Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Don't Believe What You See at the Movies

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the made-the-star-wars-movies-possible dept.

Movies 441

MattSparkes writes "Many images you see in a magazine are Photoshopped, and it's getting less and less likely that what you see at the cinema is any more genuine. In the film 'Blood Diamond', tears were added to Jennifer Connolly's face after a scene was shot. According to The Times, digital effects artists can even change actors' expressions. 'Opening or closing eyes; making a limp more convincing; removing breathing signs; eradicating blinking eyelids from a lingering gaze; or splicing together different takes of an unsuccessful love scene to produce one in which both parties look like they are enjoying themselves.' The article mentions the moral qualms digital effects people have over performing these manipulations, and the steps actors are taking to protect their digital assets."

cancel ×

441 comments

not sure I get the controversy (5, Insightful)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084124)

Isn't a director's responsibility to convey exactly what he (she) wants to say? Isn't movie-making mostly about suspending belief? Isn't this all make believe (not including documentaries, etc.)?

It seems to me (and IANAD) directors have the ulimate creative say so in movie creation. I find the manipulation in magazines offensive, because ostensibly a picture of a model represents reasonable facsimiles of that model, often in some context of cause and effect of some beauty products. Distortions and manipulations there are dishonest, and brush up against fraud.

But movies are supposed to be about make believe. Heck, most movies these days are rife with computer graphics and openly so. What is the nuance and difference with doctoring an actors performance?

Most actors are what (famous, popular) they are because they were at the right place at the right time. Directors have a tougher case to prove... they are ultimately responsible for the entire package and the effects, emotions, stories, etc., their movies bring. Their palette is more complex. I don't begrudge them their creative license.

Actors who think otherwise, as stated in the article, can stipulate contractually their work be preserved, but there are few actors who warrant that honor. (I have to laugh that Tom Cruise would stipulate that "manipulation" to make him look better is okay, but else it's not... especially ironic from coming from a Scientologist who interprets a world of "datagrams".)

Do I feel deceived Jennifer C.'s tears were fake? Hmmmmm.... had she "acted" them, what would have made them any more real?

Re:not sure I get the controversy (1)

dotpavan (829804) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084280)

pfft, that is why I watch cartoons!

Re:not sure I get the controversy (0)

FasterthanaWatch (778779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084294)

Isn't movie-making mostly about suspending disbelief?

There, fixed that for ya.

Thank you! (-1, Redundant)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084322)

That is exactly what I wanted to say, but you stated it far more eloquently than I ever could have.

Re:not sure I get the controversy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084396)

There's no difference between marketing print ads and movies. They're both fake, and as long as we know this there is no harm, or "fraud" as you put it.

Or do you think that TV commercials represent real life as well ?

Marketing, movies, they're all supposed to be about make believe. People just need to get over it and move on with their lives.

Hell, you could go a step further with models. They're all fake. (Some exceptional cases aside)

Do you think these women were born any differently than the other 99% of the world? No. The difference is that models have had money thrown at them since they were young; money for surgeries, money for makeup, money for clothing, money for personal training, etc... That's were the real fraud lies, these women don't look any better in the morning sans $1000's in makeup and fashion than your wife or girlfriend does. They're not "real". Their pictures aren't "real". Their whole existence is about deception and perception.

Re:not sure I get the controversy (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084526)

There's no difference between marketing print ads and movies. They're both fake, and as long as we know this there is no harm, or "fraud" as you put it.

His point is that using an air-brushed girl to advertise Avon skin care products is borderline fraudulent. No woman is ever going to look that good using those products. Heck, the woman in the magazine doesn't even look that good!

Using fake tears to make J-Lo (or whoever it was) cry is fine tuning a dramatic scene of a movie. The director isn't trying to get you to purchase any products with his changes. He's only attempting to bring the performances closer to his vision for the entertainment product. In many respects, it's like adding a coat of paint or polish before declaring the product ready for market.

There is a difference.

Re:not sure I get the controversy (4, Insightful)

jfengel (409917) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084616)

I suspect that the problem actors have is with the fact that as the effects people get better, will they be necessary at all? If the effects department can make better appearance of tears than Jennifer can why not just skip her entirely?

Re:not sure I get the controversy (2, Interesting)

viSage (36933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084622)

I'd like to think there is some remaining shred of reality in the actual acting job an actor does. I realize the various awards ceremonies (golden globe, oscars, etc.) are somewhat rigged to begin with, but this will shatter my illusions a little more. Was that actress really that good at acting, or was it post-production touch-up?

Re:not sure I get the controversy (2, Interesting)

jgartin (177959) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084650)

Let's take a different angle on this.

Actors get paid millions of dollars for doing a job that's relatively easy. Now, I'm not saying that I could act as well as Tom Cruise, etc. I'm also not saying that there are no difficult aspects to the job. However, many other jobs (garbage man, computer programmer, etc) are much more difficult. But, actors still get paid more.

Now, people find out that actors don't even have to act any more. They don't even have to look like a supermodel. It's all done by computers. And they still get paid rediculous sums for making crappy movies.

If it's all digital now, why can't anyone be a movie star? Hollywood has always looked corrupt--rampant with cronyism/nepotism/etc. They talk about "getting your big break." Very often, the "big break" comes because you're Francis Ford Coppola's sister/nephew/etc--not because you can act. This is what pisses people off. The digital technology can be used to keep the talentless princes and princesses of Hollywood in power/money.

Re:not sure I get the controversy (4, Funny)

nametaken (610866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084720)

Meh. Not surprised.

"The Internet is a communication tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography with one another."

Re:not sure I get the controversy (4, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084730)

Do I feel deceived Jennifer C.'s tears were fake? Hmmmmm.... had she "acted" them, what would have made them any more real?

It all depends on how good the digital effects artist is. Humans have very good emotional BS detectors. That is what made really good actors rare, it takes a very skilled individual to convincingly fake emotions. Now it takes a different kind of skilled individual. I haven't seen Blood Diamond so I have no idea if the tears looked fake or not. If they looked fake, they were fake. If they didn't, they were still "fake" but that's not the point.

My wife is an actress, and a very good one, and I can tell you she will NOT be happy about this. Fortunately, she is primarily a stage actress, so her skills can't be faked. I imagine people who could paint very realistic paintings were quite upset when cameras were invented. No one enjoys having one's skills made obsolete.

Oh my.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084126)

A /. newsflash.

This is good news for Mickey Rourke!! (1)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084130)

Now he will finally be able to show some expression of emotion on his face again.

... why is this news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084132)

fucking duh.

Go rent LOOKER (2, Informative)

SirLanse (625210) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084144)

Looker is an old movie about digitizing actors and then killing them.
It is finally becoming technically possible.

Re:Go rent LOOKER (5, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084362)

Looker is an old movie about digitizing actors and then killing them. It is finally becoming technically possible.

Nonsense. It's been possible to kill actors for years.

Re:Go rent LOOKER (1)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084610)

Al Pacino -- surprisingly -- was also in a very mediocre movie like that. It was called S1m0ne [imdb.com] and was about two guys creating a virtual actress who everyone thought was real. Although it had the Pacino Monologue (tm), it was overall a pretty crappy movie that I watched on the overhead monitor on an ancient 737 while stuck on a 10 hour flight. I think they killed her in the end.

Re:Go rent LOOKER (2, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084768)

Go rent LOOKER

Great. Now I've got that song stuck in my head. Thanks a lump, buddy.

"Her emerald eyes, so cool and so inviting..."

(j/k!) :-P

Am I the first to think.... (1)

RedShoeRider (658314) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084152)

....that this is somehow new and at all suprising?

Outlaw This Outlaw: +1, Insightful (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084156)

outlaw [whitehouse.org] before you outlaw other outlaws.

Here's what some think: [huffingtonpost.com]

Comments ( http://www.lucasgray.com/video/peacetrain.html...

Here is another longer video about Iran...

**** VIEWER ADVISORY ****

There are scenes in this film that might make you realize that Iranians are human beings too, just like you - so viewer discretion is advised.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17 118.htm [informatio...house.info] ...

By: 333 on February 20, 2007 at 12:34pm
Flag: [abusive]
Northerncross says (to paraphrase), "Bring 'em on."

- Echos of another idiot.

Whether Iran or North Korea or Pakistan or any other Nation developes nuclear weapons is orders of magnitude less important than the fact that Russia, who only benefits by our entanglements, has over 10,000 nuclear warheads. Where are all those weapons?
Why build anything when you can buy it for cheap?

The neocons instigate argument on phony premises and lies, and then sit back and take advantage of the controversy generated while they plot more profiteering.

What's a couple million people when the world has over 6 billion? Right Northernapparatchik?

By: underdog on February 20, 2007 at 12:36pm
Flag: [abusive]
just came in on our news you have your 2nd aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

So you're all set, right ? If you will use nuclear arms it will isolate you in the rest of the world more than you can imagine. We are sick and tired of your geo strategic games bringing the world closer to WW3 in order to keep your war profiteers and Israel happy.

By: CologneCitizen on February 20, 2007 at 12:38pm
Flag: [abusive]
the arabs and persians have the oil. they are our allies or should be and once were. israel has matzoballs. in a real politick relationship israel would assume the subordinate role it deserves in our foreign policy while we make sure the proper people in iraq and persia have an unlimited supply of their favorite vices. its not by accident the rest of the world makes sure its relations with the oil states are as smooth as silk while the french ambassador to britain calls israel "that shitty little country" saying what everyone is thinking. nuking israel would lead to a shortage of champagne in the world and an adundance of freely flowing(the obstensive object of our mid east strategy)and therefore, cheap oil.
By: yappymutt on February 20, 2007 at 10:27am

==============

A reasonable, rational American who seems to be capable of thinking for himself instead of just being led to the slaughter by Israel, AIPAC, JINSA and the neocons: the Zionists.

I can get on board with that.

I would like to place an order for more Americans like that to speak on ths forum.

By: CrazyAmericans on February 20, 2007 at 12:43pm
Flag: [abusive]
Any attack on Iran would inflame, not just Iran, but many Sunni nations as well who will then see commraderie with those in Iran and take steps in their own countries. You also have to remember that Iran got such a boost on the Arab street as Iran was the only nation to come to Lebanon's aid when Israel attacked it. I'm certain the leadership in surrounding countries are troubled by that.

Antiamericanism is spreading faster than at any other time in my lifetime, and it's not just the usual suspects in the Third World. Listening to affluent Europeans and other Westerners, the Americans cannot expect the rest of the world to lift a finger and come to their aid.

I fully expect a "Gulf of Tonkin" attack pretty soon. Bush has been getting other potential problems, clearing his agenda with deals with North Korea, for example.

By: PatrickWalker on February 20, 2007 at 12:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

Regards,
Kilgore Trout

Heh. (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084496)

I'm willing to bet the author of that post has no idea why naming yourself after the "world's worst science fiction writer" isn't the most credible way to distribute a conspiracy rant.

Don't believe Live TV either! (4, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084164)

Watch a sporting event such as football or especially baseball. You will see the ads placed around the stadium change. I'm not talking about those "scrolling" signs, those are real, but computer generated signs that are not really at the stadium.

Also, how do they move that yellow line so fast in football?

Re:Don't believe Live TV either! (3, Interesting)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084606)

"Watch a sporting event such as football or especially baseball. You will see the ads placed around the stadium change. "

This is especially noticeable in baseball games when the camera is shaking due to the wind, but the advertisements in the background don't move.

Re:Don't believe Live TV either! (1)

xant (99438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084728)

That yellow line is frickin sweet. I want to know how they do it so accurately too. It's fairly easy to alter its location procedurally, but getting the accurate line of scrimmage and first down line (to a fraction of a yard!), and getting that information to the tech who's doing the graphics, all in a few seconds--that can't be easy.

The "computer generated" signs are just images greenscreened onto the backdrops, which are green for that reason. :-)

Re:Don't believe Live TV either! (1)

xant (99438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084778)

Although it occurs to me that they might be doing what NASCAR and some other sports (speed skating, I think? cycling will probably have it soon as well) is putting some kind of radio chip in the sports equipment (in this case, the pigskin) and just hitting "update" when a ref spots it. Then nobody has to tell the tech what the line is, because the ball will do that by itself.

Re:Don't believe Live TV either! (2, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084746)

Also, how do they move that yellow line so fast in football?


I could be entirely wrong, but I always figured the transmitters were inside the giant orange triangle that they lay on the sidelines in front of the flags denoting where the line of scrimmage and where the first down point are....

Nothing to see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084172)

No problem- I'll just open The GIMP and mock-up a discussion thread. They'll never know.

please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084174)

and they're adding extra inches in porn movies, right?

right?

Re:please? (2, Funny)

AutopsyReport (856852) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084438)

and they're adding extra inches in porn movies, right?

No, but I thought I recommended that you keep quiet about your problem? We will discuss this at our next appointment.

Dr. Longjohn
Penile Shortage Specialist
Short Short Men Plaza, Lake Flaccid

Genuine? (1, Troll)

dedazo (737510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084182)

Who the hell cares if Jeniffer Conelly's tears are genuine?? That's why they're called "movies". Otherwise they'd be called "documentaries".

Or if you're Faux News, that's called "news" <zing \>

Nice Tag... (5, Funny)

DaedalusLogic (449896) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084540)

<!JOKETYPE humor PUBIC "-//W3C//DTD YOURMOTHERML 1.0 Sarcastic//EN" "http://www.wtf.org/TR/yourmotherml1/DTD/yourmothe rml1-sarcastic.dtd">
<attitude>
  <zinger>Learn to terminate a tag, jackass!</zinger>
  <ps>j/k</ps>
</attitude>

Re:Genuine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084658)

Or if you're Michael Moore, its called a "documentary" even though it is also faux

Just Meat Sacks Now I Guess (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084196)

Hmm, does this all mean that soon actors may be mere meat sacks on which to draw/animate? I suppose it is easier to use a real person as a canvas for the visual bits and then bring in good voice actors for the rest than a completely CG character. Is SAG's days numbered? Who cares? The real question is will this manipulation result in better film making? If not, it's really all irrelevant to the movie going public.

Re:Just Meat Sacks Now I Guess (2, Interesting)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084324)

To be honest, this might be preferred to the overpaid, pampered meat sacks we have now. Maybe movies would become an artform again.

Even Baby Jesus cried... (4, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084198)

Do you know how devistated I was when I found out that Lieutenant Dan really did have both of his legs???

Re:Even Baby Jesus cried... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084784)

Did they use a Blue screen? [howstuffworks.com]

Good acting (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084200)

Maybe now when Lucas re-remakes the Star Wars movies, we'll see some good acting!

Re:Good acting (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084522)

I wouldn't go that far.

After all, Jar-Jar Binks did exactly what Lucas wanted him to do.

splicing together different takes ?? (4, Funny)

93,000 (150453) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084214)

They do this in movies? Actually take different 'clips' and put them together to convey some sort of story? Bastards! I have played the fool for the last time.

From now on I will only view movies shot in one take.

Re:splicing together different takes ?? (1)

pancake_lover (310091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084420)

From now on I will only view movies shot in one take.

Here 'ya go:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/ [imdb.com]

one take (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084698)

There was another film I saw maybe 6-7 years ago that was shot in one continuous take, and had the screen divided into quarters, each following a different character, but all running in "realtime" simultaneously. It was a crazy experiment that actually worked suprisingly well. Anybody know the name of this one? I can't remember it, and would actually love to see it again.

Re:one take (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084756)

It was called "Timecode" http://imdb.com/title/tt0220100/ [imdb.com]

Re:splicing together different takes ?? (3, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084592)

It is called a play, and even better, it is live.

Re:splicing together different takes ?? (1)

igny (716218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084628)

Yeah, a story like this [youtube.com]

Wait... what? (4, Funny)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084232)

You mean... the movies aren't real???

Re:Wait... what? (1)

moatra (1019690) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084820)

Well.. they used to be reel-based, but most have since switched to digital.

Evidence (2, Interesting)

ZenSuckit (1063422) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084252)

This always makes me wonder about the courtroom. How do they prove that pictures and video are genuine?

Re:Evidence (4, Funny)

93,000 (150453) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084400)

This always makes me wonder about the courtroom. How do they prove that pictures and video are genuine?

They probably use a handsome, wet behind the ears lawyer who is very talented yet still plagued with some self doubt (usually due to some type of father issue), and who makes up for his lack of experience with heart and swagger. He typically validates or disproves said pictures/video in a moving 8 minute monologue to the jury.

At least that's what movies have taught me.

Re:Evidence (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084722)

Well, there's always exceptions and theoretical ways to falsify such things. However, the chain of evidence rules for things related to digital/computer forensics are ridiculously strict, so it goes a fair way towards reducing the possibility of that happening.

Entertainment Anyone? (5, Funny)

Gates82 (706573) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084266)

It was no big deal the dinosaurs were added to several scenes in Jurassic Park, or that that a liquid metal man can walk through steel bars in terminator, but now the CGI has gotten so good at blending with live action it is no a moral problem. I don't know about you but I go to the movies (rarely) for entertainment. I expect to see the best possible image and scene. I really have no concern about how the images were created as long as the blend and I can't tell were the CG is. Now if I am watching the news or a documentary I might want to know about these changes. This seems more like the actors complaining that their performance was good enough as is. They have a makeup artist for their face why not a graphics person in post production. This is lame and BS.

--
So who is hotter? Ali or Ali's Sister?

WHAT?!?!? (1)

Blaede (266638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084618)

Those weren't real dinos? My world is slowly melting...

Morals? (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084274)

Anyone that has deep moral qualms over digital movie effects has absolutely no sense of perspective.

Re:Morals? (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084600)

Wait until they show up in 'news' footage in two years.

Re:Morals? (1)

shawn(at)fsu (447153) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084674)

I'm sorry this is the apple aisle, oranges are one aisle over.

Animatronics are the way to go (4, Funny)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084286)

Remember how cheesy the CGI Jabba the Hutt looked compared to the original puppet? Remember how convincingly real the original Star Wars spaceship models looked compared to more modern computer animations? Remember how the makers of Forrest Gump tried and failed to Photoshop words into the mouths of George Wallace and JFK, finally opting instead to exhume their bodies and stuff them with animatronics?

Re:Animatronics are the way to go (1)

bigtangringo (800328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084490)

Personally, I like the CG stuff just fine, if not more.

CG Jabba > Puppet Jabba
CG Yoda > Puppet Yoda
CG Ships > Model Ships

I'm sure that reserves me a special place in geek hell; though I really don't care because it's true IMHO.

Re:Animatronics are the way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084754)

No, but it does make the joke go whooooosh over ya head...

But mommy, he said... (1)

Ximok (650049) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084292)

What do you mean, "Movies might not be real". But, I believe everything I see in the movies. I find it funny that Indiana Jones' twin is really Han Solo, I think Indiana would have shot first too.

It won't be long.... (4, Interesting)

Radon360 (951529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084296)

So at what point do the actor's/actress' talents become obsolete? Could the break point be when it's less expensive to pay someone to clean up bad acting versus shelling out uber-bucks for a good actor? Maybe Pixar (et al) are the pioneers on what is to come, in which everything is essentially generated virtually.

The bright side that I can see is that perhaps not having to put up with so many dumb, uneducated actors as public role models and political activists.

Re:It won't be long.... (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084480)

So at what point do the actor's/actress' talents become obsolete? Could the break point be when it's less expensive to pay someone to clean up bad acting versus shelling out uber-bucks for a good actor? Maybe Pixar (et al) are the pioneers on what is to come, in which everything is essentially generated virtually.

The thing is, good acting isn't the exclusive province of the A list. You can see some fine acting in lots of places, stage and film. My plan is to form an agency that contracts actors and actresses who look so much like A listers that a little CGI blending will make them the same in the trailer and the movie poster. Your movie will look like it stars Clooney, Kidman, Depp, and Roberts. It will really be Hix, Dix, Trix, and Epstein.

Re:It won't be long.... (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084638)

Hmmm, Bowfinger much?

Idoru (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084534)

There are already thousands of good and affordable actors out there. I think what the studios are willing to pay so much for is not acting skill, but cultural recognizability. The next step is for someone to create, popularize, and license not just CGI actors, but CGI celebrities - an idea already explored by William Gibson [williamgibsonbooks.com] .

Re:It won't be long.... (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084558)

Could the break point be when it's less expensive to pay someone to clean up bad acting versus shelling out uber-bucks for a good actor?

You think Lindsay Lohan is actually the best actor the people that cast her can find? And Paris Hilton's got an acting job now because of her talent? 90% of people going to a movie are people that have a crush, sexual or otherwise, on one of the actors. The other 10% are going because they have nothing to do, but will come back to the actor in it's next movie once they get to like them.

If you don't have a really, really, really fantastic movie idea that can be summed up in a 30 second commercial, which happens once a year, absolute maximum, you need people to come in to see the actors they like. So they'll never go away.

Unless CG studios start making extremely convincing, likable CG characters and re-using them across different movies, treating them like actors. But then you'll just have to pay the same $20 million to get the CG guys to let you use their popular fake actor, and you'd gain nothing over paying Lindsay Lohan. The animators, I'm sure, would be just as coked-up as she is. Allegedly.

Re:It won't be long.... (1)

localman (111171) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084652)

Unlikely it'll change much... Hollywood chooses actors based on the popularity pull they have, not the quality of acting. Beyond a certain base level they don't care, they just want someone with a lot of fans. Since having fans usually means you're already big in the biz, is it any wonder we see the same actors over and over again? There are already plenty of great cheap actors that can't get a break. At least that's my thought.

At the very least, this might make watching popular but not-so-great actors a little more palatable. And how will this affect acting awards?

Oh, and who really cares... it's just entertainment :)

Cheers.

Truth (1)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084298)

I don't think anyone needs to worry too much about the lack of truth in movie scenes. Movies are supposed to be entertainment, and thus, most of them are fiction. We're PRESENTED with an untruth and asked to set aside what we may know or think to be true and enjoy it. As such, digitally manipulating movies to be more potent or seem more realistic (like removing breathing from a supposedly dead body) isn't really any different then watching a movie where movie special effects have made Yoda battle.

Having said that, I think the real problem is that the craft of acting will suffer immensely for it. No more will you have directors screaming at actors "GET IT RIGHT THIS TIME!! Take 312! Action!", you'll get instead "That's good enough Tina. Digital will fix it up for us."

Before long, will be getting digital accent manipulation. Digital... well, all the examples I can think of are already beginning to be done like digital teeth whitening, digital smiles, digital crying.

When you can't even believe anymore that the actors on the screen are even PRETENDING to feel emotional about something, movies will lose much of their entertainment value and their emotional appeal. If the actors aren't willing to pretend, why should you? Suspension of disbelief will end. Most movies are crap, but there are gems out there. To protect this artform, there needs to be limits and rules set about what can and can't be digitally manipulated or crafted.

Re:Truth (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084366)

> movies will lose much of their entertainment value and their emotional appeal.

You haven't been the movies lately, have you?

> To protect this artform, there needs to be limits and rules set about what can and can't be digitally manipulated or crafted.

What gives you the right to dictate to creators how to create?

Re:Truth (1)

Icarus1919 (802533) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084802)

I said there needs to be limits and rules set, I didn't say thought that I should be the one to set them. In point of fact, I think that perhaps if said creators got together they could reasonably decide on rules amongst themselves.

Complaining about 'not real' (1)

ccccc (888353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084306)

This strikes me as very silly.

Is it 'not real' when a painter adds an object to his painting that isn't in the scene? Should we also object to the use of lighting on movie sets, because it modifies the natural lighting of the scene? Maybe makeup as well?

Re:Complaining about 'not real' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084584)

Yes, exactly. Read up on Lars Von Trier and the Dogma 95 movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma_95 [wikipedia.org] .

Did anybody hear about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084318)

...Nicholas Cage's CGI abs in "Ghost Rider"?

CGI abs?! CGI abs!?? Forget the Slim-fast and crunches, we'll just CGI you to buff, sculpted perfection. I think I'll go back and retouch all my photos....

WAIT!! (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084328)

Wait! What I see in movies might not be real??

I'm SHOCKED!

Shocked, I tell you.

...

Next step (4, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084334)

Yeah, that's why they're called special effects. Next comes replacing the actors with CGI and synthesized voices. In many cases it will be obvious because the quality of the acting will improve.

Re:Next step (1)

dpilot (134227) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084448)

Clearly Jar-Jar Binks is the example to prove your point.

(GDR)

Re:Next step (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084506)

replacing hollywood actors with CG will also fix that uncanny valley problem caused by botox.

Cinema real? (1)

gvc (167165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084370)

I can tolerate fake tears more than phone numbers that start with 555, comic-book format computer interfaces with security that can be cracked in a couple of keystrokes, noisy explosions in space, ...

What a coincidence! (5, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084380)

I, too, photoshopped liquid onto Jennifer Connely's face.

Re:What a coincidence! (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084428)

Photoshopping will make you go blind!

-matthew

Oh please... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084384)

It is all acting anyway, so what difference does it make if it is enhanced by music, sound effects, lighting effects, CGI, or Photoshop? Who cares? Do we complain when we hear those fake fight sounds? You do know that a fist hitting a face in real life doesn't make a loud "crack" sound, right? It is usually more of a dull thud. But that just doesn't go over very well on film. Hell, why not complain that the actors aren't really hitting each other!?

Now, if it were a documentary or something where I might expect to get something resembling reality, then I might be worried, but movies are all about fooling my mind into feeling (for the duration of the film) that they are real. Blood Diamond was a pretty good movie if you ask me. I love Jennifer Connelly, digital tears an all.

-matthew

Movies manipulated with CGI ..? (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084406)

Are you telling me Dave Jones was manipulated with CGI? Damn you, Gore Verbinski !!!!

This just in... (1)

saltydogdesign (811417) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084426)

... film producers conspire to create illusions of reality! What's next, writers producing fictional accounts? Can it happen here?

not just movies (2, Informative)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084430)

even "news" photographs from are photoshopped by news outlets to present a one sided story. A good example is the Reuters photoshopped photos from the israel-lebanon war. [freerepublic.com]

Once they got caught the photos were killed, but hundreds of doctored photos made it on the front pages of news papers around the word anyway.

Re:not just movies (3, Informative)

jmac1492 (1036880) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084692)

Actuallly, the Reuters photoshop thing was a BAD example. Reuters bought the picture from a photographer and sold it to newspapers. That's what Reuters does. The photographer, before selling it to Reuters, edited the picture. Reuters eventually found out about it, issued a retraction, and refused to buy any more photographs from that photographer. There was a mistake, but the system fixed it.
If this is a widespread phenomenom, as opposed to a one shot mistake that Reuters owned up to as soon as they found out about it, can you provide any other examples?

Moral qualms?? (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084436)

Is this for real? It's ENTERTAINMENT. I could care less if they replaced all actors with CGI. How does 'morality' factor into any of this??? If anything, top tier actors and actresses getting $20-$40 million for starring in a film is the immoral bit here.

Non-fiction (1)

FredDC (1048502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084464)

I applaud the use of these techniques in the movie industry, they are a great medium in telling a story on the big screen.

What scares me is that these techniques are finding there way into the news, documentaries, ... There they offer a great medium to falsify stories, and mislead the public. In the future we will have to become ever more vigilant when looking at images of important events!

No Post-Edit Clause (5, Informative)

ashitaka (27544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084472)

I have more respect for an actors that insists on a "No-post editing" clause and can proudly let everyone know that is the case.

I re-watched Castaway the other day.

Yes, Tom Hanks wasn't on an island when he goes to the top of the hill and looks around at an endless expanse of ocean (he was in a hollywood backlot) but the expression on his face made you believe he was.

Obligatory Reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084486)

from Seinfeld [tv.com]

"And by the way. They're real, and they're spectacular!"

And the winner is... (4, Funny)

GrayCalx (597428) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084492)

The award for Best Actress goes too... Jennifer_Connelly_Face_4 + Jennifer_Connelly_Body_3 + Emotions_Tears_Female_2.

Does this mean... (1)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084512)

.. that maybe Chewbacca wasn't a real Wookie?

However, Hollywood movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084524)

...are a completely accurate description of U.S. culture and society, This gives those in foreign countries keen insights into the lives of Americans, making their suggestions for improvements quite welcome. Because of this, I eagerly await their ideas on who we should vote for in the next presidential election.

Re: Don't Believe What You See at the Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18084538)

I just downloaded Blood Diamond to verify the claim made in the article description.

Is that movie worth my hd space? Or will I have to download another one to make up for the damage resulting from less hd space?

Fake? (1)

JeTmAn81 (836217) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084564)

Wait a minute, movies are fake? That stuff isn't real? I guess that's why my neighbor's body didn't turn to dust after I stabbed that sharpened stake through his heart.

S1m0ne? (1, Informative)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084630)

iirc they made a movie on this subject, it was called S1m0ne [imdb.com]

Yeah Right (2, Funny)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084634)

This is all just FUD, next you'll try to tell me that Jar Jar Binks had digitally added ears? Please.

Everything you see (1)

nostrad (879390) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084694)

is fake [google.com]

"Acting is all about honesty" -- not. (1)

chx1975 (625070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084718)

Acting is a craft. For example, a dock worker (at least traditionally) was someone who had more worked out muscles and were able to control them well, knew the little tricks how to lift very heavy weights in such a way that he can do it all day. Actors are people who either learn by one way or another how to control their face muscles or sometimes, are actually mutants that have their nerve system wired in such a way that they can control face muscles since birth. Really, it's not much more than that. Where is honesty in that? These days, a dock worker drives a forklift. In the future, 'actors' will drive a -- mouse.

Re:"Acting is all about honesty" -- not. (1)

JPMaximilian (948958) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084810)

Acting is a craft. For example, a dock worker (at least traditionally) was someone who had more worked out muscles and were able to control them well, knew the little tricks how to lift very heavy weights in such a way that he can do it all day. Actors are people who either learn by one way or another how to control their face muscles or sometimes, are actually mutants that have their nerve system wired in such a way that they can control face muscles since birth. Really, it's not much more than that. Where is honesty in that? These days, a dock worker drives a forklift. In the future, 'actors' will drive a -- mouse.
The number of Digital Characters in movies is certainly going up, however, I for one will always pay to see a real person do "real" acting. I wouldn't like a future where all "actors" are just CG artists. And don't forget that some CG characters such as Gollum were acted out almost entirely by a real actor, Gollum wouldn't have been nearly as good without Andy Serkis.

Not real? I'm Shocked! (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084762)

moral qualms digital effects people have over performing these manipulations

Movies aren't real? We can't do warp speed and squirrels can't fly?

Cinema, like theatre, involves teh willing suspension of disbelief; and directors use the tools available to create the illusion they desire - wether it's via camera angles, mats, blue screens, computer graphics or what have you. That's why we have special effects artists, foley artists, makeup artists, etc - to create a mood and help tell a story.

Unless a scene is being presented as a fact, there should be no moral qualms about using available technology to create whatever you want on screen.

and the steps actors are taking to protect their digital assets

Wherever you stick your digit it should be protected.

Seriously, no doubt digital rights will be a negotiation point; I can see it prevent release of movies that have been enhanced on teh grounds thsoe rights were not paid for initially. While we may not agree with that position it is consistant with the move to create and sell (or license) seperately every possible permutation of digital creations.

all about honesty? (1)

powerpants (1030280) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084772)

FTFA:

"Acting is all about honesty..."
It makes my brain hurt just trying to make sense of this claim. How can ~X be all about X?

I hate hollywood stars (1)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 7 years ago | (#18084814)

They make their careers by lying to the audience, and have no problems putting on a crapload of make-up so they look good for the camera and makes them look younger, but now they have problems when their performance is digitally altered to make the film better? I think they're just clinging on to the little sense of reality they have left. Cause when you take away the acting, what else do actors bring to the table?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...