Will 3D Characters Ever Replace Live Models?

3Diva

kyoto kid said:

Sempie said:

wolf359 said:

What's a bit ironic, is that for say product photography (e.g. makeup), many retouchers will resize model's ears, etc. to strive to make them symmetrical.  Which looks fake.  

By Allah,I dont understand why people still believe/repeat this.

Studies conducted on the factors that determine human physical attractiveness have proven that people with the highest amount of facial symmetry tend to be considered more attractive than those with noticable asymmetry,

One the example given was the actor Denzel Washington

He ,Like many "leading men" actor types has good left/ right facial symmetry

I have yet to see one,of his many female fans, complain that his facial symmetry is making him look "fake" 
so why would they care about a really handsome CG Character with perfect facial symmetry??

Sure people accuse women/models  with heavy makeup of looking fake but that  has nothing to do with facial symmetry.

Also consider that when women get replacement implants after a single breast masectomy from cancer,
I doubt that  they implore the surgeon to make the implant a slightly different size& shape to avoid looking "fake"

And one trick to adding realism to 3D is adding in some asymmetry.

Which does  NOTHING for "realism" if the lighting,texturing Facial animation and HAIR&cloth simulation is not uber realistic as well.

One of the high commands of animation that I learned, is to break symmetry.

Because it look unnatural.

Because it looks artificial.

No human has a completely symmetrical face - and that is what makes a face look natural.

One of the mein problams with 3D CGI animation has always been that it is too symmetrical that you really need to take care to break the symmetry.

Never mirror the two halves of the face. Raise one eyebrow higher than the other. Make an assymetrical mouth. One of the golden rules of posing.  Cause anything else is uncanny valley. In 2D animation, symmetry is known as a capital sin.

You can often tell rookies because they don't know that, and make these stiff symmetrical poses...

...I think it was either Genesis or G2 which had had controls to adjust facial symmetry, like individual eye, cheek and ear height & size controls.  That disappeared with G3 and G8 even with the merchant resource content.  The only thing you can make asymmetrical now are boobs and buttocks.

One of the beauties of PowerPose is that you can very easily give a face Asymmetry in seconds for Genesis 8. There's something like 66 different points of rigging in the face.

kyoto kid

JonnyRay said:

We've already seen CGI used in place of background characters / extras. Those huge battle scenes in the LOTR series wouldn't have been feasible without CGI since you can't realistically get that many extra actors involved in a live shot. As that sort of "filler" becomes easier, I could see that being the place where CGI replaces live people first. As others have already said, main character actors have a skill and a financial draw to the box office. But do we really care if the "person" standing at a bus stop is real or not as long as they serve the purpose to be "real enough"?

Extras can be unreliable. They may not be professional actors and so may not do exactly what the director wanted. They usually don't have any lines to speak so you don't care about their ability to "act" per-se. And it's a pain for casting, costuming, and makeup to have to be hiring and dressing them. This seems to be the most likely path for CGI actors to start replacing warm bodies.

...when individual details are not as important as in long distance shots, yeah it works as long as the lighting for the 3D figures and live actors meshes together properly. 

Admittedly I am spoiled as I have seen the great cinematography in the epic films of the 1950s, 60s. and 70s. Those scenes on Tatooine in the first Star Wars release were incredible, particularly in 70mm.  Same for the vistas in Sound of Music, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, The Great Escape (Life Magazine even published an article on the imagery), Close Encounters, and the Cinerama films. This drew the audience into the setting (at least they certainly did for myself).  Yes, it was expensive as shooting on location and using physically constructed sets is not always cheap, but it was captivating.  I saw the entire LOTR trilogy and in spite of all the CGI work and grandness of scale, I came away feeling empty with regards to the setting.  True that a fantasy or Sci-Fi setting is difficult, as you are trying  to depict something that doesn't exist, but then why did the settings for 2001, Close Encounters, Excalibur, The Princes Bride, The first Star Wars trilogy, crikey, even Monty Python's Holy Grail feel more believable? Because they used real life elements be it models, mats, constructed sets, and real live locations.

In certain aspects when you are going for a specific "style" (like the adaptation of Frank Miller's Sin CIty) yes it works as it is a comic book on screen so it's easy to suspend disbelief.  Same with films like Brave, The Incredibles, or Big Hero 6,  If you're trying make it look "realistic" when killer robots or undersea creatures are invading "real life" earth, or the X-Men are fighting Magneto in "real life" Washington DC, that is when it breaks down. 

kyoto kid

bluejaunte said:

outrider42 said:

bluejaunte said:

A few thoughts:

• Call me when character dramas like say Manchester by the Sea have CG characters to save cost. The movie had a budget of $9 million according to Wikipedia.
• An expensive Tom Cruise type of actor, when faced with the reality of being replaced by cost saving CG characters, would likely go with the flow and be willing to work for less. This is simply a question of market value. Why replace the real thing with an artificial approximation, instead of just paying less to the real thing if cost is really such an issue? All the other downsides listed, like actors getting ill or whatnot, can happen to the voice actor just as much. 
• Don't underestimate the Hollywood glamour factor and their love for yearly award shows, with best actor and actress being one of the highlights of the evening. 
• Actors are a major part of marketing. They go on promotion tours around the world when the movie releases. The big stars don't just make a lot of money because they ask for it, they help sell the product with their stardom. They became stars because people wanted to see them.
• Humans will always flock to other humans at the end of the day. People today are already complaining regularly about too much CG. Examples like the new Lion King are not really valid IMO because these are obvious cases where you cannot realistically get around CG as you cannot make an actor look like a lion. You can make an actor look like a human though, easily. Why try and approximate that with CG? Pay the actor his market value and if he wants too much, get another one. It's simple enough.
• Speaking about Lion King, why did they hire all the stars to do the voice acting? Seems to me cost wasn't an issue to begin with.

Cheap $9 million or PBS shows likely wont go this route, true. There will always be a place for real people, but they will be sharing their place with 3D.

The Lion King is by Disney. There is your answer as to why they got Hollywood stars for the cast.

How about a question for you, why didn't Disney use real animals for the Lion King with how realistic they took the art direction? Wouldn't that have been quite an interesting movie? No, they used CG for a reason, and one day that same reason is why they will work to replace real actors. They may not replace everybody, but a good many.

Actors are a major part of marketing...for now because Hollywood is very slow to change its guard. But I believe that Hollywood is also dying a slow death. All you need to do is look at the "Golden Age" of Hollywood and just how much the big stars were worshiped back in the day. As big as some stars are today, they are NOTHING compared to how Hollywood stars were in the past. That is because back then, Hollywood did not have the competition it does now from other forms of entertainment. Also, and this is important, the 24 hour news cycle along with constant social media have torn down the stars themselves. Back in the day, many stars were able to keep secrets in their lives. Today these secrets are spilled on Twitter in seconds and broadcasted thousands of times.

And what about gaming? Tomb Raider? Did anybody have a problem that Lara Croft in the games is not actually a real actor? Or Gordon Freeman? Many gaming characters are designed, and are not based on real people.

Gamers have been over Hollywood for years. And though some Hollywood types wind up in some big games, a lot of gamers just roll their eyes at the star postering. The best example of this was Metal Gear 5. David Hayter had been the voice of Snake ever since the first MGS, and fans were not so keen on having him replaced by a Hollywood actor. BTW, that Hollywood actor also cost a lot more than Hayter ever did, fully demonstrating the stark contrast between a Hollywood star and a voice actor. A video game can make millions, even billions without a single recognizable actor involved.

Voice actors are in the most profitable form of entertainment on the planet, video games. Not Hollywood. Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most profitable piece of media of all time. Not a Star Wars movie, not any of the Lord of the Rings movies or even The Avengers. Nope, GTA5 tops them all, and by a lot. Going by the this mountain of cash, did the voice actors in GTA5 make more than the cast of the Avengers? Nope, not by a long shot. I would bet that most of the Avengers by themselves cost more than the entire GTA5 cast put together.

This proves that voice actors will not necessarily cost more if movies go to them more often as 3D actors become more normalized. They might get more money as time goes on, but never, ever will they be paid like Tom Cruise.

People have already accepted CG in many ways. Entire shows and movies are filmed in front of a green screen instead of on location. Even when it is totally possible to go to that location here on Earth. Green screens have already replaced locations. Crowds are often CG like has been mentioned. Deceased actors are getting revised with CG to continue their roles. CG is used to recreate youthful versions of actors in some cases. It is growing and growing every year, as CG continues to replace more and more of what you see on a screen at any given time. So of course the actors are next.

I think we will start to see contracts that involve using an actor's likeness after death, just to cover that possibility in case something bad happens like Heath Ledger, or the studios wish to keep using the likeness in the future. But that will eventually give way to 3D actors totally designed from scratch for their roles. This would be huge for super hero movies, where stars can get tired of their roles, and the hero is the draw in the first place.

If we're talking about some actors being replaced by CG, I have no problem with the statement.

You did not address the issue of market value though. Why should a big name actor, when faced with the reality of cheaper CG characters and (hypothetically) same range of acting ability and (again hypothetically) no backlash by consumers, not conclude that the value of his work has been lessened and work for less money? At that point there is no advantage to the studio choosing CG over a real actor anymore. Illness and stuff like that or attitude can be an issue with voice actors too. Hell, why would the studio not first go through all the known actors and find one who fits the budget? Do you honestly think they will completely forego that and go CG instead for reasons of costs when the movie is just a regular old character drama? There are still a lot of those you know. Way more than fancy special effects blockbusters.

I think people may have a wrong image about how actors are hired. These are highly sought after people. Those at the top of their game will be flooded with scripts and get to choose the roles they want. A price will be negotiated based on budget and how much the actor actually wants the role. Not all of these actors are unreasonable greedy capitalists, they may pick out roles that don't make nearly as much money as starring in the next Marvel movie but they may find the role intriguing and go with it. I doubt we'll ever see Leonardo DiCaprio in a Marvel movie. Jennifer Lawrence chose to be in a highly controversial arthouse production with "Mother" no doubt because she just wanted to play the role when she could have been in a thousand other more profitable movies. These people are artists and usually interested in the craft, not looking for the biggest paycheck. Oscar nominations also usually come with those more grounded productions, so that's another alluring prospect.

Games are an entirely different ball game. With the gamer being at the center of the interaction, there has never been a need for real actors that people know from the movies. Of course more and more games started to become so realistic that they did need motion capture and real voice actors instead of just a few pixels and text bubbles. Some games did opt for well known actors however. Beyond Two Souls for example or the upcoming Death Stranding. Personally I feel this is more offputting than helpful as it removes some of the "this is me" feeling. No it's not me, it's Ellen Page for christ's sake 

...

Subtropic Pixel

kyoto kid said:

outrider42 said:

Hatsuni Miku was a guest on David Letterman in his final year. She is quite popular around the world, less so here since she sings in Japanese. But there have been a few products sold here that take inspiration from her design, particularly hair. Miku is not real, and she has no voice actor, either. Her voice is created by computer software. She is also not the only one, there are others that use this same software.

...I've heard that digital vocalisation overlay which many singers use today and it sounds terrible. 

Hah, there's a guitar stompbox for that!  Korg Miku

kyoto kid said:

outrider42 said:

Not having a famous actor behind her has not hampered her popularity. Like I said earlier, (and nobody responded), the younger generation is not so tied up in Hollywood as you old people are. They worship youtubers and other media more than Hollywood.

...umm, many famous actors from Patrick Stewart to Leonard Nimoy, to Elizabeth Taylor were tickled to do voices for the Simpsons.

Yeah, but he/she is right.  The younger generation isn't into pedigree, and even a lot of older people can't leave Hollywood fast enough (figuratively speaking, of course).  I like Patrick Stewart and all the others, but they're not the cat's meow for me.  Nobody in Hollywood is!  So why spend that kind of money?  I'm going to buy your game or watch your movie based on characterizations and story first.  I couldn't care less who does the voices.

kyoto kid said:

outrider42 said:

Somebody said why not just use the Hollywood star if they still use a voice actor? Because voice actors get paid a lot less Hollywood stars do. Of course Hollywood stars can voice act, too, but you don't see quite as many Hollywood stars as might expect in video games and cartoons. That is because hiring a Hollywood A-lister is a great way to blow your budget. When Hideo Kojima got Keifer Sutherland to voice the lead in Metal Gear Solid 5, Sutherland cost as much as the rest of the cast...combined. Even though some other actors and characters had more lines than him.
Some big budget productions can afford it, like how Disney casts stars for many toon rolls, and some video games do as well. But by and large it costs a LOT less to get a voice actor, and often times a professional voice actor is going to be better than a Hollywood star anyway, because most stars are used to being in front of a camera. Voice work requires a slightly different level of performance that true voice actors are properly prepared for.

...Famous stars including members of the Sopranos cast  and even Arnold Schwarzenegger lent their voices to pinball games. The cost to play those games didn't go up 

Maybe not, but I'll bet the game maker had to take less revenue on those.  And maybe in some cases, they took a loss on some games, but kept them in the market as loss-leaders in the arcades.

kyoto kid said:

outrider42 said:

And if you think hiring a VFX crew and a voice actor is too expensive, its still cheaper than Tom Cruise would be! By a lot. And I bet many directors would just LOVE to not have big stars on the set. Big stars often equal big egos. You don't have to worry about ego with 3D characters. They will do whatever you tell them to, and never get sick or cause some kind of embarrassing controversy for you. You don't have to worry about 3D stars doing any drugs, trying to bribe colleges, or having sex scandals with costars or others.

...yeah, but real actors can perform their roles with emotion.

Oh and the dentist and the hairstylist in the town theater production can't perform with emotion?  I must disagree.  That would be like saying nobody should try to learn to sing or play a musical instrument, and forget about joining a garage band or a weekend barbershop quartet.

I think we all know that with training and hard work, anything is possible.  Improvement is possible.  Acting is not a magical skill and it does not need to be restricted to an elite class of magical unicorns.  More power to the unknowns and the new entries into the industry! 

 

kyoto kid

outrider42 said:

bluejaunte said:

outrider42 said:

bluejaunte said:

A few thoughts:

• Call me when character dramas like say Manchester by the Sea have CG characters to save cost. The movie had a budget of $9 million according to Wikipedia.
• An expensive Tom Cruise type of actor, when faced with the reality of being replaced by cost saving CG characters, would likely go with the flow and be willing to work for less. This is simply a question of market value. Why replace the real thing with an artificial approximation, instead of just paying less to the real thing if cost is really such an issue? All the other downsides listed, like actors getting ill or whatnot, can happen to the voice actor just as much. 
• Don't underestimate the Hollywood glamour factor and their love for yearly award shows, with best actor and actress being one of the highlights of the evening. 
• Actors are a major part of marketing. They go on promotion tours around the world when the movie releases. The big stars don't just make a lot of money because they ask for it, they help sell the product with their stardom. They became stars because people wanted to see them.
• Humans will always flock to other humans at the end of the day. People today are already complaining regularly about too much CG. Examples like the new Lion King are not really valid IMO because these are obvious cases where you cannot realistically get around CG as you cannot make an actor look like a lion. You can make an actor look like a human though, easily. Why try and approximate that with CG? Pay the actor his market value and if he wants too much, get another one. It's simple enough.
• Speaking about Lion King, why did they hire all the stars to do the voice acting? Seems to me cost wasn't an issue to begin with.

Cheap $9 million or PBS shows likely wont go this route, true. There will always be a place for real people, but they will be sharing their place with 3D.

The Lion King is by Disney. There is your answer as to why they got Hollywood stars for the cast.

How about a question for you, why didn't Disney use real animals for the Lion King with how realistic they took the art direction? Wouldn't that have been quite an interesting movie? No, they used CG for a reason, and one day that same reason is why they will work to replace real actors. They may not replace everybody, but a good many.

Actors are a major part of marketing...for now because Hollywood is very slow to change its guard. But I believe that Hollywood is also dying a slow death. All you need to do is look at the "Golden Age" of Hollywood and just how much the big stars were worshiped back in the day. As big as some stars are today, they are NOTHING compared to how Hollywood stars were in the past. That is because back then, Hollywood did not have the competition it does now from other forms of entertainment. Also, and this is important, the 24 hour news cycle along with constant social media have torn down the stars themselves. Back in the day, many stars were able to keep secrets in their lives. Today these secrets are spilled on Twitter in seconds and broadcasted thousands of times.

And what about gaming? Tomb Raider? Did anybody have a problem that Lara Croft in the games is not actually a real actor? Or Gordon Freeman? Many gaming characters are designed, and are not based on real people.

Gamers have been over Hollywood for years. And though some Hollywood types wind up in some big games, a lot of gamers just roll their eyes at the star postering. The best example of this was Metal Gear 5. David Hayter had been the voice of Snake ever since the first MGS, and fans were not so keen on having him replaced by a Hollywood actor. BTW, that Hollywood actor also cost a lot more than Hayter ever did, fully demonstrating the stark contrast between a Hollywood star and a voice actor. A video game can make millions, even billions without a single recognizable actor involved.

Voice actors are in the most profitable form of entertainment on the planet, video games. Not Hollywood. Grand Theft Auto 5 is the most profitable piece of media of all time. Not a Star Wars movie, not any of the Lord of the Rings movies or even The Avengers. Nope, GTA5 tops them all, and by a lot. Going by the this mountain of cash, did the voice actors in GTA5 make more than the cast of the Avengers? Nope, not by a long shot. I would bet that most of the Avengers by themselves cost more than the entire GTA5 cast put together.

This proves that voice actors will not necessarily cost more if movies go to them more often as 3D actors become more normalized. They might get more money as time goes on, but never, ever will they be paid like Tom Cruise.

People have already accepted CG in many ways. Entire shows and movies are filmed in front of a green screen instead of on location. Even when it is totally possible to go to that location here on Earth. Green screens have already replaced locations. Crowds are often CG like has been mentioned. Deceased actors are getting revised with CG to continue their roles. CG is used to recreate youthful versions of actors in some cases. It is growing and growing every year, as CG continues to replace more and more of what you see on a screen at any given time. So of course the actors are next.

I think we will start to see contracts that involve using an actor's likeness after death, just to cover that possibility in case something bad happens like Heath Ledger, or the studios wish to keep using the likeness in the future. But that will eventually give way to 3D actors totally designed from scratch for their roles. This would be huge for super hero movies, where stars can get tired of their roles, and the hero is the draw in the first place.

If we're talking about some actors being replaced by CG, I have no problem with the statement.

You did not address the issue of market value though. Why should a big name actor, when faced with the reality of cheaper CG characters and (hypothetically) same range of acting ability and (again hypothetically) no backlash by consumers, not conclude that the value of his work has been lessened and work for less money? At that point there is no advantage to the studio choosing CG over a real actor anymore. Illness and stuff like that or attitude can be an issue with voice actors too. Hell, why would the studio not first go through all the known actors and find one who fits the budget? Do you honestly think they will completely forego that and go CG instead for reasons of costs when the movie is just a regular old character drama? There are still a lot of those you know. Way more than fancy special effects blockbusters.

I think people may have a wrong image about how actors are hired. These are highly sought after people. Those at the top of their game will be flooded with scripts and get to choose the roles they want. A price will be negotiated based on budget and how much the actor actually wants the role. Not all of these actors are unreasonable greedy capitalists, they may pick out roles that don't make nearly as much money as starring in the next Marvel movie but they may find the role intriguing and go with it. I doubt we'll ever see Leonardo DiCaprio in a Marvel movie. Jennifer Lawrence chose to be in a highly controversial arthouse production with "Mother" no doubt because she just wanted to play the role when she could have been in a thousand other more profitable movies. These people are artists and usually interested in the craft, not looking for the biggest paycheck. Oscar nominations also usually come with those more grounded productions, so that's another alluring prospect.

Games are an entirely different ball game. With the gamer being at the center of the interaction, there has never been a need for real actors that people know from the movies. Of course more and more games started to become so realistic that they did need motion capture and real voice actors instead of just a few pixels and text bubbles. Some games did opt for well known actors however. Beyond Two Souls for example or the upcoming Death Stranding. Personally I feel this is more offputting than helpful as it removes some of the "this is me" feeling. No it's not me, it's Ellen Page for christ's sake 

The point with games here is that gamers are already unconcerned about who stars in their games. They are used to the concept and as such will not care about big actors in movies, either. And while player agency is what makes a game a "game", that really has been less and less of a thing really. Most games only give the player the feeling of agency when the outcome is still often the same. There is no sense of "this is me" as you are often going down a predetermined path. Even if that was not Ellen Page, you are still playing that character, and ultimately her actions are all predetermined for you in any cut scene. That is what many games are these days, people play until the next cut scene, and repeat. The type of game might determine how much of a cut scene you get. A full blown action title might offer short and sweet cut scenes. Or they may go Hideo Kojima and run off with long short movies between the action. In the end, what agency do you really have in a Metal Gear game? You get the same cut scenes regardless of how you fought, whether you went 100% stealth with non lethal tranq darts or guns blazing and murdering all who get in your way. MGS5 is less linear, but still has the same cut scenes triggered by what the player does. The same goes for the Tomb Raider and many other games, the same cut scenes happen regardless of how the player gets to the end of the level. You are simply performing in somebody else's story.

Both of the examples you give of games with lots of real actors are from Kojima and David Page. These two are often tied up in Hollywood, it is no secret that they see themselves as Hollywood directors as much as game directors. But go beyond these two souls (sorry I couldn't help myself) and you will find many game directors don't embrace Hollywood so much.

Some games are called "walking simulators", where the player simply goes around and the story unfolds as they go. Some games are just slightly interactive movies or comics. Visual novels are pretty popular, and sometimes you have what are called "kinetic visual novels" where the player has no agency at all, the player simply presses the screen prompts to continue the story, like a reader would turn pages of a book. Some video games have difficulty modes designed just to enjoy the story, where the game is made super easy to allow the player to experience the story. And some games even allow the player to skip difficult parts.

What I am getting at is that games are another medium, they can be just as passive and story driven as film if they wish to be. Sometimes they simply want to tell a story in a different way from a book or movie.

Sometimes Hollywood actors really do get in the way. I really do not want to see Tom Hanks as Fred Rogers. I do not see Mr Rogers, all I can see is Tom Hanks wearing a sweater, and that is terribly unfortunate and a disservice to Fred Rogers. No offense to Tom Hanks, but it makes no sense to me why he was cast. He does not look him, and he does not sound anything like him. Its just weird and freaky. This is a case where I would much prefer an unknown actor who at least looks the part.

Maybe actors would accept less money as Hollywood dies down, but that still does not cover the other issues often present from using a "star." You get baggage and issues with stars who clash with directors all the time. Directors want CONTROL. Having 3D actors gives them that. The 3D actor will not care about stunt work. A 3D actor will not care to do something embarrassing. You will not have to worry about a 3D actor joining a cult or getting arrested for something boneheaded or doing something horrible. And with a 3D actor, you will never have to worry about recasting or finding replacements for any reason. They can stay forever young, like the cast of the Simpsons has. You can have a 3D actor play a vampire that never ages, and well...they would never age, LOL.

I am sure some directors will still want people, and Hollywood actors will be able to find work with them. But I am also sure some directors will not want people at all, for a variety of reasons as outlined above. Those days are coming.

And Hollywood actors still get paid better than voice actors, even when doing small time indie projects with low budgets. Many times actors will take large royalties or other favors in place of a big paycheck. And lets be honest, sometimes actors take these roles simply because they want to win some kind of award, that is a powerful motivation for some. Voice actors do not often get such royalties.

..so in a way, videogames are to blame for the declining of interest in the cinema . Sad. 

Granted I don't play video games (well save for the old abstract 80s ones that actually were a decent challenge and not just "shoot em ups/stab eb ups" with a lot of CGeye-candy) .  I love it when I tell people that I work with 3D graphics and see the surprise on their faces when they ask if I play video games and I tell them I don't. As I've mentioned here and elsewhere, this is the medium I chose to work in when I could no longer paint and draw like I used to. I approach my scenes like paintings and illustrations, not frames from an animated film or video game.  This may sound "uppity" to some but that doesn't concern me.

I remember years ago when I first got into this (when all we had was 3DL) and there was teh "realistic images" thread where people were beating their heads against the wall trying to produce images that were as close to photo real as possible.  I realised that with what we had, it was just not possible so I quit watching and responding to it as my point was, if you want "photo real", go get a camera and some film..  Granted at the time I and others never thought that our little programme here would get a render engine like the pros used, crikey, they worked on systems that were priced in 6 and even 7 digits using software most of us could only dream about having. 

Then came Reality/Lux which was the first to break the barrier.  Unfortunately, rendering in Lux seemed  to occur on a geologic time scale,.making even a render in Bryce with GI and volumetrics look fast in comparison.  Four years ago Iray came on the scene and changed everything, however even so, true "realism" still eludes us, particularly when it comes to skin hair and eyes. Yeah, I can make a scene that looks like it's right out of a car advert, but put a character in it and suddenly it "looks" like a CGI work. Granted big studios and production companies have access to much better tools and bigger budgets than what we have, yet many times I still see them falling flat on their faces when they strive for "realism."

I've actually been considering rolling back to 3DL, particularly with many of the new tools available, for a portion of my illustration work. I find the lighting system much more intuitive as I've worked in theatrical lighting and it tends to feel much the same. Instead of worrying about lumens or samples, it is simple and elegant, 0 - 100% just like a theatrical lighting board.  Is it real? Nope, will it work for my purposes? Yep.

Time to stop chasing the holy grail and actually creating art. 

The Blurst of Times

I'd say the aforementioned Jennifer Hale and Mark Meer are very important to their games, especially in the production of sequels. I'd say the same to Jen Taylor, Steve Downes in the Halo games. You'd need a series of sequels for this to matter, though. Otherwise, the names aren't necesarily important.

Patrick Stewart (TES IV: Oblivion)? Christopher Plummer, Michael Hogan, others (TES V: Skyrim)? Possibly Michael Hogan had a more important role in Mass Effect, but they could have written the game around his absence if they wanted to. Replacing Jennifer Hale, Mark Meer, Jen Taylor, or Steve Downes? Much more difficult a task in the middle of a series, once you've started down the path with them.

They did hit the wall HARD with 3d characters in Mass Effect Andromeda. Robotic, lifeless faces were a common criticism when they left the animation details to the AI (not mo-cap or hand-worked animation). You don't  necessarily need humans for everything, but you still need humans for some things.

Sempie

I must be an utter dinosaur then.

Couldn't care less for computer games and havem't played one for over 15 years. (Especially the slaughter-feasts disgust me.)

Admire the work put into fanbased youtube productions like the Star Trek continuations, that often stick closer to the core ideas - but boy, is the acting crappy. Makes even a ham like Shatner seem Oscar-worthy.

Much prefer the old Hoillywood claasics like Rear Window, Twelve Angry Men or Dog Day Afternoon or Lawrence of Arabia or Flight of the Phoenix (the original one) or The Godfather over current empty CGI-fests. (I actually felt insulted when watching The Transformers. and Sucker Punch.) Give me the original Jaws over Jurassic World any day of the week.

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Within, Beowulf or The Polar Express.

It's the same with music. For all the technical innovations, the chart hits have never been more drab than right now. As if nobody can write a proper melody anymore. It all sounds the same. Much prefer acoustic instruments anyway.

I do think that with all the technical gimmicks, real skills were lost.

And I really believe creativity took a nose dive, over the last 30 years or so....

(And the problem is not in the software, but in the minds and the creative lazyness of the people using it. Another Golden Rule of Animation that I learned: Fancy rendering won't save a poor original idea...)

kyoto kid

Sempie said:

I must be an utter dinosaur then.

Couldn't care less for computer games and havem't played one for over 15 years. (Especially the slaughter-feasts disgust me.)

Admire the work put into fanbased youtube productions like the Star Trek continuations, that often stick closer to the core ideas - but boy, is the acting crappy. Makes even a ham like Shatner seem Oscar-worthy.

Much prefer the old Hoillywood claasics like Rear Window, Twelve Angry Men or Dog Day Afternoon or Lawrence of Arabia or Flight of the Phoenix (the original one) or The Godfather to current empty CGI-fests. (I actually felt insulted when watching The Transformers) Give me the original Jaws over Jurassic World any day of the week.

(And the problem is noit in the software, but in the minds and lazyness of the people using it)

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Withiin, Beowulf or The Polar Express.

For all the technical innovations, the chart hits have never been more drab than right now. As if nobody can write a proper melody anymore. It all sounds the same.

I do think that with all the technical gimmicks, real skills were lost.

(And the problem is not in the software, but in the minds and the creative lazyness of the people using it. Another Golden Rule of Animation that I learned: Fancy rendering won't save a poor original idea...)

...speaking to the choir here.

I haven't been to the cinema for some time.  Why pay 16 - 18$ to see a poorly scripted remake or "Nth" sequel of a franchise that has become long in the tooth?  Sadly all the rep houses here have gone first run, so I can't even go watch one of the great films that wowed, inspired, and captivated me on the big screen to recapture a bit of my youth for even a couple hours (really miss the Laruelhurst on East Burnside where I could get my admission, a generous slice of pizza or big tub of popcorn (with real butter), and a pint of cold draft ginger or root beer (no ice) for less than what it costs to just walk in the door of a mainstream cinema to see the latest lacklustre blockbuster). 

Watching the old films of my youth on a computer screen, even a wide aspect one, just doesn't capture the same feel.

bluejaunte

We're obviously drifting into OT a lot but I do have to defend today's movies a bit. Sure there are too many VFX-ridden popcorn movies, probably too many super hero comic movies and too many remakes that usually turn out worse than the original, but there are a lot of really great ones too with solid stories and characters. TV is in an incredible state too, with a production quality that easily rivals that of movies. With shows like Breaking Bad, Black Mirror, Handmaid's Tale, Game of Thrones, Battlestar Galactica (2004 one), 24, just to name a few, there has been incredible quality and variety in the past 20 years or so and no end in sight.

kyoto kid

...unfortunately don't have a telly (haven't since about 2002 when my last one blew up).  Really haven't missed it all that much and I find I have a lot of extra time for other pursuits without the ever present distraction in the room.  Broadcast news, which would be one of the the only reasons to have one (outside of maybe sporting events), has become mostly infotainment and opinionating these days.  I can get more worthwhile and timely information researching on the Net.

Yeah, I could use my desktop, but then I'd still have to subscribe to some major media service provider for a hefty fee, or keep track of a plethora of individual subscriptions which can add up to just as much, and you still often get adverts (ugh  why should I pay to have someone try and sell me something I don't want or need?). 

Siciliano1969

Here is the direction we at least need to head...(no pun intended)

https://twitter.com/i/status/1167155135472181248

 

JazzyBear

Well the Carrie Fisher As Leia Organa in the Star Wars Ep 9 looks interesting!

Anyway we will get there.

As has been said the story matters the most and immersion by story and setting does more than acting for me. I can overlook less than great performances for an awesome story told cleanly!

Griffin Avid

Well the Carrie Fisher As Leia Organa in the Star Wars Ep 9 looks interesting!

I think that was leftover footage from the previous move, Last Jedi, and not CGI work.

Someone made a comment about there being a Star Wars CGI-actor led future movie..eventuality.

I think the problem is, by the time that tech is possible, no one will care about those actors any more and the context will be lost.

That would be the equivalent of someone making a Casablanca 2020 movie starring a digital Humphrey Bogart.

Who would be left around to want to see that?

They did that with sports and had a fantasy fight with Muhammad Ali and ....Bruce Lee? or was it...I can't remember.....

The graphics were impressive as it had that authentic look, but no one cared beyond the graphics...

I'm getting confused....

It was Bruce Lee playing ping pong with nun-chucks and Ali fighting his daughter, vintage-styled-footage and both rendered in their primes.

Sempie

There was a solid pormise of not doing a digital Princes Leia.

Theee are leftover scenes from the previous films written into the script.

I'm expecting a gliorous mess.

When I watch it on TV in a couple of years....

 

In the case of Bruce Lee, the ball was CGI and Lee was a look-alike.. Don't know about Ali.

https://www.adweek.com/creativity/5-brilliantly-faked-viral-ads-people-still-keep-thinking-are-real-167325/

 

As for the TV-shows thet were mentioned; most have become to cynical and violent for my taste. Only watched ´Game of Thrones. Hated the Galactivca reboot; there was not a single character that I found sympathetic, and I disliked the overall military tone and the underlyinng esoteric mumbo jumnbo. The handheld camera spacebattles were mostly just confusing. Not my sort of SciFi; too reminiscent of Space: Above and Beyond, Only watched a few episodes before losing interest. Prefer the original kiddie-show. Loved the first two Stargat series, did not like Stargate Universe either. Hated Lost. Watched the first seasons of Vikings but think it's an overly violent mess involvinbg a lot of unsympathetic characters. Seems that nowadays all protagonists have to be violent powerdriven macho alpha-dogs.No time for losers cause we are the champions. And that, when a character not belonging toi that kind comes out on top, like Bran Stark iin GOT, you get a shitstorm.  Yes, i can tell that some of this stuff was computergame-inspired. And no; I don't think that to be an improverment. Not a fan of the bleak 2020s....

wolf359

 

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Within, Beowulf  or The Polar Express.

Final Fantasy TSW: released 18 years ago
Polar Express released:15 years ago  

Beowulf  released: 12 years ago

Those films were products of the technical capability that existed at the time.

People are certainly free to dislike any genre or story

However IMHO sitting here in late 2019 and bitterly complaining
about the Computer graphics from 18 years ago is not a logicly credible criticism.

Sort of like trying to discredit ALL of todays smart phones based on the performance  of this:

 

 

WendyLuvsCatz

I still have my Nokias all my dumb phones, they hold their charge but I cannot use my SIM in them I need for my provider 

JazzyBear

Well the oufit is different, but the actor will be real so interesting hybrid.

Maybe face models for mocap will be a thing in the future to get that skin, muscle over bone movement just right.

WendyLuvsCatz

Honestly I think hybrid digital enhancements like photoshop does for instagram models is the more likely path, the actors are real but can be any average Joe or Jane just CGI filtered afterwards 

Sempie

wolf359 said:

 

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Within, Beowulf  or The Polar Express.

Final Fantasy TSW: released 18 years ago
Polar Express released:15 years ago  

Beowulf  released: 12 years ago

Those films were products of the technical capability that existed at the time.

They learned their lesson after that and did not give us more fully mocapped trainwrecks after that (Mars Needs Moms, maybe, but I never bothered to watch that)

They are doiing soulless CGI aimal flix, now, of course, like the expressionless Lion King remake (the trailer was enough to make me lose my appetite)

I think CG is good for creature work and digital stuntmen. (And our Hulk still looks uncanny valley fake and like he does not blend in with the rest - Rocket the raccoon looks better.)

Other than that, I prefer my actors to be real skilled live actors. (Mostly use Poser and DAZ because it's cheaper than building big sets and dressing up live models, or traveling to faraway locations, not because it is better...)

kyoto kid

SadKitty_Carrara said:

I still have my Nokias all my dumb phones, they hold their charge but I cannot use my SIM in them I need for my provider 

...I love my old flip phone.

"Scotty, one to beam up!"

cclesue

You mean those folks in Hollywood are REAL??

WendyLuvsCatz

kyoto kid said:

SadKitty_Carrara said:

I still have my Nokias all my dumb phones, they hold their charge but I cannot use my SIM in them I need for my provider 

...I love my old flip phone.

"Scotty, one to beam up!"

I have a lovely little flip phone like a ST transporter but sadly that too won't take this SIM

Ivy

Sempie said:

wolf359 said:

 

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Within, Beowulf  or The Polar Express.

Final Fantasy TSW: released 18 years ago
Polar Express released:15 years ago  

Beowulf  released: 12 years ago

Those films were products of the technical capability that existed at the time.

They learned their lesson after that and did not give us more fully mocapped trainwrecks after that (Mars Needs Moms, maybe, but I never bothered to watch that)

They are doiing soulless CGI aimal flix, now, of course, like the expressionless Lion King remake (the trailer was enough to make me lose my appetite)

I think CG is good for creature work and digital stuntmen. (And our Hulk still looks uncanny valley fake and like he does not blend in with the rest - Rocket the raccoon looks better.)

Other than that, I prefer my actors to be real skilled live actors. (Mostly use Poser and DAZ because it's cheaper than building big sets and dressing up live models, or traveling to faraway locations, not because it is better...)

You have to look at the times when the films were made and the technology available then . anyone remember the movie when mars attacks..lol it was corny poorly done animation, But still was funny & entertaining and had a mix of live actors and poorly done animation never the less still entertaining .  How about back in 1951 when they made " When the earth stood still  how poorly those animation effect were compared to the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves . and compare that to the technology we have 11 year later  how about the 1953 movie war of the worlds and compare the technology to the 2005 remake with om Cruise.  How much better do you think the animation would be today if they made another remake?

 

Now look how wel they used Live action mocaps for Avatar , they used live actors to record the acting and motions then used computer generated characters and green screens to transform them into what you see on screen . it was a huge leap in animation tecnology they are using today

Sempie

Mars Attacks was camp and the effects weren't supposed to look realistic. One of my favourite FX scenes of all times is actually Ray Harryhausen's skeleton fight from Jason and the Argonauts. Loved Phil Tippet's go-motion animated Vermithrax Pejorative in Dragonslayer. And I still prefer the original King Kong from 1933, with Willis 'O Brien's animated puppets, over the Pete Jackson remake. And I still rather watch the original Star Wars prints from the 1970s and early 80s over the digitally 'enhanced' versions. I actually like the cartoony CGI stuff like Tangled, Kung Fu Panda, Despicable Me, The Incredibles. I'm better with things that are way off than with uncanny valley...

ProFotograf

If you haven't seen this Showcase of Unreal Engine 4, you will be blown away.  3D characters getting REALLY close to reality.

The swappability of characters is even more astounding (4:57 in the video below, will remind you of a Josh Crockett character). Tech has advanced so much since Poser 4.  And many of these engines use Daz assets as their bases as well.

Check this link out:  Watch it all the way through.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh9msqaoJZw

Enjoy,
Antonio

The Blurst of Times

Star Wars with the fake Leia and Tarkin definitely show the limits right now.

The deepfake thing is more interesting these days. The 3D character faces just don't seem human enough in motion. Maybe a human face over a 3D body in a 3D environment (moar splosions!) might work better.

nicstt

3D characters are a very recent substitute - ignoring sculptures and carvings - yet when one looks at all the 2D art, stretching back to cave paints, there is a very long history of manufactured characters replacing real people.

The ability to use real people is a recent phenomena; until the advent of film and with it still photography, and a little later moving-pictures, the style of visual entertainment was quite static. We are perhaps on the cusp of another change, with virtual reality and even holograms - time will tell.

kyoto kid

Ivy said:

Sempie said:

wolf359 said:

 

And don't get me started about Final Fantasy, Spirits Within, Beowulf  or The Polar Express.

Final Fantasy TSW: released 18 years ago
Polar Express released:15 years ago  

Beowulf  released: 12 years ago

Those films were products of the technical capability that existed at the time.

They learned their lesson after that and did not give us more fully mocapped trainwrecks after that (Mars Needs Moms, maybe, but I never bothered to watch that)

They are doiing soulless CGI aimal flix, now, of course, like the expressionless Lion King remake (the trailer was enough to make me lose my appetite)

I think CG is good for creature work and digital stuntmen. (And our Hulk still looks uncanny valley fake and like he does not blend in with the rest - Rocket the raccoon looks better.)

Other than that, I prefer my actors to be real skilled live actors. (Mostly use Poser and DAZ because it's cheaper than building big sets and dressing up live models, or traveling to faraway locations, not because it is better...)

You have to look at the times when the films were made and the technology available then . anyone remember the movie when mars attacks..lol it was corny poorly done animation, But still was funny & entertaining and had a mix of live actors and poorly done animation never the less still entertaining .  How about back in 1951 when they made " When the earth stood still  how poorly those animation effect were compared to the 2008 remake with Keanu Reeves . and compare that to the technology we have 11 year later  how about the 1953 movie war of the worlds and compare the technology to the 2005 remake with om Cruise.  How much better do you think the animation would be today if they made another remake?

 

Now look how wel they used Live action mocaps for Avatar , they used live actors to record the acting and motions then used computer generated characters and green screens to transform them into what you see on screen . it was a huge leap in animation tecnology they are using today

...Mars Attacks was supposed to be corny because the collectors cards and comic books it was based on (both of which I had) were corny.

The Day The Earth Stood Still was fairly well done for the time in my book.  It didn't really centre on a lot of special effects, save for Gort melting tanks & howitzers. The story itself was very timely considering we were in the midst of the Cold War.  I felt the simple effects used actually worked quite well (the scene of Gort melting the block of high strength polymer they put him in had a particularly eeriness about it ) and they don't bother me nearly as much as the digital "re--issues" of the first Star Wars Trilogy and some of the other CGI/Live action stuff I see today.

Petercat

Boy, has this thread gotten esoteric.
The origional question was, "Will 3D Characters Ever Replace Live Models?"
Computer power is increasing at a rapid pace, as is our ability to create with it.
Compare Gen8 to Max Headroom.
Or the improvements in auditory realism.
Or the lowering of costs in computer creation.
The answer is "yes, eventually".
We are fast approaching the point where, on an emissive screen, 3D characters will replace live models.

Subtropic Pixel

cclesue said:

You mean those folks in Hollywood are REAL??

No.  No they are not.  They are fake.  Hollywood is fake.  Drama on television is fake, even if it's called "reality-something-something".  Not all "fake" is bad, as I said in a prior post.  But the 3D is more interesting to me than the so-called "reality".  Hollywood probably could just switch to 3D characters for everything.  It's more interesting to me, that's for sure.  Or they can stick with the current crop of real people and instead spend their time and money inventing 3D audiences to watch their award shows.  'cause I won't do it!

Do you want to know what's real?  Montana is real.  Wyoming is real.  Texas, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and New Mexico are real.  There are others, but I think you get my gist.  Your family is real.  Your friends are real.  Your co-workers are real.  Helping your Girl Scout with her cookie sale is real.  Helping your boy's soccer or baseball team's car wash raise money so that they can go to the big invitational this year is real.  Going out for your once-a-month Church Friday fish-fry or Sunday spaghetti dinner; those things are real.  Getting your kid or neighbor's kid interested in pursuing STEM courses in school, or maybe just getting them into a music class; that is real.

I have no idea what made me go down that path.  Something real, I'm sure. 

The Blurst of Times said:

Star Wars with the fake Leia and Tarkin definitely show the limits right now.

The deepfake thing is more interesting these days. The 3D character faces just don't seem human enough in motion. Maybe a human face over a 3D body in a 3D environment (moar splosions!) might work better.

For the length of time they'll need Leia or Tarkin actually on screen in a movie, a bit of CGI isn't at all harmful.  Whatever allows them to tell the story.  Come on, the ORIGINAL Star Wars had awful special effects by today's standards, and those are still watchable.  Okay, barely.  But still!

nicstt said:

3D characters are a very recent substitute - ignoring sculptures and carvings - yet when one looks at all the 2D art, stretching back to cave paints, there is a very long history of manufactured characters replacing real people.

The ability to use real people is a recent phenomena; until the advent of film and with it still photography, and a little later moving-pictures, the style of visual entertainment was quite static. We are perhaps on the cusp of another change, with virtual reality and even holograms - time will tell.

You are so right!

Petercat said:

Boy, has this thread gotten esoteric.
The origional question was, "Will 3D Characters Ever Replace Live Models?"
Computer power is increasing at a rapid pace, as is our ability to create with it.
Compare Gen8 to Max Headroom.
Or the improvements in auditory realism.
Or the lowering of costs in computer creation.
The answer is "yes, eventually".
We are fast approaching the point where, on an emissive screen, 3D characters will replace live models.

It's all esoteric until we make moviegoing completely immersive.  I'm waiting for the day when a CGI Cher can slap a CGI Nicholas Cage with a loud "Snap out of it!" and make ALL the men in the theatre wince in physical pain (not imagined).  When that happens, then indeed, "yes, eventually" will have arrived.

That there was some good slappin'.