Over the years, computers have continued to advance, as well as the capabilities these computers have. What does this mean though?
Could it possibly be coming down to the fact that computers are so advanced and are becoming so precise that they can create a person, looking exacty like a real person, that you can't tell a difference from seeing Marilyn Monroe or Marlon Brando on a TV screen. Cyberface basically says there wouldn't be any real use for this, unless an actor died before the completion of the film, or also in such instances in The Notebook, which Ryan Gosling played younger versions of James Garner. Perhaps Mr. Garner could have played both characters. Cyberface continues to argue that if you want a true emotional performance, you can't go and get that through animation.
Could it possibly be coming down to the fact that computers are so advanced and are becoming so precise that they can create a person, looking exacty like a real person, that you can't tell a difference from seeing Marilyn Monroe or Marlon Brando on a TV screen. Cyberface basically says there wouldn't be any real use for this, unless an actor died before the completion of the film, or also in such instances in The Notebook, which Ryan Gosling played younger versions of James Garner. Perhaps Mr. Garner could have played both characters. Cyberface continues to argue that if you want a true emotional performance, you can't go and get that through animation.
Cyberface is completely correct on this one. This type of technology wouldn't really benefit the movie industry in any way. If you look at the movie The Notebook, you would be taking a near perfect movie, and sacrificing the emotion between Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. The Notebook wouldn't have had any emotion or drama, if Ryan Gosling would have been a computer animated version of a young James Garner. There would have been no physical touch shown between Duke and Allie in many of the scenes, especially the one shown below, which is a very critical point in the movie.
It's not that the technology isn't great and that the person being computer generated doesn't look real, it's just that computers can't have any emotion. No matter what anyone argues, computers are not real, they can imitate actions of emotions, but they cannot by any means demonstrate their own emotions. I think the technology of computer graphics is phenomenal, but I don't see the movie industry having a place for it.
2 comments:
Who is cyberface? Is that a company who makes computer-generated people in the movie industry? As for your focus on The Notebook, does that mean you are a fan of the movie?
The title of your post was Are Computeres The End Of Acting and based on the example you gave I would have to say no. There are already a few good movies that have computer animation characters added and the computer aimation does a pretty good job of "copying" emotion in some of these. The only reason that they might not work in extremely emotional scenes is not the computer animation, but the fact that the real actor has to do it on their own at first. Because of this computers would not be the end of acting unless we want to try to do a movie without any real actors. I do not think that will happen. I think there will always be plenty of real actors even if computer animated on become popular. For this reason acting will get better because the real actor has to diplay that emotion on their on.
Post a Comment