG Model in a virtual location, would you take the money, or would you tell them they're being cheap?

08 August 2002, 04:05 AM
no GUY is going to look at playboy for digital chicks..

08 August 2002, 04:14 AM
damn straight

08 August 2002, 05:08 AM
they would if they weren't aware she was digital :D

08 August 2002, 09:12 AM
With all the airbrushing and implanting that alot of the Playboy stuff goes through, it isn't far off already.


08 August 2002, 03:14 AM
true...haha but if you really wanna look at girls some dude made on his computer..start a mag up. I'm sure you'll make some cash.

08 August 2002, 03:35 AM
yes except the only guys who would buy it is ppl like us, not for the porn, but for the artsy part lol, the only fan letters ud get would be, hey i love the texture on page 47! :p

08 August 2002, 06:38 AM
Don't tell anyone the chicks are CG and it will be fine.

Just look at that nude pic of Dr Aki Ross. I'm sure most of the public wouldn't have a clue that pic of her was CG if they hadn't seen the movie.

Hmmm... i might start a CG porno, its a damn good idea... you could undercut the price of Playboy by 50% and have chicks that look better.

Onto hollywood, It is unlikely that the CG industry will collapse the hollywood economy, it will just create a shift in the type of staff demanded, and a shift in the areas money is put into to.

There maybe an increase in unemployment for a while, but this will flatten out as people re-train into different areas.

08 August 2002, 02:47 AM
So Krugar, let's talk about Publishing :D :D

08 August 2002, 08:07 AM
"Hey! The Specular level is too high on page 56!"
SquareUSA were too busy looking at the waves and chicks at Waikiki. So, A Nude AKI ROSS? Hmmmn, never saw this one...prey, where could I find such treasure?:thumbsup:

08 August 2002, 09:29 AM

I read this thread because I found the Topic quite interessting ... and my reply is also related to publications like Playboy etc.

I think one thing that makes (or at least made) Hollywood is the presence and/or creation of Stars. CG characters show up for a number of frames in a movie and are most likely gone after that. Thus building up large fan communities and therefore "Cult-Characters" is quite impossible (yet). People are more attracted to the personality a Star delivers then to what they saw on screen. They want those snapshots showing their "idols" in real-life situations. Now Paparazies will have a hard time getting a picture of Lara Croft walking her dog :p

so long

08 August 2002, 10:56 AM
hmmm... can't find that pic of Aki Ross.... it was all over the place about a year ago.

Grey: shouldn't be hard to find a publisher!? :beer: Hard part would be finding a few talented people capable of building such characters who are willing to devote their time to such a.... a..... ummm..... dubious cause? :D

08 August 2002, 01:46 PM
we're always going to need good actors. If not to be in front of the character then to be the voice behind it. I think it is always going to be easier to find someone who looks good and can act a bit than to create one from thin air.

I do think that Hollywood's financial structure will change and we won't have 50 actors that demand $20 million per picture. Then maye some of us could like own homes or cars and things like that.

Just my two bits.:wavey:

08 August 2002, 05:35 PM
Krugar, forget "donate" that should be something of a money making enterprise...

It only gives me more incentive to keep working on becoming at least a halfway decent figure modeller (I'm not yet...)

08 August 2002, 08:09 PM
from another part of the article:

If this takes off, what will happen to all the people like the background characters, costume makers, construction, caterers, cameramen, model makers, casting companies, etc."

I think that many people are still here, at big companies, like PIXAR. Because if it will come to true acting, these people will be worthy with their experience - costume makers, fashion designers etc., even cattering wonīt lose their job, īcause animators have to eat too. And cameraman with experience from working with true lenses and depth of field can be better in bringing reality from computer, than ordinary īcomputerīone that didnīt ever hold a camera.

digital acting would have to be software automized, or no one could bring up the movie in 6 months or less with a cost of mid-budget movie. I think there is a long way, but itīs more about HOW TO, than WHEN... because to move a group of mesh points, you donīt need a strong machine, but something has to know which group should move and where.
And MoCap would have to change into something stronger too, something more straight-forward, more interactive.

:arteest: I liked this smilie.... hehe

08 August 2002, 08:32 PM
digital acting would have to be software automized

Read the article in the Massive thread!

08 August 2002, 08:57 PM
Massive will be not about acting, itīs written to produce big crowds of characters and, yes, to automate the loading of sequences of their movements in certain situations.
But I mean to automate the tedious process of expressing, for example, emotions in characterīs face and movements in its body responding to whole action. Because thatīs what takes minutes and hours for animators, where actors can do it in seconds, because they just feel it. You know, animator can deal for minutes with a single blink of eye: "should I put it there, or not?" thatīs whatīs natural to actor.
well, I donīt know how much the face MoCap systems can deal with this, but Iīve heard that F.Fantasy char. faces where still hand animated....

08 August 2002, 10:20 PM
donate? i said devote ;)

08 August 2002, 10:34 PM
Grey, :p a have read the thread about Massive, itīs probably pretty complex and smart thing, "developed from 1996...", nice.
But crowd scenes is not the main problem, where cg characters lack behind the real ones, I think. A movie is not a computer game Settlers.
The viewer is always looking for his hero or favorite person in a movie, so the most critical moments are shots with acting these few characters, heros. Dialogues and face details. Not big crowd scenes.

but Iīm not saying that Massive canīt be kind of little revolution of crowd cg animation.... ;) itīs just not about the upper article, with replacing actors and stuf...

08 August 2002, 12:46 AM
I certainly agree that we're years away from CG replacing actors... though things I saw in 1999 at SIGGRAPH were very high teck with realtime character mocap. Animators could put on a suite and animate their characters right down to facial animation. If they were lipsinking to pre-recorded dialog the posibilities are pretty endless...

That said, I still think we're years away from it. The hardware was fairly cumbersom...

For very complex shots your run of the mill stunt man is on his way out of work... animators are replacing him... he's all but a dinosaur...

08 August 2002, 09:40 AM
yes, Iīm pretty curious about these upcoming times...

(hey, I think this thread should be closed, because thereīs nothing more to say!:D )

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 02:00 PM
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.