Should Trek do an all CGI show?

[Christopher]

I literally just got flashbacks of Scotty trashing the transwarp in Star Trek 3 reading this.

That doesn't work as an analogy, though, because transwarp was an attempt to do something new, while photorealistic CGI of human characters is an attempt to find a more complicated way of doing something that can already be done far more effectively by simpler means. It's like going to the trouble and expense of building an elaborate Rube Goldberg device to open your door when you could just reach out and turn the handle. Why bother?

The value of CGI is its ability to create reasonably realistic images of things that don't exist in real life, or that would be too impractical to depict for real. It seems pointless to strive to use it to duplicate things that do exist already. If you want images of ordinary human beings, there are plenty of real ones you can use.

 

[fireproof78]

Wait, humans are real?

 

[Kor]

How about a compromise... real humans in CGI scenery, by means of green screen or whatever they're doing these days.

Kor

 

[Yistaan]

How about a compromise... real humans in CGI scenery, by means of green screen or whatever they're doing these days.

Kor

We're already doing that in Trek with the AR walls they just got.

 

[fireproof78]

We're already doing that in Trek with the AR walls they just got.

Not good enough.



For reasons.

 

[Christopher]

How about a compromise... real humans in CGI scenery, by means of green screen or whatever they're doing these days.

Yes, exactly. That's already done routinely. They use the CG for what it's best at, i.e. creating images too expensive, unfeasible, or dangerous to create by other means, and use real people for what they're best at, i.e. being real people. The worst mistake in visual effects is to try to do everything with the same tool. You use the right tool for each distinct job.

The value of photorealistic CGI human doubles is not to replace humans entirely in performance scenes, but to replace them in those particular cases where you don't want to use the real person -- dangerous stunts, scenes of flying or transformation or other superpowers, violent death scenes, that sort of thing.

 

[dupersuper]

It's not something I'm clamoring for, but I would of course watch it. I haven't missed any Star Trek yet. If Picard couldn't turn me off, I doubt that this could.

 

[FederationHistorian]

So, when I hear of this idea, I immediately think of Avatar and Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. Which are films, not tv shows.

If you had an original cast not connected to any of the shows, it would make sense to do. Maybe like a six part miniseries.

But if even James Cameron has had difficulty in getting the sequel Avatar films out over the past decade, why would Star Trek even consider taking this route when it takes years for them to get a single film out?

 

[Noname Given]

I thought the character animation in The Prodigy pilot was fairly well done.

As for Star Trek attempting to do a photorealistic CGI series with corresponding characters, I prefer Star Trek remain out of The Uncanny Valley myself.

 

[Yistaan]

In a few years it won't even be all CGI so much as all deepfake. Just pay the TOS cast and their estates a gazillion dollars and make new TOS era works, Rogue One style like with Peter Cushing.

 

[fireproof78]

In a few years it won't even be all CGI so much as all deepfake. Just pay the TOS cast and their estates a gazillion dollars and make new TOS era works, Rogue One style like with Peter Cushing.

Artistic integrity be damned.

 

[Christopher]

In a few years it won't even be all CGI so much as all deepfake. Just pay the TOS cast and their estates a gazillion dollars and make new TOS era works, Rogue One style like with Peter Cushing.

Maybe at first, but once the novelty of playing with a new toy wears off, hopefully people will remember that it's about acting, and that it doesn't matter whether someone looks or sounds exactly like someone else as long as they give a good performance.