DVDizzy Forum

I have noticed that ever since Avatar was released, a remarkable few have actually criticized the film when it comes to the CG actors. Many are wondering if the "uncanny valley" has finally been crossed.

Up until now, CG actors have been received with great hostility with the general public and critics alike. Films like Final Fantasy, Beowulf, and even the CG stunt people in Lord fo the Rings and Spiderman have been openly criticized again and again on message boards and forums for looking fake and weird.

I am just curious to get your opinion on the matter. Personally, I applaud the efforts of filmmakers like Robert Zemeckis and James Cameron, who are pushing the limits of actor-based CG. I think the results are so cool, and I see nothing "uncanny" about it at all. The best example being Brad Pitt's "de-aging" effect in Benjamin Button. True, the results are not perfect yet, but give it another 10 years, wonderful things are going to happen on the screen.

Well, Final Fantasy is very understandable. They were never meant to look very realistic, anyway. Same with the Na'vi. But yeah, I do think that a major milestone has come to pass in CGI.

"Avatar" came the closest probably to any film when it comes to breaching the uncanny valley, but I still had definite moments where I found it pretty obvious it was CGI. I think really the it's the eyes to me. While they were generally good, CGI human eyes tend to have a glazed look to them, no matter how realistic the rest of the body is. I think in the next decade or so there will be more incredible leaps made, and I would feel let down if we won't have crossed the threshold by that time.

Still, until then, I prefer a slightly more caricatured CGI human. Witness the people in "Up" versus Molly from "Toy Story". Some of the most horrifying attempted realism, and I never quite recovered.

And "Final Fantasy" was never meant to look realistic? What the heck was it supposed to be? It looked to me like it was striving for realism and failing the whole time.

SpringHeelJack wrote:"Avatar" came the closest probably to any film when it comes to breaching the uncanny valley, but I still had definite moments where I found it pretty obvious it was CGI. I think really the it's the eyes to me. While they were generally good, CGI human eyes tend to have a glazed look to them, no matter how realistic the rest of the body is. I think in the next decade or so there will be more incredible leaps made, and I would feel let down if we won't have crossed the threshold by that time.

And "Final Fantasy" was never meant to look realistic? What the heck was it supposed to be? It looked to me like it was striving for realism and failing the whole time.

Avatar had very good eye-performances. Watching some fo teh comparisons on tv and on the web really showed me that.

As for Final Fantasy, look at the characters in Advent Children. They look realistic to a degree, but their features are designed in a style closer to that of traditional anime.


Something to do with the eyes being slightly larger than real human eyes, and the crazy hair helps too. Still very realistic, but slightly stylized.

It won't be uncanny for a few more years. I've heard time and again that they just haven't cracked the code to getting realistic skin. They can do everything else (Avatar proved they can get the acting right, especially in the eyes) but not the skin. It has to do with the translucency of our skin and how the light affects it. I imagine they will figure it out soon enough.

To be honest, I couldn't tell the difference between CG and live action with Spider-Man 2's Doc Oc until after I saw the extras.

ajmrowland wrote:As for Final Fantasy, look at the characters in Advent Children. They look realistic to a degree, but their features are designed in a style closer to that of traditional anime.

I'm not sure what the OP was referring to, but I was talking about "The Spirits Within". Clearly they were striving for realism there.

I wonder if the Avatar technology (for life-like motion capture) will be used on Breaking Dawn (the 4th "Twilight" book), since I know the author has concerns about the depiction of Renesmee...I think that Avatar looked great, and I think it really opened the doors as to what filmmakers can do.

I hope they never make CG so realistic we can't tell it's not real. Then we could make videos of things that aren't real but we would think it was, even videos of people we know doing things they never did.

There's also then the possibility of fake actors instead of real actors who needs jobs or want to, well, live their dream of acting.

I think life is to precious and special to copy exactly in any form, the real thing should be the only thing that looks like the real thing.

Movies are about suspending your disbelief and just going with it, not trying to tell if it looks real enough or not.

On that subject, I always thought puppets and make-up was much more convincing or just better than CGI in live-action films. Then, at least it really is there, it was there with the real actors.

Disney Duster wrote: On that subject, I always thought puppets and make-up was much more convincing or just better than CGI in live-action films. Then, at least it really is there, it was there with the real actors.

I agree totally of this.

I think some are kind of uncanny. I mean, check out Andy in the original Toy Story. Actually, Molly's worse. And that scene with all of the Cheetos in Toy Story 2!? OMG!

How can we hold <i>Avatar</i> to the same standards as other movies on this topic? As far as I remember, there are no CG-animated humans in the film, just aliens. Convincing, believable aliens, but aliens nonetheless without the baggage of human experience comparisons.

Have you guys seen the de aging technology used in Tron to make Jeff Bridges look younger?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4qlhveX54U

When I first saw this a few weeks back I wasn't aware of what I was looking at, I didn't pick up that it was CG at all for some reason. Then I read about it on another message board. When I looked at it again it had fake written all over it. But does it only look fake because I know what I'm looking at now, or because there are actual flaws with it? Clearly if I was fooled the first time it must be pretty good. I think part of getting over uncanny valley is going in unbiased when possible.

^same.

And the scariness of not being able to tell what's real and what's fake begins.

The GC in "Tron: Legacy," while still really, really, really good, is not flawless. I'd say "Avatar" is the same. They have not yet gotten to the point where you don't know what is and is not real, but I will say it's getting closer then it ever was.

There were moments in the "Narnia" films I thought I was looking at a real lion when I was watching Asland.

All this talk about uncanny valley and CG actors reminds me of the 2002 movie S1m0ne.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O9XZfPKl2_M&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O9XZfPKl2_M&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Will that ever be the future of filmmaking? I think so. Not in the sense of "all human actors will be replaced with computer actors." It takes a lot more than a person on a keyboard at a computer to bring any CG character to life. There will always be the Human Factor, even if it's something that people fear get diminished because of the computers.

For example, say it's the year 2037. Actor Johnny Depp is 74 years old, but still active and keeping busy. He's still acting and is invited to have a cameo in the newest Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Whilst the cameo involves Jack Sparrow aged, there is also a flashback scene written that requires him to still look the way he did during the first POTC movies. Therefore, rather than hire an actor to look *like* Johnny Depp circa 2003-2011, they simply have Depp work with the CG Acting Department on how his 40-year-old CG actor would look. He works with the CG-actor director to ensure that the look and the performance is true to what he did back then. It's more or less what's been done with TRON Legacy and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but because it's 2037, technologies have improved and so it looks much more realistic.

Of course, with such technology, some might go further and try to create new movies with CG representations of deceased actors. Say a director wanted to pair up CG representations of 22-year-old James Dean and 17-year-old Molly Ringwald in a teen drama, with 53-year-old Tom Bosley as the father and 47-year-old Mae West as the sexy aunt. Through CG it could be done, even though Bosley and Ringwald are much older and Dean and West are long deceased. Could it be possible and effectively done with CG actors? Yes. Would it be acceptable? Hard to say.

albert

Jonah Hill is in MegaMind and it looks like they basicly copied and pasted him into a a dreamworks film

[sarcasm]Oh my, I cannot wait until we cannot tell at all the difference between fake and real![/sarcasm]

Why would't Johnny Depp just act, do the whole perfomance himself, and performance capture or/and CGI effects transform him to look a different way?

Isn't that how Benjamin was done?