The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Okay, obviously inspired by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Winthin being launched in the States today and the talk of how actors will be out of a job due to the new photo-realism.
Now, you can see where that argument comes from. To get a Julia Roberts or a Tom Hanks it will cost you major money. Not only that, but you'll have the hassle of dealing with their agents and various hangers on. Then there is the big problem - their schedule. You might want to have Julia Roberts in five leading roles a year but the poor lass is only human! She can't shoot that many films due to the mear fact that she can't be on two different sets and once and the slacker will need some time off to relax!
Okay then, lets make an army of digial actors and actresses who will do whatever the film makers want them to! They'll "work" 24 hours a day, everyday if necessary. They won't drop your film for another one with a better script/cast/director/wage packet. They don't have agnets or join unions. Ahahahaha! An army of digial minions to fulfil my movie making dreams! Work slaves, work your silly pixilated butts off! Ahem...
No, in short, no. While the theory may seem attractive it just is no where near practicle. Reason one? Money. Final Fantasy has cost $125 million to produce. That is a HUGE amount. To put it into context. Kevin Smith shot Dogma for $10 million. Critically aclaimed and a box office hit, American Beauty cost $15 million. So, you can have eight American Beauties and a Dogma for one Spirits Within. What was that thing about the expensive actors again?
Maybe in a few years the price of digital animation will have fallen and the quality got even better - but I'm talking maybe 10 years here. Even then - do people really want to watch digital actors? Where's the glitz and glamour? Will a digital actor ever climb up on the stage at the Oscars and burst out in tears thanking everboby she's ever met? Will two CG actors ever get married and then have their topless holiday snaps plastered over the front covers of the Sun? How about that digital addict who got so off his face on fairy dust he ran around his garden naked firing a shot gun in the air? We're shallow people, we need these celebrity storys and in a funny way it helps to sell the films to us. In the end, that is what it's all about, getting our bums on seats and our £4 in the bank. Star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the h
Now, you can see where that argument comes from. To get a Julia Roberts or a Tom Hanks it will cost you major money. Not only that, but you'll have the hassle of dealing with their agents and various hangers on. Then there is the big problem - their schedule. You might want to have Julia Roberts in five leading roles a year but the poor lass is only human! She can't shoot that many films due to the mear fact that she can't be on two different sets and once and the slacker will need some time off to relax!
Okay then, lets make an army of digial actors and actresses who will do whatever the film makers want them to! They'll "work" 24 hours a day, everyday if necessary. They won't drop your film for another one with a better script/cast/director/wage packet. They don't have agnets or join unions. Ahahahaha! An army of digial minions to fulfil my movie making dreams! Work slaves, work your silly pixilated butts off! Ahem...
No, in short, no. While the theory may seem attractive it just is no where near practicle. Reason one? Money. Final Fantasy has cost $125 million to produce. That is a HUGE amount. To put it into context. Kevin Smith shot Dogma for $10 million. Critically aclaimed and a box office hit, American Beauty cost $15 million. So, you can have eight American Beauties and a Dogma for one Spirits Within. What was that thing about the expensive actors again?
Maybe in a few years the price of digital animation will have fallen and the quality got even better - but I'm talking maybe 10 years here. Even then - do people really want to watch digital actors? Where's the glitz and glamour? Will a digital actor ever climb up on the stage at the Oscars and burst out in tears thanking everboby she's ever met? Will two CG actors ever get married and then have their topless holiday snaps plastered over the front covers of the Sun? How about that digital addict who got so off his face on fairy dust he ran around his garden naked firing a shot gun in the air? We're shallow people, we need these celebrity storys and in a funny way it helps to sell the films to us. In the end, that is what it's all about, getting our bums on seats and our £4 in the bank. Star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the h
Okay, obviously inspired by Final Fantasy: The Spirits Winthin being launched in the States today and the talk of how actors will be out of a job due to the new photo-realism.
Now, you can see where that argument comes from. To get a Julia Roberts or a Tom Hanks it will cost you major money. Not only that, but you'll have the hassle of dealing with their agents and various hangers on. Then there is the big problem - their schedule. You might want to have Julia Roberts in five leading roles a year but the poor lass is only human! She can't shoot that many films due to the mear fact that she can't be on two different sets and once and the slacker will need some time off to relax!
Okay then, lets make an army of digial actors and actresses who will do whatever the film makers want them to! They'll "work" 24 hours a day, everyday if necessary. They won't drop your film for another one with a better script/cast/director/wage packet. They don't have agnets or join unions. Ahahahaha! An army of digial minions to fulfil my movie making dreams! Work slaves, work your silly pixilated butts off! Ahem...
No, in short, no. While the theory may seem attractive it just is no where near practicle. Reason one? Money. Final Fantasy has cost $125 million to produce. That is a HUGE amount. To put it into context. Kevin Smith shot Dogma for $10 million. Critically aclaimed and a box office hit, American Beauty cost $15 million. So, you can have eight American Beauties and a Dogma for one Spirits Within. What was that thing about the expensive actors again?
Maybe in a few years the price of digital animation will have fallen and the quality got even better - but I'm talking maybe 10 years here. Even then - do people really want to watch digital actors? Where's the glitz and glamour? Will a digital actor ever climb up on the stage at the Oscars and burst out in tears thanking everboby she's ever met? Will two CG actors ever get married and then have their topless holiday snaps plastered over the front covers of the Sun? How about that digital addict who got so off his face on fairy dust he ran around his garden naked firing a shot gun in the air? We're shallow people, we need these celebrity storys and in a funny way it helps to sell the films to us. In the end, that is what it's all about, getting our bums on seats and our £4 in the bank. Star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the h
Now, you can see where that argument comes from. To get a Julia Roberts or a Tom Hanks it will cost you major money. Not only that, but you'll have the hassle of dealing with their agents and various hangers on. Then there is the big problem - their schedule. You might want to have Julia Roberts in five leading roles a year but the poor lass is only human! She can't shoot that many films due to the mear fact that she can't be on two different sets and once and the slacker will need some time off to relax!
Okay then, lets make an army of digial actors and actresses who will do whatever the film makers want them to! They'll "work" 24 hours a day, everyday if necessary. They won't drop your film for another one with a better script/cast/director/wage packet. They don't have agnets or join unions. Ahahahaha! An army of digial minions to fulfil my movie making dreams! Work slaves, work your silly pixilated butts off! Ahem...
No, in short, no. While the theory may seem attractive it just is no where near practicle. Reason one? Money. Final Fantasy has cost $125 million to produce. That is a HUGE amount. To put it into context. Kevin Smith shot Dogma for $10 million. Critically aclaimed and a box office hit, American Beauty cost $15 million. So, you can have eight American Beauties and a Dogma for one Spirits Within. What was that thing about the expensive actors again?
Maybe in a few years the price of digital animation will have fallen and the quality got even better - but I'm talking maybe 10 years here. Even then - do people really want to watch digital actors? Where's the glitz and glamour? Will a digital actor ever climb up on the stage at the Oscars and burst out in tears thanking everboby she's ever met? Will two CG actors ever get married and then have their topless holiday snaps plastered over the front covers of the Sun? How about that digital addict who got so off his face on fairy dust he ran around his garden naked firing a shot gun in the air? We're shallow people, we need these celebrity storys and in a funny way it helps to sell the films to us. In the end, that is what it's all about, getting our bums on seats and our £4 in the bank. Star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the h
Oops... second half of my post got cut off...
Where was I, actors... no, star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the headlining actor was stored on a hard drive somewhere on Warner Brothers' back lot?
Could a Brad Pitt or a Julianne Moore every be digitally created? - I mean someone who actually has fans who will go and see their films just because they are in it. Even then, how much of the attachment would be to the voice and how much to the actual body? If you have to have a voice actor anyway, does that not raise the same problem as we had in the first place of agents, unions and schedules? What happens if your vocal tallent decides to dump you and your digital film star sudenly has to get a new voice. The producers of the Simpsons know all about that problem and now pay their vocal tallents more than even most traditional sitcom actors get. So if you have to do that to a human voice actor anyway where is the advantage of having a digital star?
In truth it is far too early to say anything certain on the subject. Maybe the day will come when knocking up Nicole Kidman in Photoshop will become as easy as writing a letter in Word. Even then, there will always be amateur directors - the Kevin Smiths with Clerks, Darren Aronofsky with Pi, goodness even Chris Smith and American Movie - who will want the hands on experience of working with real human actors. If not? There is always documentaries...
I'll be more patient when I hit "Post this Message" this time :)
Where was I, actors... no, star names are one of the main reasons for box office success, so could films be sold to us as well if the headlining actor was stored on a hard drive somewhere on Warner Brothers' back lot?
Could a Brad Pitt or a Julianne Moore every be digitally created? - I mean someone who actually has fans who will go and see their films just because they are in it. Even then, how much of the attachment would be to the voice and how much to the actual body? If you have to have a voice actor anyway, does that not raise the same problem as we had in the first place of agents, unions and schedules? What happens if your vocal tallent decides to dump you and your digital film star sudenly has to get a new voice. The producers of the Simpsons know all about that problem and now pay their vocal tallents more than even most traditional sitcom actors get. So if you have to do that to a human voice actor anyway where is the advantage of having a digital star?
In truth it is far too early to say anything certain on the subject. Maybe the day will come when knocking up Nicole Kidman in Photoshop will become as easy as writing a letter in Word. Even then, there will always be amateur directors - the Kevin Smiths with Clerks, Darren Aronofsky with Pi, goodness even Chris Smith and American Movie - who will want the hands on experience of working with real human actors. If not? There is always documentaries...
I'll be more patient when I hit "Post this Message" this time :)
This isn't a post just to get the topic back to the top of the fourm to see if anyone will commment... oh no, not at all.
After seeing more of the footage on Film 2001 last night I'd say that they still aren't photo realistic anyway. The trailer was good with a few close ups and high energy action sequences but Film 2001 showed some of the more calm sections - you know, two people talking. There was no way you'd ever confuse a digital creation with a real one. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Don't get me wrong, it was very good - better than anything yet seen, but still a long way from photo realistic.
Don't get me wrong, it was very good - better than anything yet seen, but still a long way from photo realistic.
Bingo a lot of my friends have been saying you cant tell the difference between the animaitons and real life but i look at it and yes it is the best ever cg done but is not yet perfect.
I love ff more so than your average psx player
and i still think this movies gonna rock.
On some american post boards people have allready seen it (think its out today or yesterday) and they loved it
I love ff more so than your average psx player
and i still think this movies gonna rock.
On some american post boards people have allready seen it (think its out today or yesterday) and they loved it
And now you won.
Well done, excellent post
Well done, excellent post