New topic
PrintableNo. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
Marrk said:
No matter how good CGI people get, you'll always have the 'Uncanny Valley' effect. Your brain will know it's not quite right, as you'll know that person is dead. Especially if you're a fan of said person, it'll never work for fans.
That being said, I've heard of people not realising Peter Cushing was CGI in Rogue One. Yeah, Rogue One is the best example of that technology. Peter Cushing looked great in it. I wouldn't say it was perfect but it's as good as can be achieved. The thing is, he was a minor character with 5 minutes screen time. And it cost a fortune. So, doing a movie where the lead character is done that way would be far too expensive, even IF the technology was available to make it look perfect. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
purplethunder3121 said:
Soulless corporate dreck. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think some of you folks have no vision or grasp of what art is/can be, and are stuck in myopic states.
And I'm not talking about inserting a chi Prince into a movie, but creating and entire world and movie digitally where the everything has the same tone and feel and you are not limited by anything but the artists and directors imagination. [Edited 1/14/17 13:54pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I think the most intriguing Prince movie would be the one with the least amount of "Prince" in it. He was such a visual icon that it seems impossible to recreate that kind of charisma with some look-alike let alone CGI. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
A documentary would be okay, if done right. Problem is that the subject isn't able to participate and speak about his own life and career.
All one can do with a documentary is grab all kinds of items and sort of glue them together into a cohesive story, which will never be a 100%. How much he deserves a movie of documentary or what ever, it will never be what we expect, simply because Prince isn't able to speak. And please no digitally build puppet for a movie or some holographic concert crap. Next thing you know we'll have a band with Freddy Mercury on piano, Maurice White on drums, David Bowie on guitar and background vocals, George Michael on background vocals and Prince on everything else. Let's call them The White Digital Angels. Their first hit will be a smoothly reworked version of Stairway 2 Heaven. Stadium speaker will be Elvis. Oh no, wait: Elvis has left the building. In short: no digital bullshit on people who already died. Fox network owns the rights to The Walking Dead. That's enough. [Edited 1/15/17 0:33am] 'Liberate My Mind' | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I remember I few years ago here when people on P&R were all up in arms over the dangers on drones and how evil they were and how they should be banned. What I said then, goes doubly now. Get over it. They will be everywhere. It's not about the cgi or drones or whatever, it's about how it's done. The specific ways it's done. Kids got drones for Christmas and kids are making computer avatars of themselves. So move on people. This is nothing different than fake ass prosthetics, or whatever they did in lord of the rings or Genie inside her bottle. These are all tools to tell a story, so quit acting like old bumpkins and thinking is any different than any other movie making tool. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You'd better stop thinking the world's a digital playground. Too many games until late at night?
Get away from behind your laptop, phone VR glasses or whatever. The world is a real place, not a cartoon. I do get your point. But a comparison between a cgi Prince and Gollem is too far off. Because that's what you're doing. Some things are meant to be fake. Others are not. [Edited 1/15/17 10:53am] [Edited 1/15/17 11:09am] 'Liberate My Mind' | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rob1965 said: You'd better stop thinking the world's a digital playground. Too many games until late at night? Get away from behind your laptop, phone VR glasses or whatever. The world is a real place, not a cartoon. [Edited 1/15/17 10:53am] Lol, I always have to remind my workers that there is no "one" best tool. You use the best one for the job you're trying to do. And today just about every movie has CGI, and computer image manipulation. Almost every movie, not just sci-fi or fantasy movies. The Wolf Of Wall Street for example used a lot of CGI to recreate or manipulate locations. Si let's not use such broad statements especially when you don't know what you're talking about because it makes you look like more of a bumpkin. My two favorite movies this year La La Land and Moonlight used extensive computer image manipulation. Moonlight especially comes to mind for its gorgeous computer manipulated color schemes. So it's not about the tools, it's about the artists behind the tools and how well you use them and why. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
You got workers? I don't envy them. But seriously: don't act like you know it all. Makes you even look more stupid. With regards, Mr Bumpkin (with capital B)  'Liberate My Mind' | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ingela said: I remember I few years ago here when people on P&R were all up in arms over the dangers on drones and how evil they were and how they should be banned. What I said then, goes doubly now. Get over it. They will be everywhere. It's not about the cgi or drones or whatever, it's about how it's done. The specific ways it's done. Kids got drones for Christmas and kids are making computer avatars of themselves. So move on people. This is nothing different than fake ass prosthetics, or whatever they did in lord of the rings or Genie inside her bottle. These are all tools to tell a story, so quit acting like old bumpkins and thinking is any different than any other movie making tool. You didn't even bother reading the Orville Redenbacher article did you? I don't see how you can compare the hesitation and leeriness of an inanimate object to how people feel about the imitation of someone they love by an unliving thing. Not bumpkins just humans. I would never put something so major into the hands of anyone who is incapable of comprehending human need while trying to justify it by saying its all in the name of art. IMO art does not trump humanity it enhances it. How would this enhance anything? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Disclaimer: Rogue One used reallife images to animate fictitious characters. Those CGIs are not going on the promotional circuit doing interviews as those reallife people. Big difference. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: Ingela said: I remember I few years ago here when people on P&R were all up in arms over the dangers on drones and how evil they were and how they should be banned. What I said then, goes doubly now. Get over it. They will be everywhere. It's not about the cgi or drones or whatever, it's about how it's done. The specific ways it's done. Kids got drones for Christmas and kids are making computer avatars of themselves. So move on people. This is nothing different than fake ass prosthetics, or whatever they did in lord of the rings or Genie inside her bottle. These are all tools to tell a story, so quit acting like old bumpkins and thinking is any different than any other movie making tool. You didn't even bother reading the Orville Redenbacher article did you? I don't see how you can compare the hesitation and leeriness of an inanimate object to how people feel about the imitation of someone they love by an unliving thing. Not bumpkins just humans. I would never put something so major into the hands of anyone who is incapable of comprehending human need while trying to justify it by saying its all in the name of art. IMO art does not trump humanity it enhances it. How would this enhance anything? I know about some of today's limitations and yes the eyes are a huge problem today. But as I've repeated throughout the thread, it doesn't even have to be a photo realistic render. It's about the quality of the story and the people behind the project whatever way they choose to film it. Whether it's a simple one man play with no props just a black background or an old fashioned hand drawn story. The difference is not in the tools, but how it's done, the quality of the artists behind the scenes and the care involved. The reason I say computer animation is because it's moving so quickly and getting so good. It removes a lot of the limitations to bring to life a larger than life figure like Prince who's imagery and sound is so overwhelming while he himself was not very tall. It allows Prince to look like Prince, Wendy to look like Wendy, Morris to look like Morris, huge stadiums including the SuperBowl to be recreated in all it's glory rain and fireworks and all; and even allow some of these key people to also be involved and maybe voice themselves. I would love Wendy and Lisa and Morris to voice themselves because their voices and mannerisms and actual visage is so important to who they are. It's all of these reasons I think this is the way to go. And a groundbreaking film style is the only way I'd like the Prince story told rather than a silly cheap lifetime story of the week. I think to go and be immersed into his world with music and style really does require to work outside the box and do try something really amazing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ingela said: morningsong said: You didn't even bother reading the Orville Redenbacher article did you? I don't see how you can compare the hesitation and leeriness of an inanimate object to how people feel about the imitation of someone they love by an unliving thing. Not bumpkins just humans. I would never put something so major into the hands of anyone who is incapable of comprehending human need while trying to justify it by saying its all in the name of art. IMO art does not trump humanity it enhances it. How would this enhance anything? I know about some of today's limitations and yes the eyes are a huge problem today. But as I've repeated throughout the thread, it doesn't even have to be a photo realistic render. It's about the quality of the story and the people behind the project whatever way they choose to film it. Whether it's a simple one man play with no props just a black background or an old fashioned hand drawn story. The difference is not in the tools, but how it's done, the quality of the artists behind the scenes and the care involved. The reason I say computer animation is because it's moving so quickly and getting so good. It removes a lot of the limitations to bring to life a larger than life figure like Prince who's imagery and sound is so overwhelming while he himself was not very tall. It allows Prince to look like Prince, Wendy to look like Wendy, Morris to look like Morris, huge stadiums including the SuperBowl to be recreated in all it's glory rain and fireworks and all; and even allow some of these key people to also be involved and maybe voice themselves. I would love Wendy and Lisa and Morris to voice themselves because their voices and mannerisms and actual visage is so important to who they are. It's all of these reasons I think this is the way to go. And a groundbreaking film style is the only way I'd like the Prince story told rather than a silly cheap lifetime story of the week. I think to go and be immersed into his world with music and style really does require to work outside the box and do try something really amazing. You are so caught up on the tech the rest of it went right over your head. As I said you would not be the kind of person I would like doing such a project. At this point it would be too much (not only talking money) of an undertaking to make it worth somebody's time. A hand drawn animation would be far more palatable at this point than a cgi imitation. A cheap anyhing isn't going to fly either, so we agree there. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
No. Erin Smith | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: Ingela said: I know about some of today's limitations and yes the eyes are a huge problem today. But as I've repeated throughout the thread, it doesn't even have to be a photo realistic render. It's about the quality of the story and the people behind the project whatever way they choose to film it. Whether it's a simple one man play with no props just a black background or an old fashioned hand drawn story. The difference is not in the tools, but how it's done, the quality of the artists behind the scenes and the care involved. The reason I say computer animation is because it's moving so quickly and getting so good. It removes a lot of the limitations to bring to life a larger than life figure like Prince who's imagery and sound is so overwhelming while he himself was not very tall. It allows Prince to look like Prince, Wendy to look like Wendy, Morris to look like Morris, huge stadiums including the SuperBowl to be recreated in all it's glory rain and fireworks and all; and even allow some of these key people to also be involved and maybe voice themselves. I would love Wendy and Lisa and Morris to voice themselves because their voices and mannerisms and actual visage is so important to who they are. It's all of these reasons I think this is the way to go. And a groundbreaking film style is the only way I'd like the Prince story told rather than a silly cheap lifetime story of the week. I think to go and be immersed into his world with music and style really does require to work outside the box and do try something really amazing. You are so caught up on the tech the rest of it went right over your head. As I said you would not be the kind of person I would like doing such a project. At this point it would be too much (not only talking money) of an undertaking to make it worth somebody's time. A hand drawn animation would be far more palatable at this point than a cgi imitation. A cheap anyhing isn't going to fly either, so we agree there. Not at all, you're just so closed minded. But that's cool. We all have our own opinions and being closed minded is a long time tradition in humanity. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ingela said: morningsong said: You are so caught up on the tech the rest of it went right over your head. As I said you would not be the kind of person I would like doing such a project. At this point it would be too much (not only talking money) of an undertaking to make it worth somebody's time. A hand drawn animation would be far more palatable at this point than a cgi imitation. A cheap anyhing isn't going to fly either, so we agree there. Not at all, you're just so closed minded. But that's cool. We all have our own opinions and being closed minded is a long time tradition in humanity. Nope a bit too opened minded, I take in all angles not just my own. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
morningsong said: Ingela said: Not at all, you're just so closed minded. But that's cool. We all have our own opinions and being closed minded is a long time tradition in humanity. Nope a bit too opened minded, I take in all angles not just my own. Cool. But it doesn't sound like it. But again , we think and like what we like. It's all good. Go on Cynthia. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ingela said: morningsong said: Nope a bit too opened minded, I take in all angles not just my own. Cool. But it doesn't sound like it. But again , we think and like what we like. It's all good. Go on Cynthia. It doesn't sound like it because I'm not agreeing with you, that's not being opened minded that's just simply agreeing with you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Regardless of how it's filled, I think no one is better suited to the task of directing it than the young Damien Chazelle, director or La La Land. Not only does he have a love of music, know how to tell a story (smartly by the way) but he also has a great visual eye. He certainly directed an instant classic with La La Land which by magnitudes better than anything else released last year, so I hope somehow stars collide and he gets involved. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
CGI - probably not unless it was done in a way that was intentionally NOT photo-realistic. The technology is just not quite there yet.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
A CGI biopic would be an absolutely terrible idea in my view, but I’d like to see a serious, thoughtful documentary by a decent film maker. Something along the lines of Scorsese’s “No Direction Home” (Dylan). I think that Steve McQueen would be a good candidate:
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
. No, we are not absolutely "stuck". You can reply 1,500 times and we still understood the first time.
We know what you are talking about (a project you want to do???) but NO biopic will be accurate because it would merely be a retelling of things that are already out there -- "aided" by someone else's "imagination".
Creating a faked-up Prince (or anyone else) does not validate the product. It's queasy-making. It just adds to the general fuck-fakery of the project. . Welcome to "the org", laytonian… come bathe with me. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
laytonian said:
. No, we are not absolutely "stuck". You can reply 1,500 times and we still understood the first time.
We know what you are talking about (a project you want to do???) but NO biopic will be accurate because it would merely be a retelling of things that are already out there -- "aided" by someone else's "imagination".
Creating a faked-up Prince (or anyone else) does not validate the product. It's queasy-making. It just adds to the general fuck-fakery of the project. . You are definitely stuck in something lol. Or something is stuck up somewhere. This type of response is symptomatic of that lol. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The only Prince movie i would be even willing to entertain the thought of seeing would have to be filmed and created in the same vein as the "2Pac: Ressurection" documentary. If there happens to be some sort of recorded chronological spoken-word diary by the man hiding in one of his vaults, it could be put to good use for it, along with rare photos, home videos, concert footage, tv performances and promo videos. It's an "ideal world" type of idea, but the man telling his own story makes the project so much more meaningful and enjoyable after repeated viewings. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I'm only interested in seeing a well done documentary on Prince--especially after the 80s. "Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
https://youtu.be/CVwv9LZMah0 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
^^^^ Same here, I am for a well made documentary. I feel Prince would need a documentary series. One doc would not be enough. I say no too on a CGI biopic. "A strong spirit transcends rules." - Prince | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Ingela said: laytonian said:
. No, we are not absolutely "stuck". You can reply 1,500 times and we still understood the first time.
We know what you are talking about (a project you want to do???) but NO biopic will be accurate because it would merely be a retelling of things that are already out there -- "aided" by someone else's "imagination".
Creating a faked-up Prince (or anyone else) does not validate the product. It's queasy-making. It just adds to the general fuck-fakery of the project. . You are definitely stuck in something lol. Or something is stuck up somewhere. This type of response is symptomatic of that lol. You forgot to call me closed minded [sic]. Bye, Felicia Welcome to "the org", laytonian… come bathe with me. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |