The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Almost everybody here has either seen, or at least heard a few details about the recently released movie, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Having been spread across numerous news articles in papers all over the world, it can`t help but catch your eye.
There are two things that stand out most about this movie. Firstly, it is based on one of the most successful game series of all time, Final Fantasy, a role playing adventure set in mystical places, where the heroes face incredible evil, and monsters of great variety. Secondly the characters involved in the story are not real, but computer generated images, carefully crafted to achieve an end result that is as realistic as life itself.
It is the second point I wish to focus on. How successful can these characters be? Will they replace human actors, or coexist alongside them, or will they never stand a chance against what we know to be real? This film dares to go where no man will ever have to.
Having seen the film myself, I realise that at this stage it is hard to predict the success of future CG movies. The characters in this first attempt had me thinking they were real at many points in the movie. As the story progressed I could have quite easily believed that these people truly existed. Having spent huge amounts of the film`s budget on details such as the hair of the female lead, the realism was undeniably impressive.
However, the human eye is an exceptional tool, and whilst at first glance we may miss it, with time we soon see that the characters are still easily distinguishable from real people. As technology advances this should not be a problem in the future. The gap between CG characters and real humans is rapidly closing in the visual department, and I believe it won`t be long before that gap disappears completely.
The main problem though is in fact not the appearence of each character, but their acting. The expressions, and other small facial details, as well as bodily expressions are superbly transfered onto the CG characters, but will this ever rival the acting skill of today`s greatest actors? It may not be long before they surpass Stallone, but it could be a long wait before a new CG Sean Connery is on screen.
Each of the characters in the movie were adequate at expressing emotion, which was aided by some impressive voice overs, but at points where a character sacrifices him/herself to aid the survival of others, you would expect the audience to feel a sense of loss. Personally I was left with a little sadness, but not in the amounts I may have felt were the actors real.
With time this should easily be corrected, and before long I expect that the emotional settings for a character will be so finely tuned that a greater diversity of expression will be achieved using CG than any real actor could ever hope to match.
Would members of the audience have cried during Titanic if the actors had been computer generated? At this stage, I think not. However, given time, I think the acting could be taken to a flawless level, making us all believe that CG perfection is not a fairy tale. It is truth.
There are two things that stand out most about this movie. Firstly, it is based on one of the most successful game series of all time, Final Fantasy, a role playing adventure set in mystical places, where the heroes face incredible evil, and monsters of great variety. Secondly the characters involved in the story are not real, but computer generated images, carefully crafted to achieve an end result that is as realistic as life itself.
It is the second point I wish to focus on. How successful can these characters be? Will they replace human actors, or coexist alongside them, or will they never stand a chance against what we know to be real? This film dares to go where no man will ever have to.
Having seen the film myself, I realise that at this stage it is hard to predict the success of future CG movies. The characters in this first attempt had me thinking they were real at many points in the movie. As the story progressed I could have quite easily believed that these people truly existed. Having spent huge amounts of the film`s budget on details such as the hair of the female lead, the realism was undeniably impressive.
However, the human eye is an exceptional tool, and whilst at first glance we may miss it, with time we soon see that the characters are still easily distinguishable from real people. As technology advances this should not be a problem in the future. The gap between CG characters and real humans is rapidly closing in the visual department, and I believe it won`t be long before that gap disappears completely.
The main problem though is in fact not the appearence of each character, but their acting. The expressions, and other small facial details, as well as bodily expressions are superbly transfered onto the CG characters, but will this ever rival the acting skill of today`s greatest actors? It may not be long before they surpass Stallone, but it could be a long wait before a new CG Sean Connery is on screen.
Each of the characters in the movie were adequate at expressing emotion, which was aided by some impressive voice overs, but at points where a character sacrifices him/herself to aid the survival of others, you would expect the audience to feel a sense of loss. Personally I was left with a little sadness, but not in the amounts I may have felt were the actors real.
With time this should easily be corrected, and before long I expect that the emotional settings for a character will be so finely tuned that a greater diversity of expression will be achieved using CG than any real actor could ever hope to match.
Would members of the audience have cried during Titanic if the actors had been computer generated? At this stage, I think not. However, given time, I think the acting could be taken to a flawless level, making us all believe that CG perfection is not a fairy tale. It is truth.
it's a good film, the plot had quite a bit to be derired, but overall I enjoyed it purely because it was 'computer generated' this question is to everyone whos seen the film:
was the eagle real? I know they wouldn't spend millions of pounds making tghe whole film computer generated then super imose a real eagle into it, but it sure did look real, none of mates could tell the difference.
was the eagle real? I know they wouldn't spend millions of pounds making tghe whole film computer generated then super imose a real eagle into it, but it sure did look real, none of mates could tell the difference.
I like manga, is there a lot of action in it, or is all sci fi techy language that makes no sense
depends on whether you like manga-ISH films
Is final fantasy any good? or is it just a sci fi yawn fest?
did you know the voice of the chick in final fantasy played Chun-Li in street fighter the movie(the real life flop not the manga one)
I just found something interesting today. If you have teletext, go to Ceefax (thats BBC1 or 2) and go to page 539. There is an interview with the producer.
It doesn`t discuss the items I wanted to point out in my topic, but it does explain why they went fully CG.
Basically, they needed a huge amount of special effects to do what they wanted with all the spirits etc... so they decided to go the whole way. Considering its the first attempt it ain`t bad.
As for the comment earlier about CG, I see what you`re saying, and can`t see the point. Its computer generated, as in, they used a computer to generate it. In the same way as I`d use a pen to generate words or sentences, and the same way I use the keyboard and PC to generate this post.
It doesn`t discuss the items I wanted to point out in my topic, but it does explain why they went fully CG.
Basically, they needed a huge amount of special effects to do what they wanted with all the spirits etc... so they decided to go the whole way. Considering its the first attempt it ain`t bad.
As for the comment earlier about CG, I see what you`re saying, and can`t see the point. Its computer generated, as in, they used a computer to generate it. In the same way as I`d use a pen to generate words or sentences, and the same way I use the keyboard and PC to generate this post.
It cost millions upon millions of pounds simply to create the hair on Aki's head - why? What is the point? Why not blue screen real actors and make another 5 low budget films instead?
The digital actors required humans to be motion captured and to provide the voices - and they were still woefully lifeless. Human actors will NEVER be replaced by digital ones. Animation should be used to realize things that cannot be found in real life, such as "living" toys and the fantastical worlds our actors habitate. Why waste time and money recreating human actors that exist in their millions and can be hired for mear fractions of the cash needed to create a CG person?
The digital actors required humans to be motion captured and to provide the voices - and they were still woefully lifeless. Human actors will NEVER be replaced by digital ones. Animation should be used to realize things that cannot be found in real life, such as "living" toys and the fantastical worlds our actors habitate. Why waste time and money recreating human actors that exist in their millions and can be hired for mear fractions of the cash needed to create a CG person?
I think 'Computer Generated' is an abused term here. Computers have been used as tools in animated film for a long time. When you use a PC to render every frame, the entire visual output is computer processed, but the characters are a human creation. They are generated by PEOPLE who USED a computer, not by the computer itself. And then you've got the whole voice/sound track, which is people again, isn't it?
Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are fantastic movies, becuase the characters are so well portrayed, the narrative so well constructed, the soundtrack is so complementary, the themes are so original. All of these are human accomplishments. The Toy Story films could have been drawn by hand and apart from their distinctive look, would have been little different.
When a computer can write the script, create action sequences and inflect complex and colloquial language, then I'll accept the 'computer generated movie' tag.
Toy Story and Toy Story 2 are fantastic movies, becuase the characters are so well portrayed, the narrative so well constructed, the soundtrack is so complementary, the themes are so original. All of these are human accomplishments. The Toy Story films could have been drawn by hand and apart from their distinctive look, would have been little different.
When a computer can write the script, create action sequences and inflect complex and colloquial language, then I'll accept the 'computer generated movie' tag.
Almost everybody here has either seen, or at least heard a few details about the recently released movie, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Having been spread across numerous news articles in papers all over the world, it can`t help but catch your eye.
There are two things that stand out most about this movie. Firstly, it is based on one of the most successful game series of all time, Final Fantasy, a role playing adventure set in mystical places, where the heroes face incredible evil, and monsters of great variety. Secondly the characters involved in the story are not real, but computer generated images, carefully crafted to achieve an end result that is as realistic as life itself.
It is the second point I wish to focus on. How successful can these characters be? Will they replace human actors, or coexist alongside them, or will they never stand a chance against what we know to be real? This film dares to go where no man will ever have to.
Having seen the film myself, I realise that at this stage it is hard to predict the success of future CG movies. The characters in this first attempt had me thinking they were real at many points in the movie. As the story progressed I could have quite easily believed that these people truly existed. Having spent huge amounts of the film`s budget on details such as the hair of the female lead, the realism was undeniably impressive.
However, the human eye is an exceptional tool, and whilst at first glance we may miss it, with time we soon see that the characters are still easily distinguishable from real people. As technology advances this should not be a problem in the future. The gap between CG characters and real humans is rapidly closing in the visual department, and I believe it won`t be long before that gap disappears completely.
The main problem though is in fact not the appearence of each character, but their acting. The expressions, and other small facial details, as well as bodily expressions are superbly transfered onto the CG characters, but will this ever rival the acting skill of today`s greatest actors? It may not be long before they surpass Stallone, but it could be a long wait before a new CG Sean Connery is on screen.
Each of the characters in the movie were adequate at expressing emotion, which was aided by some impressive voice overs, but at points where a character sacrifices him/herself to aid the survival of others, you would expect the audience to feel a sense of loss. Personally I was left with a little sadness, but not in the amounts I may have felt were the actors real.
With time this should easily be corrected, and before long I expect that the emotional settings for a character will be so finely tuned that a greater diversity of expression will be achieved using CG than any real actor could ever hope to match.
Would members of the audience have cried during Titanic if the actors had been computer generated? At this stage, I think not. However, given time, I think the acting could be taken to a flawless level, making us all believe that CG perfection is not a fairy tale. It is truth.
There are two things that stand out most about this movie. Firstly, it is based on one of the most successful game series of all time, Final Fantasy, a role playing adventure set in mystical places, where the heroes face incredible evil, and monsters of great variety. Secondly the characters involved in the story are not real, but computer generated images, carefully crafted to achieve an end result that is as realistic as life itself.
It is the second point I wish to focus on. How successful can these characters be? Will they replace human actors, or coexist alongside them, or will they never stand a chance against what we know to be real? This film dares to go where no man will ever have to.
Having seen the film myself, I realise that at this stage it is hard to predict the success of future CG movies. The characters in this first attempt had me thinking they were real at many points in the movie. As the story progressed I could have quite easily believed that these people truly existed. Having spent huge amounts of the film`s budget on details such as the hair of the female lead, the realism was undeniably impressive.
However, the human eye is an exceptional tool, and whilst at first glance we may miss it, with time we soon see that the characters are still easily distinguishable from real people. As technology advances this should not be a problem in the future. The gap between CG characters and real humans is rapidly closing in the visual department, and I believe it won`t be long before that gap disappears completely.
The main problem though is in fact not the appearence of each character, but their acting. The expressions, and other small facial details, as well as bodily expressions are superbly transfered onto the CG characters, but will this ever rival the acting skill of today`s greatest actors? It may not be long before they surpass Stallone, but it could be a long wait before a new CG Sean Connery is on screen.
Each of the characters in the movie were adequate at expressing emotion, which was aided by some impressive voice overs, but at points where a character sacrifices him/herself to aid the survival of others, you would expect the audience to feel a sense of loss. Personally I was left with a little sadness, but not in the amounts I may have felt were the actors real.
With time this should easily be corrected, and before long I expect that the emotional settings for a character will be so finely tuned that a greater diversity of expression will be achieved using CG than any real actor could ever hope to match.
Would members of the audience have cried during Titanic if the actors had been computer generated? At this stage, I think not. However, given time, I think the acting could be taken to a flawless level, making us all believe that CG perfection is not a fairy tale. It is truth.