CGI Superman - CGI Terminator

[JarodRussell]

We've seen a CGI Arnold in Terminator Salvation. Because Arnold wasn't available. Because Arnold was too old. But he's iconic, so they badly needed it. They created it from scanning old molds made back in 1984 for Terminator 1.

We've seen a CGI Marlon Brando in Superman Returns. Because his role was iconic, because they wanted it. And they did it by using old footage filmed for Superman 2.


How about they paste the CGI face of Christopher Reeve on a nameless actor playing Superman?

 

[Kai "the spy"]

Uhm, ... why?

I mean, I love Chris Reeve as Superman, but seriously, that's ridiculous. With Brando, they had at least shot scenes to work with, and it worked for what the movie was trying to do. Not that SR actually worked, but the Brando thing worked in the context.

Besides, why even bring it up? They've cast Henry Cavill months ago, and I think he at least deserves a chance (although I was actually hoping for a Routhboot).

 

[Jetfire]

I think it would be cool for something that was completely animated like The Incredibles...if a Superman movie was done that way...having Christopher Reeve be the face of the animated Superman would be awesome. I do think a live action movie... especially like 'Man Of Steel' which will be a completely new movie/series of movies hopefully should have it's own Superman. I know that doesn't make sense given what I said about a animated movie having a CR faced Superman...but it is how I feel.

 

[Dac]

Both of those examples were short lived, and at least in Terminator's case relied on quick cuts, dark lighting and smoke effects to help sell the illusion. It looked great, don't get me wrong, but it was a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Doing the same thing for the main character of an entire movie seems doable but insanely difficult and expensive, and it has to be done right. Terminator worked because of the one expressionless face that sold the fact he was a robot and not a human. Superman on the other hand, especially Christopher Reeve relied a lot on his expressions to sell a scene. But even when Tron Legacy had Jeff Bridges himself with a bazillion cameras strapped to his face to capture his emotions I still think Clu was poorly animated, especially in the face. Doing the same for a dead actor for 120 minutes and making it look believable is just too tall an order.

So to sum up, it seems like it could be done, but it would be ridiculously impractical and probably look like shit.

 

[JarodRussell]

But this is no definite argument against it, is it? What if the technology is there some day? When it's no longer impractical, and no longer looking like shit. And it will be there.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But this is no definite argument against it, is it? What if the technology is there some day? When it's no longer impractical, and no longer looking like shit. And it will be there.

How about this.... A lot of people don't know or care about Christopher Reeve anymore. There are a lot of people who have never heard of him.

So, as a studio, why should I pay a lot of money to some estate when I can hire an actor... who can ALSO go on press junkets.

 

[Dac]

Oh I'm all for it if it could be done seamlessly. Hell, if so it could allow anything to be done. You want a Star Wars sequel trilogy with age appropriate Han, Luke and Leia? Sure why not! You want a brand new Star Trek TOS TV series with the full original cast? Seems like a no brainer.

The problem is, while the fans may want to see it, I think Hollywood is going to kick up a fuss, more so than they have already because actors would essentially be out of work. There's been some rumblings of this movement gathering around Hollywood for the past decade, but I don't think it's come to any real confrontation because the technology was still lagging behind.

In another decade though I think this will be a real issue for the industry.

 

[JarodRussell]

But this is no definite argument against it, is it? What if the technology is there some day? When it's no longer impractical, and no longer looking like shit. And it will be there.

How about this.... A lot of people don't know or care about Christopher Reeve anymore. There are a lot of people who have never heard of him.

So, as a studio, why should I pay a lot of money to some estate when I can hire an actor... who can ALSO go on press junkets.

Don't get fixated on Reeve. Take any star. Dead or paralysed or busy. How far should they be allowed to go?

 

[Professor Zoom]

But this is no definite argument against it, is it? What if the technology is there some day? When it's no longer impractical, and no longer looking like shit. And it will be there.

How about this.... A lot of people don't know or care about Christopher Reeve anymore. There are a lot of people who have never heard of him.

So, as a studio, why should I pay a lot of money to some estate when I can hire an actor... who can ALSO go on press junkets.

Don't get fixated on Reeve. Take any star. Dead or paralysed or busy. How far should they be allowed to go?

They can go as far as they want. But they won't.

As I said before... Why would a studio want to use a dead or severely injured actor in a major roll? I don't think an audience would be any more or less excited--especially if it's an actor that's been dead for a long time-- Where were the huge audiences for Oliver's appearance in Sky Captain?

AND, you can't send your LEAD TO THE TONIGHT SHOW? That's a MAJOR problem.

So, why would they do it, even if it was technically easy?

 

[Obiwanshinobi]

An Alex Ross style CGI Superman movie would be awesome!

 

[Kegg]

Don't get fixated on Reeve. Take any star. Dead or paralysed or busy. How far should they be allowed to go?

Hell, don't get fixated on stars.

CGI Hitler, Napoleon, Mao, Kennedy. Any real person with photographic, painted or sculpted record. I could definitely see the appeal there.

 

[Admiral_Young]

The Rao awful "Bizzaro Superman" script that has been floating about for the past few years toys around with the idea of a pure CGI Superman depicted as a "blur" in flight or a tiny CGI blob you can't really make out. The concept deals with not showing Superman at all. Not quite what Jarod is probably talking about but his idea does remind me of that script.

 

[Myasishchev]

Oh I'm all for it if it could be done seamlessly. Hell, if so it could allow anything to be done. You want a Star Wars sequel trilogy with age appropriate Han, Luke and Leia? Sure why not! You want a brand new Star Trek TOS TV series with the full original cast? Seems like a no brainer.

The problem is, while the fans may want to see it, I think Hollywood is going to kick up a fuss, more so than they have already because actors would essentially be out of work. There's been some rumblings of this movement gathering around Hollywood for the past decade, but I don't think it's come to any real confrontation because the technology was still lagging behind.

In another decade though I think this will be a real issue for the industry.

For at least a while after that, though, I'd expect all it would shake out is the crap actors no one cares about anyway, but who do make up the bulk of the SAG. I mean, there's more to acting than standing there reading a line. Even in purely animated works, the VAs are still selling the emotions.

I suspect that to get top flight acting, you'd need far more work than an actor would conceivably cost, or you'd need an AI.

 

[JarodRussell]

Don't get fixated on Reeve. Take any star. Dead or paralysed or busy. How far should they be allowed to go?

Hell, don't get fixated on stars.

CGI Hitler, Napoleon, Mao, Kennedy. Any real person with photographic, painted or sculpted record. I could definitely see the appeal there.

Hm... haven't even thought about that one. But that's a bit different, since that would be in order to make a movie about these persons. What I mean is to use CGI to exploit an actor even after he is long gone.

 

[Dac]

Oh I'm all for it if it could be done seamlessly. Hell, if so it could allow anything to be done. You want a Star Wars sequel trilogy with age appropriate Han, Luke and Leia? Sure why not! You want a brand new Star Trek TOS TV series with the full original cast? Seems like a no brainer.

The problem is, while the fans may want to see it, I think Hollywood is going to kick up a fuss, more so than they have already because actors would essentially be out of work. There's been some rumblings of this movement gathering around Hollywood for the past decade, but I don't think it's come to any real confrontation because the technology was still lagging behind.

In another decade though I think this will be a real issue for the industry.

For at least a while after that, though, I'd expect all it would shake out is the crap actors no one cares about anyway, but who do make up the bulk of the SAG. I mean, there's more to acting than standing there reading a line. Even in purely animated works, the VAs are still selling the emotions.

I suspect that to get top flight acting, you'd need far more work than an actor would conceivably cost, or you'd need an AI.

Yeah, I agree - but like I said if you could make a sequel to any movie that would make huge $$$'s for the studio and you don't need to pay a Tom Cruise, Will Smith or Bruce Willis? That basically gives them complete control to do what they want, and I'm positive there's a million good voice actors out there who could do an impression of those stars perfectly.

By the time that happens, Cruise, Smith and Willis will probably be past their prime (Willis especially) and maybe the way Hollywood is going is preventing the formation of huge megastars so this might not be an issue, but, heh. It's something to consider.

 

[JarodRussell]

I find that thought scary.

Would you have rather seen nuTrek with Pine and Quinto or with CG-Shatner and CG-Spock, with excellent voice actors? Casino Royale with Daniel Craig or with Sean Connery?

 

[AvBaur]

Yeah, I agree - but like I said if you could make a sequel to any movie that would make huge $$$'s for the studio and you don't need to pay a Tom Cruise, Will Smith or Bruce Willis?

But you do. You can't just use an actor's likeness without their consent. (or their estate's, in case they're already dead)

Paying for the likeness AND the technology required would probably be more expensive than just hiring them in the first place.

 

[Mach5]

The development of 100% photorealistic CGI is just a matter of time, and God only knows what crazy ideas Hollywood people might get when this happens.

The real question is, in 20 years time (give or take), when this becomes not only possible, but also relatively cheap, what will the actors (and their unions) think of all this? Also, when the voice synthesizers reach perfection, not even voiceovers will be completely necessary. Filmmakers will be able to "fabricate" dialogue on their computers.

Anyone seen that movie "S1mone" with Al Pacino? It wasn't very good, but I fear it might have been quite prophetic. Personally, the idea of a 100% artificial movie scares the shit out of me.

 

[EyalM]

Isn't any given animated film "100% artificial"? Why would the idea be scary?

Personally, other then trying to "capture" real historic figures, I don't see much sense in CGI-ing dead people, except as stunt cameos (like in the OP). There is just little to no added value.

 

[Mach5]

Isn't any given animated film "100% artificial"? Why would the idea be scary?

Apples and oranges. I'm talking about all-CGI movies that would be indistinguishable from the "real" ones.