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]

.

Just no. Don't mess with P. This is as queasy-sounding as those fake duets and hologram concerts.
There's enough footage and photos available to make a documentary-bio ... IF done right.

.

He's not coming back, regardless of who plays or programs his image. No matter if/when/how it's done and who is in the role, someone is going to be upset, unhappy, disenchanted, and pissed off. It's never a winning situation. People loved the Whitney story. People hated the Whitney story.

Honestly, I'm not interested in any biography or biopic or documentary. We know the stories, and unless someone really, really close to Prince spills the beans about stuff that we didn't know before (doesn't have to be salacious or gossipy), then anything else is opinion, and conjecture, and rehash. I'm interested in none of those things. I'll be referencing DMSR or The Vault for years past any Lifetime or Centric biopic that is 90 minutes long.

No.

Ingela said:

'What would you guys think of a CGI Prince biopic?'

Grrrr!

nothing could be better than a well done documentary. Biopics are usually lame, great for the dilletante fans but awful for the people who've followed a figure for years.

PeteSilas said:

What were those videos a few years back where it was computer-generated characters and voices? There were some Prince vids, and they were laugh-out-loud funny.

Ingela said:

PeteSilas said:

nothing could be better than a well done documentary. Biopics are usually lame, great for the dilletante fans but awful for the people who've followed a figure for years.

Yeah but they are two different audiences. A narrow minority vs a mass audience. Even while he was alive there's been skits on tv about him, his likeness in magazines and culture have been everywhere so it's a little myopic to say that's all it could/should be. It's about entertainment, that's the business he was in. Heck Purple Rain was in some ways a biopic so that question is moot. There's been biopics and cartoons and skits and books and plays for Mozart, Beethoven, Lincoln hunting vampires, Evita and so on.. so it's happening, end of story. Period. My thing is that this relatively new media could create something really entertaining and in a way far more authentically. I think it could be breathtaking.

maybe, i'm telling you what in my view is better and more accurate. Now, I know people are stupid and lazy and want everything spoonfed but that doesn't justify all the fiction that goes on in biopics. Biopics are for the lazy, do they really want to know about Prince? Probably not, they'd just as soon go see the next star wars or whatever. I have yet to see a biopic that outdoes the best documentaries on a figure. Bruce Lee's Docu was horrible, Ali was just a awful, etc.., Malcolm X was as good as I've seen and even that I'd rather see footage of the real thing. The need for the studios to make money at the expense of truth is not our problem. Would I watch? Sure, but with a skeptical eye. And oh yeah, Amadeus was good to but it also promoted some untruths which many people really believe. You think that does right by any of the subjects?

PeteSilas said:

Ingela said:

PeteSilas said:

maybe, i'm telling you what in my view is better and more accurate. Now, I know people are stupid and lazy and want everything spoonfed but that doesn't justify all the fiction that goes on in biopics. Biopics are for the lazy, do they really want to know about Prince? Probably not, they'd just as soon go see the next star wars or whatever. I have yet to see a biopic that outdoes the best documentaries on a figure. Bruce Lee's Docu was horrible, Ali was just a awful, etc.., Malcolm X was as good as I've seen and even that I'd rather see footage of the real thing. The need for the studios to make money at the expense of truth is not our problem. Would I watch? Sure, but with a skeptical eye. And oh yeah, Amadeus was good to but it also promoted some untruths which many people really believe. You think that does right by any of the subjects?

As for authenticity, I'm with you. And in his case the truth is more entertaining than anything they can make up. But I completely agree with you there. But I think since there is so much music and eye candy and humor and specifically so much to tell the masses behind the art and the artist that any way to reach the masses and entertain while educating him would be awesome in my opinion. And having the ability to tell the story without limitations would/could be fascinating and wildly entertaining.

the studios don't care about that, Bruce Lee and Ali both had much more interesting stories than what got out on screen but what we got was rushed scripts by screenwriters who had superficial knowledge of the men and formulaic, well produced crap. I thought the James Brown biopic was actually quite good but as a guy who knew little about Brown, I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way if I was a huge fan. And oh yea, the Brown biopic lost lots of money, even though it was damn good. Ali and Dragon made money even though they were crap.

PeteSilas said:

Ingela said:

PeteSilas said:

the studios don't care about that, Bruce Lee and Ali both had much more interesting stories than what got out on screen but what we got was rushed scripts by screenwriters who had superficial knowledge of the men and formulaic, well produced crap. I thought the James Brown biopic was actually quite good but as a guy who knew little about Brown, I'm not sure if I'd feel the same way if I was a huge fan. And oh yea, the Brown biopic lost lots of money, even though it was damn good. Ali and Dragon made money even though they were crap.

I will politely disagree about that. As much as Ali and Bruce Lee have their audience, people don't turn on the radio or Spotify to listen to them on a daily basis. Or dance to them at the club or a party. Or watch him them play something like While My Guitar Gently Weeps on Youtube on a steady basis. Prince and his art is vastly more entertaining than greats like Ali and Bruce Lee or most anyone that films are made about.

i don't see a difference, when you have a hero, you have an interesting story. Hollywood comes in and really fucks it up. People still follow these figures for different reasons, young people still go to youtube to watch Ali and Bruce and now, with Prince' death, a whole generation and a half can see what we saw when we were young and make up their own minds. My issue is, can they make a good movie? their track record isn't very good. the Jimi Hendrix biopic was crap, there have been many biopics on Elvis, some ok, some downright crap, been some ones on the beatles etc..., Very few have really endured as works that have stood on their own. Most come and go. Hollywood only cares about money, the Ali movie and the dragon movie was probably just fine for the saturday crowds who have little knowledge or care for the men and they made the studios money, but hose of us who have read book after book and watched all the film on these guys, we know it deserved better.

The technology is not there to do it believably or affordably, unless you are half blind. I don't get how people thought that Grand Moff Tarkin was a real human in Rogue One. And of course that was just for limited scenes in the movie.

.

So yes in 200 years when we have AI creating CGI, it may work but not in your lifetime or mine.

Never mind CGI.
I reckon SouthPark should do the Prince biopic.
They'd nail him AND if he's able to get it on cable, he'd laugh himself into the next album.

tomcooper2323 said:

XSX said:

tomcooper2323 said:

EmmaMcG said:

tomcooper2323 said:

The technology is not there to do it believably or affordably, unless you are half blind. I don't get how people thought that Grand Moff Tarkin was a real human in Rogue One. And of course that was just for limited scenes in the movie.

.

So yes in 200 years when we have AI creating CGI, it may work but not in your lifetime or mine.

The Tarkin scenes in Rogue One represents the very cutting edge that technology has to offer at the moment and, while it was relatively good and a huge improvement on the young Schwarzenegger from the most recent Terminator movie, it's still not at the stage where you could use it for the lead character in a movie. Maybe in 10 years or so, technology does move fast. But it's a really expensive effect and to use it throughout an entire movie for the lead character would cost more than a Prince biopic would make. So, it's just not feasible.

Yeah, this.

Also a movie is a movie, you're telling a story and it's always going to have some slant to it. Better to hire an actor who fits the story you're telling.

morningsong said:

.

.

After seeing CGI Princess Leia in Rogue One? The tech still has a long way to go, in order to overcome the "uncanny valley" phenomenon. It's too distracting.

.

.

Fuck NO!!!

Ingela said:

morningsong said:

Way too soon.

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.

Ingela said:

EmmaMcG said:

tomcooper2323 said:

The technology is not there to do it believably or affordably, unless you are half blind. I don't get how people thought that Grand Moff Tarkin was a real human in Rogue One. And of course that was just for limited scenes in the movie.

.

So yes in 200 years when we have AI creating CGI, it may work but not in your lifetime or mine.

The Tarkin scenes in Rogue One represents the very cutting edge that technology has to offer at the moment and, while it was relatively good and a huge improvement on the young Schwarzenegger from the most recent Terminator movie, it's still not at the stage where you could use it for the lead character in a movie. Maybe in 10 years or so, technology does move fast. But it's a really expensive effect and to use it throughout an entire movie for the lead character would cost more than a Prince biopic would make. So, it's just not feasible.

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.