independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > What would you guys think of a CGI Prince biopic?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 5 <12345
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 02/02/17 4:24pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

jaawwnn said:



Ingela said:


jaawwnn said:


But you're missing the point of acting. It's an actor doing a version of Prince, it's not a documentary with an impersonator trying to pass it off as real. It's a film, the audience know it's a film. They still make films about Elvis and the Beatles.



Still those are always pretty freaking bad. Always freaks me out seeing actors pretending to be people we know and love I. A serious way. Far freakier than I. A skit, comedy or as a piece of art in itself. That's why I think CGI is the way to go. I do see that some people have a limited grasp as to what the medium can do or have preconceived notions as to what it is. The reality is that it's a nascent art form that's just learning to walk and this upcoming generation will come up with a lot of interesting things it can do with it. And I can't wait to see what people do with it.

Off the top of my head, Nowhere Boy was excellent and Elvis and Nixon was great fun.




Ingela said:


Here is a trailer for a 2017 animated Vincen Van Gogh biopic. Tell me you wouldn't see this or not think it looks cool. [Edited 2/2/17 11:27am]

If you can get the estate to agree to someone with a risky vision like that i'd be all for it.



I would hope that whatever the estate approves is as daring as this. That's who Prince was. Daring is the least of who he was and I would hope whatever they choose to do is innovative and daring. I would hope no generic anything is approved by them. Certainly no generic biopic.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 02/02/17 4:52pm

Vashtix

purplethunder3121 said:

Ingela said:

morningsong said: I didn't mean right away. Besides, a computer animated movie takes at least a couple of years to produce. And that's after a decent script is ready and pre production. Besides being entertaining on its own right, these movies keep the legacy of an artist in the public eye and relevant, ..while also being a great commercial for his vast catalog, re-releases as well as other merchandise.

Soulless corporate dreck.

I agree but I feel it is coming. Prince is gone and so much I think will be coming down the pike that will be meh and not worth it but it will happen.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 02/02/17 5:01pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

Vashtix said:



purplethunder3121 said:




Ingela said:


morningsong said: I didn't mean right away. Besides, a computer animated movie takes at least a couple of years to produce. And that's after a decent script is ready and pre production. Besides being entertaining on its own right, these movies keep the legacy of an artist in the public eye and relevant, ..while also being a great commercial for his vast catalog, re-releases as well as other merchandise.

Soulless corporate dreck.



I agree but I feel it is coming. Prince is gone and so much I think will be coming down the pike that will be meh and not worth it but it will happen.



Hilarious.
People don't seem to know how art is created. It's always about funding and an an artist.
But it's ok. It's only natural that folks don't know about how art is made. How it's funded etc. and that at the core it's for an audience to enjoy.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 02/02/17 5:26pm

morningsong

Ingela said:

Here is a trailer for a 2017 animated Vincen Van Gogh biopic. Tell me you wouldn't see this or not think it looks cool. [Edited 2/2/17 11:27am]




This is closer to something I was talking about. This is preceived more as a moving drawing (animation) than a reallife physical recreation. I think this would be more palatable. But I thought these kind of things were created by a combination of live actors and CGI?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 02/02/17 5:49pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

morningsong said:



Ingela said:


Here is a trailer for a 2017 animated Vincen Van Gogh biopic. Tell me you wouldn't see this or not think it looks cool. [Edited 2/2/17 11:27am]




This is closer to something I was talking about. This is preceived more as a moving drawing (animation) than a reallife physical recreation. I think this would be more palatable. But I thought these kind of things were created by a combination of live actors and CGI?



Well Vomputer animation can be anything. I think that's why I'm perplexed as to why people have such narrow scope of vision.

Having said all that, that Van Gogh movie was hand oil painted. Every single frame. Sure by benefit of modern technologies, but still there is no reason to think of computer animation as anything other than another tool. It's up to artists to create something worthwhile. Whatever the media. Let's not be so closed minded.
Anyone ever been to a museum? ( had to ask because of the mentality I've been reading)
All kinds of stuff out of all kinds of stuff.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 02/02/17 6:13pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:




This is closer to something I was talking about. This is preceived more as a moving drawing (animation) than a reallife physical recreation. I think this would be more palatable. But I thought these kind of things were created by a combination of live actors and CGI?

Well Vomputer animation can be anything. I think that's why I'm perplexed as to why people have such narrow scope of vision. Having said all that, that Van Gogh movie was hand oil painted. Every single frame. Sure by benefit of modern technologies, but still there is no reason to think of computer animation as anything other than another tool. It's up to artists to create something worthwhile. Whatever the media. Let's not be so closed minded. Anyone ever been to a museum? ( had to ask because of the mentality I've been reading) All kinds of stuff out of all kinds of stuff.




Then you don't understand people, which is what this medium is supposed to entertaining. I still stand by what I said, if someone doesn't understand people then something like this would turn out very badly.


  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 02/02/17 7:03pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

morningsong said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


morningsong said:





This is closer to something I was talking about. This is preceived more as a moving drawing (animation) than a reallife physical recreation. I think this would be more palatable. But I thought these kind of things were created by a combination of live actors and CGI?



Well Vomputer animation can be anything. I think that's why I'm perplexed as to why people have such narrow scope of vision. Having said all that, that Van Gogh movie was hand oil painted. Every single frame. Sure by benefit of modern technologies, but still there is no reason to think of computer animation as anything other than another tool. It's up to artists to create something worthwhile. Whatever the media. Let's not be so closed minded. Anyone ever been to a museum? ( had to ask because of the mentality I've been reading) All kinds of stuff out of all kinds of stuff.




Then you don't understand people, which is what this medium is supposed to entertaining. I still stand by what I said, if someone doesn't understand people then something like this would turn out very badly.




Ha ha funniest thing posted so far.
And you understand people. And I hope you understand that the most profitable and highest grossing movie of all time was CHI. That most of the most profitable movies this year were computer animated. That all the high grossing superhero movies were mostly CGI.

But do tell how YOU understand people.
lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 02/02/17 7:39pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:




Then you don't understand people, which is what this medium is supposed to entertaining. I still stand by what I said, if someone doesn't understand people then something like this would turn out very badly.


Ha ha funniest thing posted so far. And you understand people. And I hope you understand that the most profitable and highest grossing movie of all time was CHI. That most of the most profitable movies this year were computer animated. That all the high grossing superhero movies were mostly CGI. But do tell how YOU understand people. lol



CHI?


I even Googled that and I got Chi-Raq.


I loved Rogue One. Still doesn't translate to I want to sit for 1 to 2 hours looking at a reanimated Prince walking, talking, dancing and singing.

Rogue One still suffered from uncanny valley, there's stuff on Google of people having comments about.

The big issue, and it's a big issue everyone's been talking about, for me is, I was really happy to see Grand Moff Tarkin and to see Peter Cushing again. However, there were moments where it's like, wow this is flawless. There's a few shots of him where I'm like, it's like he's really there. Then it becomes like uncanny valley where it's so obvious that Peter Cushing is a CG character, and you can't get past it.
Coming from Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddkenreck/2016/12/19/star-wars-rogue-one-is-brilliant-that-cgi-though/#577ef49e1795

“We’re not planning on doing this digital re-creation extensively from now on. It just made sense for this particular movie,” revealed producer John Knoll.

It’s a difficult situation the producers were faced with, but they did the most respectful and admirable service to these characters and actors they could have.



"[It is a] slippery slope argument...[It is] in the spirit of what a lot of Star Wars has done in the past...It is extremely labor-intensive and expensive to do. I don't imagine anybody engaging in this kind of thing in a casual manner. I don't imagine that happening. This was done for very solid and defendable story reasons. This is a character that is very important to telling this kind of story. We're not planning on doing this digital re-creation extensively from now on. It just made sense for this particular movie."


As a visual effects artist, I found the work in Rogue One impressive but not totally convincing. There is still, for me at least, an element of the uncanny valley, that oddly disconcerting gap between the artificial and the real that is yet to be completely overcome in this area. If the computer generated (CG) version of Cushing had been used more sparingly the audience would have had less time to study every detail and search for flaws. (Of course, those of us who knew Cushing was dead seem to have been the only ones distracted.)

[Edited 2/2/17 19:57pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 02/02/17 8:15pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

^
Ooh you found a typo! The sign of a desperate lost argument.



lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 02/02/17 8:24pm

Ingela

I grudgingly went with a friend to see this years new version of "Jungle Book"
I went in with a great deal of pessimism but was ultimately blow away by it. One of the best movies of the year by far.
All but the kid was CGI, but once you're immersed in it, the quality is so good, it doesn't matter how it was done. But it was amazing. Without CGI, doubt it could have been made.

Comical how narrow minded some people are.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 02/02/17 8:38pm

morningsong

Ugot2shakesumthin said:[quote]^
Ooh you found a typo!

Didn't realize it was a typo until I was long down the street.
[Edited 2/2/17 20:47pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 02/02/17 8:56pm

morningsong

Ingela said:

I grudgingly went with a friend to see this years new version of "Jungle Book"
I went in with a great deal of pessimism but was ultimately blow away by it. One of the best movies of the year by far.
All but the kid was CGI, but once you're immersed in it, the quality is so good, it doesn't matter how it was done. But it was amazing. Without CGI, doubt it could have been made.

Comical how narrow minded some people are.



Loved this movie too. None of this is articulating a thing. Nearly every show has some CGI in it. Most people know this and accept it just fine. You're failing to progress this convo beyond repeatedly saying that movies use CGI.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 02/02/17 9:32pm

Ingela

morningsong said:

Ingela said:

I grudgingly went with a friend to see this years new version of "Jungle Book"
I went in with a great deal of pessimism but was ultimately blow away by it. One of the best movies of the year by far.
All but the kid was CGI, but once you're immersed in it, the quality is so good, it doesn't matter how it was done. But it was amazing. Without CGI, doubt it could have been made.

Comical how narrow minded some people are.



Loved this movie too. None of this is articulating a thing. Nearly every show has some CGI in it. Most people know this and accept it just fine. You're failing to progress this convo beyond repeatedly saying that movies use CGI.


I thought you were the one who said "real people" won't accept CGI. That YOU KNEW what people wanted to see. Lol
But whatever. Yes we're going in circles and your opinions and views has been all over the place and everywhere too.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 02/02/17 9:42pm

jaawwnn

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

morningsong said:




This is closer to something I was talking about. This is preceived more as a moving drawing (animation) than a reallife physical recreation. I think this would be more palatable. But I thought these kind of things were created by a combination of live actors and CGI?

Well Vomputer animation can be anything. I think that's why I'm perplexed as to why people have such narrow scope of vision. Having said all that, that Van Gogh movie was hand oil painted. Every single frame. Sure by benefit of modern technologies, but still there is no reason to think of computer animation as anything other than another tool. It's up to artists to create something worthwhile. Whatever the media. Let's not be so closed minded. Anyone ever been to a museum? ( had to ask because of the mentality I've been reading) All kinds of stuff out of all kinds of stuff.

I know what you're getting at but at the same time, ever been to the theatre? You could show a bit of respect for the craft and art of acting.

Ultimately I think you're right, a CGI Prince biopic could of course work, as could a non CGI biopic, as could a mixture of both. I think what people are against is the idea of a biopic film that's shot as a non-CGI film but with a CGI Prince character in it made to look photo realistic because "no one could play Prince". If we're talking a stylised film then both CGI and/or non-CGI could work with the right people.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 02/02/17 9:49pm

morningsong

Ingela said:

morningsong said:



Loved this movie too. None of this is articulating a thing. Nearly every show has some CGI in it. Most people know this and accept it just fine. You're failing to progress this convo beyond repeatedly saying that movies use CGI.


I thought you were the one who said "real people" won't accept CGI. That YOU KNEW what people wanted to see. Lol
But whatever. Yes we're going in circles and your opinions and views has been all over the place and everywhere too.


I forgot you do not read. That. Is. Not. What. I. Said. Am I talking to a chicken or a 7 year old? Your comprehension sucks. I challenge you to quote where I said "real people" won't accept CGI or that I know what people want to see? Nor did I say your opinions are all over the place.


Nevermind.
I'm with the majority here about the OP. No.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 02/02/17 9:56pm

Ingela

morningsong said:

Ingela said:



I thought you were the one who said "real people" won't accept CGI. That YOU KNEW what people wanted to see. Lol
But whatever. Yes we're going in circles and your opinions and views has been all over the place and everywhere too.


I forgot you do not read. That. Is. Not. What. I. Said. Am I talking to a chicken or a 7 year old? Your comprehension sucks. I challenge you to quote where I said "real people" won't accept CGI or that I know what people want to see? Nor did I say your opinions are all over the place.


Nevermind.
I'm with the majority here about the OP. No.



Yes the majority in Prince.org means a lot vs the majority of movie goers.

And yes , whatever.
It's all good. I just wanted to hear what people thought, but people have hard ass opinions ready to pull a gun on a bitch.
It's just a fun question and I wanted to educate where uneducated opinions were floated so brashly. But very Intrestinh thread for me. smile
[Edited 2/2/17 21:59pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 02/02/17 10:06pm

morningsong

Ingela said:

morningsong said:



I forgot you do not read. That. Is. Not. What. I. Said. Am I talking to a chicken or a 7 year old? Your comprehension sucks. I challenge you to quote where I said "real people" won't accept CGI or that I know what people want to see? Nor did I say your opinions are all over the place.


Nevermind.
I'm with the majority here about the OP. No.



Yes the majority in Prince.org means a lot vs the majority of movie goers.

And yes , whatever.
It's all good. I just wanted to hear what people thought, but people have hard ass opinions ready to pull a gun on a bitch.
It's just a fun question and I wanted to educate where uneducated opinions were floated so brashly. But very Intrestinh thread for me. smile
[Edited 2/2/17 21:59pm]





yuh huh.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 02/03/17 6:51am

Ingela

morningsong said:

Ingela said:




Yes the majority in Prince.org means a lot vs the majority of movie goers.

And yes , whatever.
It's all good. I just wanted to hear what people thought, but people have hard ass opinions ready to pull a gun on a bitch.
It's just a fun question and I wanted to educate where uneducated opinions were floated so brashly. But very Intrestinh thread for me. smile
[Edited 2/2/17 21:59pm]


So I'll mark you down and a no.
Ok?
Lol
Jesus Christ!




yuh huh.

lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 02/03/17 11:43am

fen

avatar

Ingela said:

Here is a trailer for a 2017 animated Vincen Van Gogh biopic. Tell me you wouldn't see this or not think it looks cool. [Edited 2/2/17 11:27am]

Hi Ingela, this is a completely different thing, and more akin to the kind of creative, experimental approach that I mentioned before. You realise of course that this isn’t CGI at all, but that each frame is painted by hand (in oils) based on frames taken from film footage of real actors? Something like this I would be less hostile to, notwithstanding my misgivings about biopics in general.


Your original argument implied 3D CGI.

[Edited 2/3/17 11:46am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 02/03/17 12:02pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

fen said:



Ingela said:


Here is a trailer for a 2017 animated Vincen Van Gogh biopic. Tell me you wouldn't see this or not think it looks cool. [Edited 2/2/17 11:27am]

Hi Ingela, this is a completely different thing, and more akin to the kind of creative, experimental approach that I mentioned before. You realise of course that this isn’t CGI at all, but that each frame is painted by hand (in oils) based on frames taken from film footage of real actors? Something like this I would be less hostile to, notwithstanding my misgivings about biopics in general.




Your original argument implied 3D CGI.

[Edited 2/3/17 11:46am]



Glad to see people coming about. But no I never implied anything but CGI because I said I would throw up seeing an actor pretend to be Prince. Not only that I expressly stated that i would love it to be stylized in a Princly way. Just like the Van Gogh biopic used elements of his art as another homage.

But I get where everyone gets so stuck with anything new. It's a natural human tendency and we've seen it recorded through time over and over. Like I said, drum machines and synths and electric guitars were unholy to certain "purists" who stayed behind the curve until someone like Jimi Hendrix or Prince converted them.

My main thing is that..

his look and style are icon

as is his lighting by LeRoy Bennett

The photography of Jeff Katz

The legendary concerts such as with The Rolling Stones, First Avenue , and of course, The Super Bowl.

...and obviously his music..

And I really feel that a media like computer animation can artistically better showcase all those things without limits and create a stand alone piece of art on its own.

True, its all about who's hands.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 02/03/17 12:04pm

fen

avatar


Your argument would have been better served by convolutional neural networks (google’s Deep Dream etc). It could be trained on Prince’s album covers for example (artist: Lulu xXX):



  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 02/03/17 12:07pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

fen said:


Your argument would have been better served by convolutional neural networks (google’s Deep Dream etc). It could be trained on Prince’s album covers for example (artist: Lulu xXX):










That stuff just creeps me out. I've seen Ted Talks on this.
For me it lacks the charm and warmth and human element. But that stuff I find repellent.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 02/03/17 12:13pm

Ingela

NOT a fan of neural art. Not yet anyway.
And yes even though it's done by machine learning there is still a human element involved. Guiding it.

Interesting yes, an It will get better yes, but ugly. To my eyes yes. A big yes on the ugly.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 02/03/17 12:26pm

fen

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

fen said:


Your argument would have been better served by convolutional neural networks (google’s Deep Dream etc). It could be trained on Prince’s album covers for example (artist: Lulu xXX):



That stuff just creeps me out. I've seen Ted Talks on this. For me it lacks the charm and warmth and human element. But that stuff I find repellent.


Hi, my point was that the “Loving Vincent” example has absolutely nothing to do with CGI as far as I know (it’s traditional oil painting). It's also based on real actors. You seem to be continually shifting your argument - is this not the same thread that offered Avatar and a trailer for a computer game as examples?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 02/03/17 12:35pm

Ingela

^
Have you tried the Prisma app? It offers a lot of these same features to your own photos and videos.

It has a lot presets that mimic famous artist's style.
I've been known to use it spararingly and it does offer some cool results but after a while everything starts looking alike.

If you don't have it, i highly recommend you download it to your phone. It's free!

What creeps me out is the lack of control and human touch.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 02/03/17 12:57pm

fen

avatar

Ingela said:

What creeps me out is the lack of control and human touch.


Yes, I agree - as I said in previous comments, that’s my problem with a lot of CGI (although I wouldn't want to denigrate the field entirely). “Loving Vincent” looks great, but it’s painted by hand. Thanks for the recommendation.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 02/03/17 1:33pm

fen

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

fen said:

Hi Ingela, this is a completely different thing, and more akin to the kind of creative, experimental approach that I mentioned before. You realise of course that this isn’t CGI at all, but that each frame is painted by hand (in oils) based on frames taken from film footage of real actors? Something like this I would be less hostile to, notwithstanding my misgivings about biopics in general.


Your original argument implied 3D CGI.

[Edited 2/3/17 11:46am]

Glad to see people coming about. But no I never implied anything but CGI because I said I would throw up seeing an actor pretend to be Prince. Not only that I expressly stated that i would love it to be stylized in a Princly way. Just like the Van Gogh biopic used elements of his art as another homage. But I get where everyone gets so stuck with anything new. It's a natural human tendency and we've seen it recorded through time over and over. Like I said, drum machines and synths and electric guitars were unholy to certain "purists" who stayed behind the curve until someone like Jimi Hendrix or Prince converted them. My main thing is that.. his look and style are icon as is his lighting by LeRoy Bennett The photography of Jeff Katz The legendary concerts such as with The Rolling Stones, First Avenue , and of course, The Super Bowl. ...and obviously his music.. And I really feel that a media like computer animation can artistically better showcase all those things without limits and create a stand alone piece of art on its own. True, its all about who's hands.

By the way, I thought that I was responding to a post by Ingela (the OP). Sorry if I was mistaken Ugot2shakesumthin. (?)

[Edited 2/3/17 13:34pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 02/03/17 1:56pm

NoOneReally

Ingela said:

Having seen so many of this year's computer animated movies this year, I noticed how great music and computer animated movies go hand in hand and work so well. So it got me thinking that instead of trying to cast someone to play Prince, (which seems impossible to me) I think with the technology advancing so quickly that even an intentionally stylized computer animated Prince biopic would work perfectly. I mean everything about his life was meticulously stylizated by the man himself, that it would be perfect. They could also use a lot of his own voice from interviews and even have the real Revolution and Time members voice their own parts. I think it would be far more authentic and fun than other actors playing them. They could reproduce concerts and details almost perfectly from all the clips. I think this would be the way to go. [Edited 1/13/17 9:08am]

IMO cgi has a very long way to go before I could buy this.

I really want a Ken Burns style documentary. I don't think any bio-pic drama would work for Prince.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 5 <12345
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > What would you guys think of a CGI Prince biopic?