jaawwnn said:

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.

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.

Vashtix said:

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.

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?

morningsong said:

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.

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.

morningsong said:

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.

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.

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.

Coming from Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddkenreck/2016/12/19/star-wars-rogue-one-is-brilliant-that-cgi-though/#577ef49e1795

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

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

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.

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]

Ingela 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.

morningsong 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.

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.

Ingela 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.

morningsong 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.
[Edited 2/2/17 21:59pm]

Ingela said:

yuh huh.

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]

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]

fen said:

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.

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):

fen said:

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.

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.

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?

^
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.

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.

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]

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.