CGI will make actors obsolete?
By vkhu123
@vkhu123 (15)
Vietnam
August 10, 2012 11:05am CST
I have just seen the amazing spiderman recently (one heck of a film. Check it out if you haven't already) and There were many scenes I couldn't even tell was completely CGI until I got home and saw the vfx breakdown. It's amazing how they can realistically recreate a human being down to the minus details.
This raise a serious question though: do we even need human actors anymore? They need to be paid quite a large sum and have many limitations. CGI can completely remove all those factor out of the equation. So, what do you think?
4 responses
@doroffee (4222)
• Hungary
10 Aug 12
I think we need the actors. First of all, CGI is impressive, but it does not give back humanness and true talent. No CGI-person is going to have the same affect as an actor. Most of these CGI-made people would be drawn by people, and I'm pretty sure they are going to look fake a little bit, or if they would look a lot like humans, they would even have kind of unrealistic movements and especially face expressions. Also, I do think hiring actors cost a lot less money - and even the biggest budget films want to be cost effective, as they need to profitfrom ticket sales, and if they can spend less money on things (as long as the quality stays the same), they would do that. Because the film contributors, actors, director, producer all want to profit, as they only could stay in the limelight if they make popular and profitable films.
@vkhu123 (15)
• Vietnam
10 Aug 12
If you think CGI couldn't get facial expressions right, you should check out a game called L.A. Noir. Imagine how far that technology will be improved in 20 or maybe just 10 years. And in my opinion, I think CGI doesn't cost as much as hiring people. A high quality human model is on sale for as low as $300 whereas actors, especially well-known ones, need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, they need safety equipment, stuntman, can break the contract, get into scandals which will affect the publicity and whatnot.
@bcools (27)
•
11 Aug 12
Ofcourse there is need human actors..all the movies those are done or generated using CGI are not blockbusterss..the CGI..will get hipe..only based on the concept/charecter of the film..just as you said..SPIDERMAN.. see the worlds costliest movie AVATAR..had also used human characters in the film(30% to 40% , i think..)..
if the film has to reach to a real hit/block buster..there is maximum need of human actors than that of CGI/CG..
@ShepherdSpy (8544)
• Omagh, Northern Ireland
11 Aug 12
The acting profession has been around for Centuries,so I sincerely doubt if they'd be prepared to allow some new technology to come along and kill off their "Craft"..and I'm sure audiences don't want to be deprived of "Their" Stars,either...
True,CGI can be used in (Almost?) Photorealistic Animation,and can be used to augment a Human performance-The "Lord of the Rings" series showcased that with Andy Serkis playing the virtual Character of "Gollum",and He also played "Kong" in Peter Jackson's remake of "King Kong"..and seeing that performance in LOTR let James Cameron know the technology had evolved to the point "Avatar"'s time had come,having been on the shelf some 10 years from budgetary constraints..
Actors may be highly paid for some performances,but CG is WAY more expensive at this time..what they pay actors can only cover minutes of a purely digital creation..
So,they still have breathing space..for now..
@surfer222 (1714)
• Indonesia
10 Aug 12
I think there will be a market for both real actors and CGI actors and CGI won't make an actor obsolete. I like full 3D movies like pixar movies but i also like to see real actor doing action like Jackie Chan etc.