Would you support dead actors in CGI?

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
Do you think people should be allowed to create CGI films that look photorealistic with actors/actresses who are dead? Example a CGI film with Chris Farley that looks like its completely real.
 
At first thought it might be cool, but I don't think we should be able to recreate someone else's life, especially if we are going to control them.
 
First off, no. That's creepy. Maybe more importantly, we aren't anywhere near photo-realism yet, and won't be for years.

What exactly is accomplished by using the images of deceased actors instead of new actors?
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']First off, no. That's creepy. Maybe more importantly, we aren't anywhere near photo-realism yet, and won't be for years.

What exactly is accomplished by using the images of deceased actors instead of new actors?[/quote]
We are fast approaching photorealism, check out this video of a CGI woman http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007483.html

What is accomplished with deceased actors? The same thing that is accomplished by having different actors in films. Some actors are better than others, some are people's favorites.
 
Assuming that caught on, it'd probably lead to entire movies being done in CGI, eliminating the need for human actors.
 
[quote name='J7.']What is accomplished with deceased actors? The same thing that is accomplished by having different actors in films. Some actors are better than others, some are people's favorites.[/quote]

Yes, but a deceased actor would not be "acting" in any new films. The CG actor would act how the computer programmer thought the original/deceased did. I would rather discover new talent or hire an actor that is already proven instead of a CG, deceased person.
 
[quote name='J7.']We are fast approaching photorealism, check out this video of a CGI woman http://blogs.pcworld.com/gameon/archives/007483.html[/QUOTE]

That clip used a video of the woman in question as reference; it wasn't creating something new from nothing, as you'd have to do in this scenario.

Besides, is it really fair to judge photorealism from a flash video clip? The resolution there is too low to provide accurate representation.

[quote name='J7.']What is accomplished with deceased actors? The same thing that is accomplished by having different actors in films. Some actors are better than others, some are people's favorites.[/QUOTE]

I don't care if Gene Kelly is your favorite actor of all time - a CGI version of him with an imitator doing a voiceover can never replace the real thing, and thinking that people will pay to see something that's almost like Gene Kelly is an insult to his fans. Whatever made people fall in love with the actor in the first place will almost definitely be lost in translation.

I think it's safe to say that actors being "better than others" goes right out the window when their every move and word is written by someone else decades after their death.

[quote name='lmz00']Assuming that caught on, it'd probably lead to entire movies being done in CGI, eliminating the need for human actors.[/QUOTE]

It takes a ton of computing power to make CGI movies, and photorealism is leaps and bounds beyond what we've seen so far. It's possible, yes, but it'd take a ton of time and money, and a few leaps in technology couldn't hurt either.

Human actors are a lot cheaper, so why replace them?
 
Who would voice these dead actors? That and photorealistic CGI movies would be too costly in this day and age.

The anthropomorphic walrus is spot-on.
 
No, its a dumb idea. The reason your favorite actors are you favorite actors is cause of their acting skill. Whats the point if the actors "self" isn't in the performance. Also the video J7 linked dosen't prove much, only the face is animated so its given help looking real from the environment and real body, and even the face looks weird. Even on a low resolution video I can see it immediately, imagine a hi def display which most people would be watching on.
 
You can't replicate someone's acting ability. I say no because I don't think it'll work, but I'm not voting because I don't think it's immoral.
 
[quote name='lmz00']Assuming that caught on, it'd probably lead to entire movies being done in CGI, eliminating the need for human actors.[/quote]


George Lucas is eager and happy.
 
[quote name='Gothic Walrus']It takes a ton of computing power to make CGI movies, and photorealism is leaps and bounds beyond what we've seen so far. It's possible, yes, but it'd take a ton of time and money, and a few leaps in technology couldn't hurt either.

Human actors are a lot cheaper, so why replace them?[/quote]
It's expensive now, but decades from now, I'm assuming it'll be much cheaper than paying your average Will Smith/Tom Cruise upwards of $25,000,000 per movie, and perhaps less time-consuming. I could be wrong, though. This topic reminds me of the movie Simone (with Al Pacino).
 
[quote name='Koggit']The reason Will Smith/Tom Cruise is worth $25 million is because people want to see Will Smith/Tom Cruise[/QUOTE]

sex tape : )
 
It's not immoral, but it is more of like a cover band. They will never be as good as the real thing and well for me it's not wrong but more of a why if they did it.
 
I for one welcome our new CGI porno actor overlords and all their amazing talents. Think of the possibilities! :drool:
 
Why not?

I'm sure there's at least one good movie concept out there that uses actors who have died.

At the very least I'm sure someone could come up with a concept in which a younger actor meets and/or interviews his older self (like a postponed project...)
 
Didn't this happen in Onimusha 3? A dead Japanese actor's likeness was used in the game IIRC. Granted, it isn't movies but the general idea is the same.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Didn't this happen in Onimusha 3? A dead Japanese actor's likeness was used in the game IIRC. Granted, it isn't movies but the general idea is the same.[/quote]
Jean Reno was the actor in Onimusha 3 and he is quite alive.
 
I say go for it, as long as 100% of profits go to the families who have to live through Hollywood practicing virtual graverobbing.
 
I recall seeing a Gap commercial with Audrey Hepburn a few years back and I thought that was strange


[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Di5XPllM18[/MEDIA]
 
[quote name='Magehart']I for one welcome our new CGI porno actor overlords and all their amazing talents. Think of the possibilities! :drool:[/quote]

CGI porno does exist. I can't post a link here but go to youporn dot com and type in "3D" in the search box.

Youporn is just like youtube but its porn.

It goes without saying that it is NSFW that site..
 
I think the Orville Redenbacher is a good example of why it shouldn't be done.

You can argue that a big box office movie could afford better CGI, but I say it'd still be creepy as hell. So no, I don't support it.
 
[quote name='DoubleEcksZero']Jean Reno was the actor in Onimusha 3 and he is quite alive.[/quote]
Uh, read again:

[quote name='GuilewasNK']Didn't this happen in Onimusha 3? A dead Japanese actor's likeness was used in the game IIRC. Granted, it isn't movies but the general idea is the same.[/quote]

And it wasn't Onimusha 3. It was Onimusha 2. The protagonist was modeled after Yusaku Matsuda, an actor famous in Japan & also was part of the cast of the Ridley Scott movie Black Rain w/ Michael Douglas.
 
[quote name='doraemonkerpal']Yes, but a deceased actor would not be "acting" in any new films. The CG actor would act how the computer programmer thought the original/deceased did. I would rather discover new talent or hire an actor that is already proven instead of a CG, deceased person.[/quote]
Somewhat true. However, if the team creating the acting for the actor knew what they were doing they could make it easily believable and people wouldn't be able to tell the difference, or even tell if they did not know the person was dead. This is why Tupac is 'still alive'.
 
Ya, new talent is great, but every actor is so unique like every person. I'd love to see more movies with people who either are not or will not be acting too much longer like Morgan Freeman, River Phoenix, Jack Nicholson, Richard Pryor, Chris Farley, Sean Connery, John Belushi, Donald Sutherland, Heath Ledger, etc. Remember how well Forrest Gump was interacting with dead people and that was like over 15 years ago (technology).
 
[quote name='Koggit']The reason Will Smith/Tom Cruise is worth $25 million is because people want to see Will Smith/Tom Cruise[/QUOTE]

but if you started off making some cgi actor and gave them a voice and started them off with a movie based around them, you could make them into will smith or tom cruise in a few movies. You could live their lives through the tabloids, it would be like the truman show but done right and without a dome.
 
No thanks. Just one of those things where I think we need to say no. Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. Really vague, without justification... but I really dislike the idea.
 
No. I dont see it as a moral question, but just a preferential one. I get sick of seeing/hearing the same faces/voices over and over. Stop cashing in on big names, do something shocking like giving new blood a chance.
 
What if you were an actor and you were offerred an additional $10 Million on to your already paid $10 Million to give the studio rights to using your likeness when you were dead? Would you do it or not? What if it was $1 Million + $1 Million? If it was a great deal would you do it or never?
 
^ A good idea until someone like Jack Lemon looks down from heaven and sees that he's now the lead in Rush Hour 5. I don't think any actors would take the risk.
 
[quote name='J7.']What if you were an actor and you were offerred an additional $10 Million on to your already paid $10 Million to give the studio rights to using your likeness when you were dead? Would you do it or not? What if it was $1 Million + $1 Million? If it was a great deal would you do it or never?[/quote]

We already have this concept. Heck, it seems like Tupac Shakur put out more material after he died.
 
[quote name='J7.']What if you were an actor and you were offerred an additional $10 Million on to your already paid $10 Million to give the studio rights to using your likeness when you were dead? Would you do it or not? What if it was $1 Million + $1 Million? If it was a great deal would you do it or never?[/quote]

Sure. I don't care what happens to me after I'm dead since I can't take the money w/ me anyway so why wouldn't I? And if I was that high in demand, I'd definitely think I could hold out for a lot more since $1 million in 2K8 dollars doesn't buy much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top