LEGEND New Movie Trailers

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
What response do you want? My post #510 clearly stated it. Call it a clarification since I won't waste my time on the current genre unless it is a spoof of same such as Deadpool. I've never analyzed anything. I just gave my opinion of Deadpool which I like.

I read every single one of your posts, and over and over I stated Deadpool is a superhero created by Marvel that's self aware that he's one. That's his thing. I also gave numerous examples of all the superheroes and their movies. You don't acknowledge, but that's fine, you can just see it through your lens.

It's a Marvel movie. It's a superhero movie, period. It's not a spoof of the genre, period.

The Boys = spoof of superhero genre. The show was created to mock superheroes.

Scary Move = spoof of horror genre. The movie was created to mock horr movies.

Deadpool = stand alone superhero movie from a comic book character, containing stories and characters from the source material and is in the FOX X-Men universe. Not a spoof.

I follow these things religiously, right next to football. I know what I'm talking about here with regards to superheroes.
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
I think robots want to watch robots and people want to watch people

Think about your entire premise - pure CGI characters that put humans out of work cause they do what they are told. As if “not aging, not taking a salary, no complaints,” makes for a good actor.

What would these AI characters who’s prime motive is to replace problematic humans gonna get their chops? From hours and hours of watching Dog Day Afternoon? Like memorizing with their AI brain every twitch and look Pacino gave in Serpico? Well it would have to copy a human. And the final result would be an imitation of a human. So it will always by nature fall short of the requires humanity needed to act.

Who is gonna do the voice of the character? You see how it works today - Scarlett Johansson lends her voice to a cartoon fish. What you are talking about already happens in Pixar but the draw for an audience is Movie Star oriented. And that means Fans.

Fans have to be human. And they have to have Humans actors. Otherwise what would some kid strive to be? An algorithm?? A young kid wants to be like Mitchum or Paul Newman. Girls want to grow up and be like Scarlett Johansson.’ They don’t want to look up and admire digital Code.

Your premise is that humans will want to watch pure CGI characters. Or that studios would want to do this to cut costs and avoid complaints.

I say no way. Not now or in the future

While that may be true today and in the “future” it will be the same % of an audience that today watches animation. A CGI character will always fall under the category of “Animation.” So what your calling for in a sense is that humans will one day allow for the death of the live action film — and I say that’s impossible.

Your response to my point about failed Zemeckis and Final fantasy - that there will possibly be a point in the future where another generation conditioned on CGI will want pure CGI Characters. So basically what you are suggesting is in the future, these audiences (cause of this conditioning to CGI) will be into better produced Zemeckis failure, and a better rendered Final Fantasy.

Will Final Fantasy the Spirit Within be that generations Star Wars??? I mean they already did what you say.

Some weird version of that flick Simone. i mean why stop at Actors? Why not replace writers. I mean the same algorythm or AI super function that can dissect all the Pacino rolls to hypothetically act intelligently like Pacino — what’s to say the same AI creation could grind out a Robert Towne script the same way. Lets get rid of directors while we are at it. Just type in the Robert Altman button to the left and add a bit of David Lean and it’s a wrap. The slipper slope continues to AI editors until it’s just a robot’s digital interpretation of a movie.

Someone may try and people may tune in for the novelty - but again just like in porn it will remain a novelty. People want to fuck people. If you are fucking a robot it’s cause you have no people.

Anyway it’s never gonna happen unless the audience is robots. Cause robots will be down with watching robots. Humans want to watch humans

p.s. deadpool isn’t a spoof :)
Zemeckis? Final Fantasy? That wasn't me.

You're assuming the CGI actors of the future will be recognized as not realistic. I believe at some point they will become indistinguishable from real people. Voices can already be synthesized albeit with someone's actual spoken words. That technology will only get better. A real person will get the voice work but it won't be limited to the work at hand if the CGI actor becomes a star. That person will also read words to create a database of words in their voice that will be used by the studio in the future. Everything from inflection to emotion will be synthesized with their voice data. For words not in the database the CGI actor spoken language will be built syllable by syllable.

P.S. Deadpool is a spoof.:giggle:
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
I read every single one of your posts, and over and over I stated Deadpool is a superhero created by Marvel that's self aware that he's one. That's his thing. I also gave numerous examples of all the superheroes and their movies. You don't acknowledge, but that's fine, you can just see it through your lens.

It's a Marvel movie. It's a superhero movie, period. It's not a spoof of the genre, period.

The Boys = spoof of superhero genre. The show was created to mock superheroes.

Scary Move = spoof of horror genre. The movie was created to mock horr movies.

Deadpool = stand alone superhero movie from a comic book character, containing stories and characters from the source material and is in the FOX X-Men universe. Not a spoof.

I follow these things religiously, right next to football. I know what I'm talking about here with regards to superheroes.
I gave a well referenced source that sees it differently who is also into the superhero genre. Now what?
 

IowaRam

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 11, 2014
Messages
6,622
Name
Iowa
vr9rYpH.gif
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Zemeckis? Final Fantasy? That wasn't me.

You're assuming the CGI actors of the future will be recognized as not realistic. I believe at some point they will become indistinguishable from real people. Voices can already be synthesized albeit with someone's actual spoken words. That technology will only get better. A real person will get the voice work but it won't be limited to the work at hand if the CGI actor becomes a star. That person will also read words to create a database of words in their voice that will be used by the studio in the future. Everything from inflection to emotion will be synthesized with their voice data. For words not in the database the CGI actor spoken language will be built syllable by syllable.

P.S. Deadpool is a spoof.:giggle:

Nope


Anyway i dropped Zemeckis failures in CGI and Final fantasy to show you what you're talking about they have already tried - and failed.

Audiences and Studios have already rejected the idea of robot/CGI/AI actors.

Again — What you are talking about is Animation. It’s already happened. And it bombed.

Show me any proof that says Studios are trying to replace actors in order to save money and eliminate “complaints.” Or that they are looking to do it in the future. I need proof cause I haven’t seen any evidence of what you’re talking about - whereas I have offered a myriad of examples and proof as to why live action - with real people - is never going to get replaced.
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
Nope


Anyway i dropped Zemeckis failures in CGI and Final fantasy to show you what you're talking about they have already tried - and failed.

Audiences and Studios have already rejected the idea of robot/CGI/AI actors.

Again — What you are talking about is Animation. It’s already happened. And it bombed.

Show me any proof that says Studios are trying to replace actors in order to save money and eliminate “complaints.” Or that they are looking to do it in the future. I need proof cause I haven’t seen any evidence of what you’re talking about - whereas I have offered a myriad of examples and proof as to why live action - with real people - is never going to get replaced.
Since we're talking about the future I see it as the natural progression of things dictated by economics and technological abilites in the future. When it becomes clear that it is going to happen then the studios will pursue it. "Complaints" as in dealing with agents whether about money or what they will or won't do or who they will or won't work with etc. I agree current CGI or animation or whatever you want to call it is not believable. In the future we'll see.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Acting is a human art form
If you think that in the future automation will find it’s way into the arts in such a way that there will be CGI movie stars you are dead wrong - sorry

* forgive me for any hand I may have had in derailing this thread
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
Since we're talking about the future I see it as the natural progression of things dictated by economics and technological abilites in the future. When it becomes clear that it is going to happen then the studios will pursue it. "Complaints" as in dealing with agents whether about money or what they will or won't do or who they will or won't work with etc. I agree current CGI or animation or whatever you want to call it is not believable. In the future we'll see.

Acting is a human art form
If you think that in the future automation will find it’s way into the arts in such a way that there will be CGI movie stars you are dead wrong - sorry

* forgive me for any hand I may have had in derailing this thread
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Acting is a human art form
If you think that in the future automation will find it’s way into the arts in such a way that there will be CGI movie stars you are dead wrong - sorry

* forgive me for any hand I may have had in derailing this thread
As a grown ass man who enjoys cartoons, I think you're overestimating the general population's opinion of it all as art. I mainly go to the movies or watch TV shows to be entertained. It's entertainment to me, not art. And I know I'm not the only person who feels that way. I do really get into the art of storytelling, but that's because I'm an amateur storyteller myself. That's my thing, so I look for it.

People like my friends, family, and most of my coworkers don't give a crap about the art aspect either. We're going to movies and spending $30 bucks for 2 people so we can walk away 2 hours later entertained by what we saw. Whatever emotion we were looking for, depending on the genre, is the entertainment.

For example, I had no clue who did the voices of the fish in Finding Nemo. I enjoyed it still. Turns out Ellen did one and Willem Dafoe was another, but who cares? I would have enjoyed Monsters Inc without John Goodman and Billy Crystal. The reason you hire actors to do coffee acting is because they're good at acting. A recognizable name helps at bringing people in but not at making the movie good in any measure.

All CGI movies will be successful when CGI actors are indistinguishable from real actors in both static appearance and movement. That's going to be the biggest hurdle in the uncanny valley for the CGI artists. Movement doesn't look 100% real in CGI movies of real people. I don't think AI is going to be done that completely by itself, but it will be a huge part of the process.

Art is fine, but I'm not going to the movies to watch 2 hours of art. I'm going to be entertained. It's why I don't watch interpretive dance and I don't pay for bananas taped to walls. And Jackson Pollock is overrated. Frank Frazetta was a badass. I'm never going to watch The English Patient. I'm probably going to watch that terrible movie with the Rock and Jason Statham in it because even if it's stupid as hell (and it surely looks stupid and cheesy) it's going to be entertaining AF.
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
Acting is a human art form
If you think that in the future automation will find it’s way into the arts in such a way that there will be CGI movie stars you are dead wrong - sorry
It won't be the first time. Only question is whether either of us will live to see it.;)
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
As a grown ass man who enjoys cartoons, I think you're overestimating the general population's opinion of it all as art. I mainly go to the movies or watch TV shows to be entertained. It's entertainment to me, not art. And I know I'm not the only person who feels that way. I do really get into the art of storytelling, but that's because I'm an amateur storyteller myself. That's my thing, so I look for it.

People like my friends, family, and most of my coworkers don't give a crap about the art aspect either. We're going to movies and spending $30 bucks for 2 people so we can walk away 2 hours later entertained by what we saw. Whatever emotion we were looking for, depending on the genre, is the entertainment.

For example, I had no clue who did the voices of the fish in Finding Nemo. I enjoyed it still. Turns out Ellen did one and Willem Dafoe was another, but who cares? I would have enjoyed Monsters Inc without John Goodman and Billy Crystal. The reason you hire actors to do coffee acting is because they're good at acting. A recognizable name helps at bringing people in but not at making the movie good in any measure.

All CGI movies will be successful when CGI actors are indistinguishable from real actors in both static appearance and movement. That's going to be the biggest hurdle in the uncanny valley for the CGI artists. Movement doesn't look 100% real in CGI movies of real people. I don't think AI is going to be done that completely by itself, but it will be a huge part of the process.

Art is fine, but I'm not going to the movies to watch 2 hours of art. I'm going to be entertained. It's why I don't watch interpretive dance and I don't pay for bananas taped to walls. And Jackson Pollock is overrated. Frank Frazetta was a badass. I'm never going to watch The English Patient. I'm probably going to watch that terrible movie with the Rock and Jason Statham in it because even if it's stupid as hell (and it surely looks stupid and cheesy) it's going to be entertaining AF.

Just cause you don't know doesn't mean that Studios that do follow your way of thinking.

Animation is Animation.
Live Action is Live Action.
There will never be an end to Live Action movie making.

Please read all my posts about this subject

The premise that studios want to get rid of actors cause Coconut says they are a problem is 100% untrue now and in the future.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
I gave a well referenced source that sees it differently who is also into the superhero genre. Now what?

How about having an open mind about superhero movies, and you'll see why Deadpool is a funny superhero movie, not a spoof of the genre.

You don't have to like them, but you'll clearly see it's not. Remember, I'm a nerd. I love this stuff.

tenor.gif
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
I never knew about that movie. I'll have to watch. I do like Gattica. One of my favorites.

Yeah.
What do you think of the Thanos character? That is 100% CGI right? I mean what’s your take on it — I think it looks weird. But were
You good with it? It’s basically what we’re riffing on. Some people no matter what finding it off while others like it.
I think it has Brolin voice.
 

1maGoh

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
3,957
Just cause you don't know doesn't mean that Studios that do follow your way of thinking.

Animation is Animation.
Live Action is Live Action.
There will never be an end to Live Action movie making.

Please read all my posts about this subject

The premise that studios want to get rid of actors cause Coconut says they are a problem is 100% untrue now and in the future.
Unless there are parts about it in other threads I did read them.

Generally speaking, aren't the entertaining movies with tons of CGI the ones that sell? And the artsy movies don't sell well? So if we were guess based on the available data whether or not viewers would accept all CGI movies one the technology catches up to expectations, we probably wouldn't guess artsy movies would win.

I get the argument you were having with coconuts. But you stated that people show up for the actors and that the draw in animated movies is the real actors doing the voices. But that's only partially accurate. Frozen was one of the highest grossing movies of all time. Without looking it up I couldn't tell you who was in it (except for the guy who played Olaf but I don't know how name just had face). Can most people? I just looked it up. How many people do you really think saw the trailer for that movie and said, "Oh shit! Kristen Bell is playing a princess. I better go see that!"

I think we can turn this same line of questioning around and say just because you know who the actors are in the cartoon movies and it impacts your opinion of them doesn't mean that's what a majority of America is doing. Yeah, studios are looking for every advantage they can get, so getting big time actors that have name recognition makes sense. That's going to be a factor. I just don't think it's quite as large as you were suggesting it was.

The studios probably don't want to get rid of actors, I'm not arguing that. But that doesn't mean it won't be technologically feasible and socially accepted one day. They did "live action" versions of the Jungle Book and the Lion King recently without real animals. That's a step in that direction. Seems to have worked out okay.
 

coconut

Pro Bowler
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
1,680
Name
coconut
Yeah.
What do you think of the Thanos character? That is 100% CGI right? I mean what’s your take on it — I think it looks weird. But were
You good with it? It’s basically what we’re riffing on. Some people no matter what finding it off while others like it.
I think it has Brolin voice.
I thought you meant Gattaca as in Hawke, Law, Thurman. Looked it up on imdb and can't find anything 'Thanos' for the actors. It sounds familiar from Star Trek or something I've seen.
 

Dieter the Brock

Fourth responder
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
8,196
I thought you meant Gattaca as in Hawke, Law, Thurman. Looked it up on imdb and can't find anything 'Thanos' for the actors. It sounds familiar from Star Trek or something I've seen.

He is an avengers character. It was all CGI and Brolin did the voice.

And the movie I referenced from the guy who did Gattaca was Simone