Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

CG Idols - Human Not Required 359

Posted by michael from the worshipping-rendered-images dept.
greymond sent in a blurb about computer-generated celebrities in Japan. I'm sure a fair number of you have read Idoru... The Final Fantasy movie didn't do well, but I think it's safe to predict that eventually, computer-generated celebrities will be as numerous as live ones. There are so many advantages for the purveyors of pop culture, ranging from "never gets arrested for drunk driving" to "never demands salary increases", that I think it's inevitable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CG Idols - Human Not Required More

CG Idols - Human Not Required

Comments Filter:

  • Computer animated characters (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ChazeFroy ( 51595 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:05AM (#2635980) Homepage
    When I saw Final Fantasy, I thought the graphics were great. However, that feeling went away after 10 minutes, and the characters seemed to be robotic and void of depth. I'm sure this will get better in the future, but we shouldn't say that it will be inevitable that they will be as numerous as real actors.
    • One day people will learn that video game gameplay doesn't translate to film.

      Final Fantasy didn't die for poor graphics, it died from a poor script.

      So much money, so little writing.

      • One day people will learn that video game gameplay doesn't translate to film

        The Final Fantasy movie had absolutely nothing to do with any video game, other than the title (there's not even continuitity between episodes of the video game)

        Having said that, though... yes, the script was mediocre. I think that fact that it's an animated film is what killed it in the marketplace, though... outside of Japan, I just don't know if an animated film targeted at an older audience can make money. And this is coming from a huge fan of animation. :-(

    • With all of this you know that someone is going to start copyrighting their various body parts so that some CG studio doesn't do something like grabbing a pastiche of components from modern stars to make something that sort of looks like a well known star but isn't.

      It is a quick way to try to rip of someone the glamour of a well known star.

  • Yes, but nobody can really identitify itself to a star .. or dream of be a star when he'll grow up ..
    Thus, I'm not sure we'll say goodbye to the star as we know them now so early .

  • How about Max Headroom? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ed Bugg ( 2024 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:07AM (#2635991)
    We've already seen the start of this... anyone remember Max Headroom from the '80s... Started off on a Coke commercial and got his own show...

  • But we like scandal! (Score:3, Funny)

    by trackspace ( 469394 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:07AM (#2635993) Homepage
    Here in America, I imagine that most people would become bored with a "perfect" celeb. I mean, I find Robert Downey Jr more entertaining since he climbed into his neighbor's kid's bed in a drug induced haze... That's entertainment!
    • It's true! Trackspace is dead on. It's funny, but true. Why do people watch the E! or read InStyle? Because people want celebrities.

      Sure, get on your high horse and say, "I don't need celebrities. I don't care if my movie stars are real humans or not!" But most people like celebrities. That's why movies are made the way they are these days.

      Big studios don't take chances any more. They bet on horses that have won in the past. Some nobody from nowhere comes to them with a script that's great. Do they bank on that script, then fill it with actors? No! They find one or two or three big-name actors with star appeal, and get them in on the project. Then they screw with the script until it makes everyone's egos happy. Then they shoot the film, market the thing, and we all go and see it.

      Studios do this because the know that there are millions of people infatuated with Brad Pitt, Julia Roberts, et. al.. They're not infatuated with the characters these people play - they're infatuated with the actors themselves.

      As long as there are people out there who made it out of Bumfuq, ND and became big-name movie stars, with the strange and unreal trials and tribulations that movie stars have, there will be celebrity fans.

      Those celebrity fans dictate the movie business in every major movie-producing country. Without human star actors, there's no movie industry.

  • Animated celebs... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Marx_Mrvelous ( 532372 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:10AM (#2636004) Homepage
    Not a troll but a real question... Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this? They always seem to lead the way in these areas... no CG person would balk at anything asked of them.

    And if they do make real digital celebrities, how long until grey/black market pornographic representations get loose?
    • Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this?

      That's a good question - they really have led the way in technology, but I think that's always been more along the lines of distribution media (8mm, VHS cassettes, CD-ROMs, Internet).

      It currently costs so much money to develop a CG character (vs. paying some morally-impaired folks a few hundred bucks) that I don't see it happening any time real soon.

      OTOH, I'll bet there's a point down the road where the technology has matured and it actually does become feasible to crank out virtual smut.
      • If you think they're making only a few hundred dollars, you're kidding yourself. Top models, in the 80's (sorry, that's the most recient data I have, I don't hang with those people anymore) were making $1500 a day, in feature films. Even the men in straight movies were making "a few hundred a day". You can bet that the payscale hasn't decreased. You should read RAME (rec.arts.movies.erotica [google.com]). That's a good place for information about these things.

        • Re:Animated celebs... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cnkeller ( 181482 )
          Top models, in the 80's (sorry, that's the most recient data I have, I don't hang with those people anymore) were making $1500 a day, in feature films.

          Sorry, don't have any "real" data, but I tend to catch Howard Stern on the radio quite often. He had Jenna Jamison on (is there a bigger star?). She had mentioned that stars sign package deals, maybe 100K or 150K for 2-3 movies. Figure each star is doing 10-20 movies with maybe a a couple hours of footage for each movie. Not a bad deal....

      • paying some morally-impaired folks...
        ...crank out virtual smut.

        Ah, Christian moralising from somebody calling themselves Sid Vicious.
        Only available on slashdot! :-)
        • Perhaps Sid *IS* moralising, perhaps not.

          But most people would agree to community standards when it comes to what is or isn't moral or smut. Religion doesn't directly enter into it.

          Perhaps where Sid lives such visual delights are taboo. Where I live, I bet I'd be labelled at least a pr0n-hound if I got caught with media like that. Well, in the 'burbs anyway. Downtown, all bets would be off.

          See, it's all relative. No big deal. And did Sid actually SAY he was OPPOSED to adult entertainment?

          GTRacer
          - freaky

          • most people would agree to community standards when it comes to what is or isn't moral

            That's exactly the problem - most people dont have the willpower, nerve, brains or self dignity to bother even having their own moral compass. They just say "Gee, I don't know. What does everyone else think?" and go along with the rest of the sheeple.

            And did Sid actually SAY he was OPPOSED to adult entertainment?

            Did I say that he did? Do I care? Are you awake? Hellooooo? :-)
            • Well this is certainly turning into an interesting sociological exploration now, isn't it?

              I'd think it would be hard to live in a group/community for any extended period of time and not have their collective values impress upon you. That's not to say they're all the same; like with any large population, there will be those in the standard deviation and there will be outliers.

              Almost by definition, "community standards" are an average of individual beliefs. Some people care more than others what those averages are. As for me, I'd be thrown out of my neighborhood if my neighbors knew what I liked.

              I'm still an individual despite living in a community - I just have to watch what I share with whom.

              GTRacer
              - still freaky

      • It currently costs so much money to develop a CG character (vs. paying some morally-impaired folks a few hundred bucks) that I don't see it happening any time real soon.

        Yeah, except that you can have computer generated characters do any twisted thing you want, even if its humanly impossible or illegal.

      • I agree, it will eventually get cheap enough--but there may be a point before that when someone will decide that there are sufficient other advantages to outweigh some additional cost. If nothing else, CG characters are unconstrained by the laws of physics and biology. (Probably better to let the readers' imagination think of the possibilities...)
    • Not a troll but a real question... Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this?

      I remember once when I was playing a mud and one of the players said he was looking for models to set up a porn site. I said to him: why don't you try something new and ray-trace them and create a new type of porn? He answered that the thing was not original at all and several sites of that type already existed. And this was some 6 years ago....
      I guess that if you're willing to waste some time looking around you can find something.

    • Re:Animated celebs... (Score:5, Funny)

      by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:35AM (#2636166) Journal
      And if they do make real digital celebrities, how long until grey/black market pornographic representations get loose?

      Hopefully, not that long.

      Gwyneth, please get off of Heather Graham for a minute and please me.

    • Does the porn industry already have established digital characters like this?



      I don't know if they have "established digital characters", but the subject of "virtual child porn" has been discussed [slashdot.org] here before. (unforunately, the LA Times article mentioned is no longer available). Does anyone know if anything has happened in the case referenced?

    • Actually, TECMO just announced a law suit against some people that are distributing a porn version of their game Dead or Alive 2 (the Dreamcast game). Most of the girls in that game are quite popular among even American gamers.
    • Digital porn has been around for a while. We've all seen manipulations -- real photos digitally edited to put a famous head on an unknown body, or to create situations no real model would allow. There's also a big subculture of "poser art [verywierd.com]", pictures created by Poser or other modeling programs to appeal to fringe markets (snuff porn mostly) that the mainstream industry has neglected.
    • I.K.U. ("I'm Coming!" in Japanese)

      Digitally enhanced pornography based upon the Bladerunner universe.

      It was the hit of the Sundance festival:

      http://www.i-k-u.com/

  • A big deal because it's CG? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bribecka ( 176328 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:10AM (#2636011) Homepage
    This isn't really that huge of a deal--idolizing a person because they aren't actually real. I guess it seems like a bigger deal than it is because they are computer generated images. But think of all the famous "people" we have now that aren't real: Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny...even CG like Woody and Buzz. No need to look at Japan for that type of thing.

    Maybe because the line between what is real and what is not becomes blurred by CG makes this more of a story. Some could mistake Aki for a real person (in a still picture at least), but I don't think anyone would assume Buzz is real. As we head forward into more and more realistic CG, I think an effort should be made to distinguish what characters are real and what are not when blending them with live action--just for society's sanity :)

    PS - on an unrelated note, I read that George Harrison passed away...RIP to an incredibly talented man.

  • Inevitable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nahdude812 ( 88157 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:12AM (#2636017) Homepage
    The one thing of particular note from my relatively short 23 years so far, is that nothing is inevitable. Things as trivial as this are certainly not inevitable, because things as complex as people with termial diseases do not inevitably die. Some few fortunate souls have had HIV for 25+ years with out ever suffering negative consequences. A guy out in my area several years fell off of the 10th floor of a construction project, and was impaled from his leg through the top of his skull, even through his heart by a lengthy bolt. They removed it and he is having a perfectly normal life, with a few good scars to show for it. People's parachutes fail to open and they walk away from it.

    Are computer animated celebrities inevitable? No, I hardly think so. Likely perhaps but not inevitable.

    /tangent off
  • "but I think it's safe to predict that eventually, computer-generated celebrities will be as numerous as live ones."
    Actually this has already happened. Take a look at Mario, Sonic, Duke, Lara Croft, Jar Jar Binks, Earthworn Jim, Buzz Light Year and son on...

    But still, people will prefer real idols since most of them represent in a sense what we all want to be. When coming to idols and role models and son on theres nothing like the real thing!

  • Check her out (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tb3 ( 313150 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:13AM (#2636026) Homepage
    Here's Yuki Terai's offical site [teraiyuki.net]. Not quite photo-realistic, but pretty good CG. Guys with a thing for little Japanese girls should love it.

    • Real Dolls, anyone? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Kozz ( 7764 )
      Heh. I saw this photo [teraiyuki.net] and couldn't help but think, "Hmm, Real Dolls [realdoll.com]?"

    • Of course, animated celebs like Yuki are nothing new. What's extremely strange is that her publicists and fans are so serious about the whole thing. Part of the appeal of celebrity is the fantasy it creates. People follow Brittany and SMG and Antonio partly to improve their own make-believe romantic lives. How can you fantasize about being with somebody who's so conspicuously not real?
  • No matter how good a CG model is or how fluidly it moves...it's acting ability must come from a real person otherwise it loses that certain something (read *talent*) that can't be defined but definitely perceived on screen.

    • To me, that sounds like just another aspect of the Turing Test. Instead of having the tester talk with the mystery guest over a teletype, have 'em talk over a videophone. I don't really think nonverbal communication is going to be much of a hurdle, once we have verbal down.

  • Terai Yuki Home Page (Score:2, Informative)

    by viking099 ( 70446 )
    Here [teraiyuki.net] it is. Mostly in Japanese, but the important stuff is in English and Japanese.

  • no human required? (Score:2, Informative)

    by kaisyain ( 15013 )
    Except the voice isn't synthesized. They hire a real person to do it. Who can ask for a raise.

  • Already exist - Roland Rat, Emu, Basil Brush etc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jon Peterson ( 1443 ) <jon@@@snowdrift...org> on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:16AM (#2636052) Homepage
    (highly UK specific post....)

    There have since been many virtual stars already. Ventriloquist dummies are often stars in their own right, but Basil brush, Emu, and Roland Rat are all virtual characters that have not only had their own shows, but been interviewed as stars and so on.

    The move from puppets and models to CGI is not that important.

    Roland Rat was especially interesting because he didn't have a clearly identifiable human partner, but was very much a creation of the TV company.

    At the end of the day, these things are all fiction. I can't really see people getting more excited about a CGI model than a furry puppet. It's also _much_ harder to use the CGI model. An interview with the virtual star would require weeks of computer work and post processing just to fit the CGI model into the normal studio shot of the interview. Not exactly spontaneous and realistic.

    At least with Roland rat the guy operating him could ad-lib.


    • At the end of the day, these things are all fiction. I can't really see people getting more excited about a CGI model than a furry puppet. It's also _much_ harder to use the CGI model. An interview with the virtual star would require weeks of computer work and post processing just to fit the CGI model into the normal studio shot of the interview. Not exactly spontaneous and realistic.

      Unless they're appearing on Space Ghost Coast to Coast. At which point they simply appear on that TV screen... :)

    • At the end of the day, these things are all fiction.

      Like it makes a difference - most of what we see from flesh and blood stars may as well be fictional. I'm as likely to have meaningful interaction with Roger Rabbit as Tyra Banks.

  • Final Fantasy - A disaster in some ways (Score:3, Offtopic)

    by sien ( 35268 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:19AM (#2636067) Homepage
    A quote from Gamastra.com :
    "Square's CEO Quits after Poor Showing by Final Fantasy Game software maker Square announced that president and chief executive officer, Hisashi Suzuki would resign after the company reported its worst-ever loss for the first half due to a disappointing showing by its Final Fantasy The Spirits Within mo Square reported a group net loss of $106.8 million for the six months through September 30. The film has generated revenue of about $30 million in the U.S. market, well below the targeted $80 to 90 million, and interest among Japanese consumers has also been weak. The earnings news came as no surprise to the market as the company issued a profit warning last week.
    Chief operating officer Yoichi Wada will take the top position on December 1, while Suzuki will remain as the chairman."
    from this page. [gamasutra.com]
    It's sad to see that people who worked so hard on something that was quite something technically have not succeeded, at least financially.
  • I plopped down my cash to see the Final Fantasy movie in the theatre..

    I think the problem is really that the technology needs to mature. I'm a complete geek, so I was able to stay "wow'ed" for an hour and 45 minutes.

    But for most folks, the "wow" wears off rather quickly, and then you're stuck with this really bizarre storyline.

    Point is, I don't think all-CG movies will work unless the technology matures to the point that it's commonplace. Then, all-CG can simply be a convenient vehicle for a good movie rather than the point of the movie itself.
    • I don't think its so much the technology as what's done with it. It's about creativity, not technology.

      Star Wars is a perfect example. The technology and techniques used to make The Phantom Menace were certainly more mature than the ones that created the original Star Wars. But I haven't heard anyone claim that The Phantom Menace was a better movie.

      Or think of Shrek vs. Final Fantasy. One tried for the most realistic graphics, the other had a script.

      If all the "virtual celebrities" are look-alike Britney Speares clones (complete with "virtual boob jobs"), I don't think it'll really catch on. Add some variety, some depth, some creativity, and you may have something.

      As far as CG stars with "virtual boob jobs," they'll really catch on in porn . . .

  • In the end, are people that creative? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dinotrac ( 18304 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:20AM (#2636078) Journal
    Computer generated celebrities are fine, I guess,
    but are we really that inventive?

    Starmakers give us Britney Spears. Worse, they give us Britney clone after clone after clone, at least when they're not cooking up another boy band or Country-Western Hat Act or heavy metal lizard band.

    Britney Spears, yes. No Doubt, no.

    Do you believe that a million CG monkeys at a million CG terminals would ever come up with a Humphrey Bogart, a Jimmy Stewart? Heck, how about an Arnold Schwartzenegger (Give it up man, with that accent, you'll never make it in movies).

    Life is more creative than we are.

    Thank God for that. It keeps things interesting.

    • Orwell was right! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 )
      In 1984 they had computers producing the plots to pornographic books. I guess in the 21st century we'll have computers pumping out committee generated characters.

      Actually Disney is doing this already...

      1. Handsome and athletic young male leading character who doesn't resemble his ethnic character.

      2. Beautiful, skinny young female love interest who doesn't resemble her ethnic character.

      3. Wacky, sarcastic animal sidekick.

      4. Ugly and mindless evil antagonist who does resemble his/her ethnic character.

      How crappy can tv/movies get before people turn it off? The lower limit seems to be unbounded.
  • The whole point of Celebrity is to fascinate in these people off-screen. I'm sorry, but artificial celebs who are brought to life for a film, simply do not have an 'out of character' capability. Any attempt at one would be an act itself.

    A.C. (Artificial Celebs, not Anon Cowards :) ) also lack the real world problems that real celebs have. They don't go into rehab, shoot people in night clubs or get caught with prostitutes. Any 'news' of Max Headroom punching out a paparazzi would be a blatant publicity stunt.

    Further, none of these A.C. have their own personalities.. They're all based on the human. Bart Simpson may have fans, but there's a woman's voice and a writer's words behind that.

    Anyone who would see an A.C. as a true celeb is out of touch with reality, and is doing the work of all those fascist freaks who want to define 'acceptible content' for us, protect us from ourselves, raise our kids for us, and tell us what we should be thinking.

    If someone can't tell the difference between Dr. Aki and Nicole Kidman, then they just might think that killing 102 people in 30 minutes is OK, since Arnold and Sly do it all the time, and that Ozzy really does think that suicide is a Good Idea.

  • Holy shit... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Refrag ( 145266 )
    I love the song 'Love Communication' by Kyoko Date. I had no idea she was a CG idol. I just figured it was some nifty bubblegum J-pop. Damn, now I feel wierd. I always thought the name of the MP3 I found had some funky Japanese to English translation errors.
    • I always thought the name of the MP3 I found had some funky Japanese to English translation errors

      Given the Japanese tendancy to change thier names whenever it suits them, (Hayashibara, Megumi-san, bless her heart, assumed that name near the start of her career), a real person named Kyoko Date wouldn't be that surprising. Especially in the J-pop / Seiyu arena.

      The odd part to get used to is that we're talking about legal name changes here. We may be used to people working under pen names or other odd titles in american music, but would any one take "Snoop Dog" seriously of that was his actual name? Yet this tactic is common in the Japanese music inudstry (and japanese society in general) where names change frequently. After all, the name you got when your born is just a convienient lable for your parents until you figure out who you are, ne?

  • CG characters really that different? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:27AM (#2636119) Homepage
    When you look at how disconnected celebrities are from the reality that their fans' live ... CG characters may be the ultimate in understanding. It's quite possible that CG characters may more down to earth than their hollywood counterparts, as the people creating them and animating them will live lives substantially closer to our own than Julia Roberts ever has.
  • There was a movie back in the mid-80's that predicted this. One of the major plot elements was that this mega corp came up with a way to render computer generated actors that looked completely real.

    When I saw Final Fantasy, I remembered back to the movie Looker.

    Of course, the other major plot element was that now that they could make human actors obsolete, they started killing off all of the humans who looked "perfect". Young women who were "lookers" would suddenly turn up dead. The monopolistic mega corps wanted to have a monopoly on actors, and saw no problem with this.

    Up until some years ago I still could find the movie in larger video stores. Haven't seen it on the shelves lately though. (Probably a mega corp conspiracy.)

  • No salary increases? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BillyGoatThree ( 324006 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:42AM (#2636196)
    Are you kidding? You think the artists, let alone the software and hardware manufacturers are going to just stand aside when it starts raining money?
    • Yes. Because artists are expendable.
      Your smart meat celebrities, however, should be getting full-body scans so that they can look the same way 40 years from now, if they choose.
  • These CG characters could become stars one day and appear in a variety of movies but until they make them look like they have life and come up with a way to synthesize the human voice in a believable way it won't happen. They can't detach the characters from the people who do voice overs or you have the same deal you have with the new scooby doo series or the flintstones when they changed the people who did the voices for some of the characters. The characters die if the original voice leaves because of salary negotiations or if he/she dies or whatever. Could you like watching Arnold Swartzenegger in a movie if when he opened his mouth it sounded like someone doing an Arnold impression? The voice lends too much to the character. So I don't think CG actors will be viable for celebrity for a LONG LONG LONG time. Maybe 100s of years. Just my opinion.
  • Macross Plus, that's all I gotta say. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about.

  • Scandals, Sex and CG idols (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PhaserBlast ( 137680 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:52AM (#2636247)

    It's unlikely that CG idols will not be tainted by scandals: I bet lots of popular CG idols will appear in prOn, have afairs with other CG idols, or even real people - they're computer generated, and so they are far more easy to reproducible, duplicate and copy than their flesh-and-bone counterparts.

    Scandal and sex sure could sell well, and someone out there is going to try to make money on it, even if it's some CG Idol pirate ripping the Idol copyright owner off.

  • Options are Unlimited... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zspdude ( 531908 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @09:54AM (#2636259) Homepage
    It's really hard to underestimate the potential that these CGI stars have... Consider:

    Salaries. Now, in order to load a film full of stars and make it a high profile deal, one no longer has to fork out obscene amounts of cash to attract big names to take a role in the film.

    Versatility. Whereas there are some people we wish we could change, we can't. Pixels on a screen, however, are amazingly easy to change: Directors will be able to create the exact effect they wish, as long as they have the correct software and capable technicians at their disposal. "One Role" actors are definately going to take a hit: when faced with characters who can act whatever their director wishes, they will invariably get the short end of the deal.

    While I am definately going to get a lot of people disagreeing with my optimism(?) I think that these actors, in the hands of a good director and staff, will become a cheap and amazingly powerful tool which will produce far better films. However, we'll still see human actors for a very long time, because there's no mistaking that human effect....

  • The Japanese have the idea of computer-generated celebraties in their fiction for quite a while now. The most well-known I can think of is the "Eve" character in the anime film Megazone 23 pt 1. That character was supposedly so "good" that the citizens didn't even know she wasn't real.

  • We were asked to bid on such a project... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Thagg ( 9904 ) <thadbeier@gmail.com> on Friday November 30, 2001 @10:16AM (#2636367) Journal
    At Hammerhead, we have been approached to do a character like this as well, call her Desiree [name changed to protect, well, me :)]. This group of producers wanted to create a pop star that didn't have all of the baggage that real people have; they could then choose the actual voice behind the character strictly on the basis of singing ability. As with these Japanese characters, Desiree would have a biography, would appear on radio interview shows, would endorse products, etc. With the recent advances in skin rendering, one could make a far more compelling image than the plastic-like characters to date.

    The producers wanted the character to be 'racy' and 'revealing', like Britney -- something that I consider a tragic mistake. Perhaps as her career evolved over ten years or so I would think that she shoul d go that way, but I feel that flashy but modest clothes would be far more appealing over time than the same old skin. Clothes are adornment, not just censorship.

    Personally, I don't see this as very different than Britney Spears. Britney is almost as synthetic as Desiree -- and at least Desiree would lip-synch competently.

    This project drifted along for a while and finally died, as do 95% of all proposed projects. Still, it will definitely happen, the economics work. Desiree need only 'live' a few dozen minutes a year; and those appearances could be funded at a pretty reasonable rate.

    This contrasts to what the poster above commented about porn stars. He commented that this would be an obvious venue, as you could build perfect bodies that would do anything. It seems to me that porn stars already have next-to-perfect bodies, and from what I can tell, there is very little that they won't do. More importantly, they are cheap. The most expensive full-length porn movies don't cost nearly as much as a synthetic music video would cost, say, $500,000. From what I've read, porn stars make most of their money outside of the films by performing live -- they treat the films as advertising for the live shows. Needless to say, this is beyond the capabilities of synthetic characters to this point.
  • The idea with "real" celebrities is that everyone thinks "Hey, if I could only be like them" or "I want to be him/her!" and there is actually a slight chance that one will get as famous as their idols one day. With digital celbrities it's different. You will never be "them" or live like "them". And they will never show up on parties, they will never give you autographs. They will never have affairs, scandals or other publicity. So you will never identify yourself as much with them as you do with "real" or human celebrities.
  • I'm really getting sick of the amount of computer generated effects being used in entertainment these days. The Matrix seems to be the starting point of this widespread overuse, but at least it fit with the story in that movie. Commercials for Charlie's Angels, The Musketeer, Pearl Harbor, Behind Enemy Lines, and everything Jet Li has been in lately were full of these kinds of effects, and I just don't see the appeal. Call me old fashioned, but I'll take Black Sheep Squadron's mix of stock footage, combat footage, and cockpit views over a computer generated plane any day. I liked Robert Picardo better as a singing doctor in Vietnam than as a singing holographic doctor on a starship. Large scale CG has its place in historical recreations for documentaries, but it is a poor substitute for plot and character development.

    With that said, you can probably figure out how I feel about these computer generated celebrities. I'm not a big fan of human celebrities, so I'm not too excited about the CG kind. Physical presence is the one feature most "celebrities" are reduced to relying on - what will be left when that is taken away? Hopefully this "next big thing" will be the next big flop.
  • Perhaps a better question is why many people are so obsessed with celebrities anyhow. CG or not, celebrities are not real, they're manufactured. The glitz and glamour is all fantasy. Sure, human celebrities are real people, but you'll never actually see the real person unless you happen to be a close family member or friend. What's the point of elevating fake personas to such status?

    • Re:Reality? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Deskpoet ( 215561 )
      Sure, human celebrities are real people, but you'll never actually see the real person unless you happen to be a close family member or friend. What's the point of elevating fake personas to such status?

      The two word answer: social control.

      If people are engaged with how to look like an icon, or how to live like one, they are less inclined to notice what's really going on in the world.

      For example, there are now kangaroo military courts [yahoo.com] alive and well in America, because it is "at war". It might give one pause to think about the deeper, underlying issues of what is being done here in the name of "freedom" and "security" if we didn't have the Britney Spears of the world tarting around to remind us what's *really* important: just-legal lust (though Bob Dole's dirty-old-man routine in the Burpsi commercials failed in this regard: too openly creepy for me.)

      In _The Republic_, Plato wanted to ban artists--actors, singers, etc.--as being dangerous distractions for the people of the polis; he saw entertainers as a bad thing. However, in the inverted polis that is America, the distraction of the manufactured personality is not only a good thing, it is absolutely required to maintain the power structure.

  • Bruce Lee! (Score:3, Informative)

    by zmokhtar ( 539671 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @11:00AM (#2636693) Homepage
    Speaking of digital actors, there is a Bruce Lee movie [bbc.co.uk] coming out. The new movie will star a digitized Bruce Lee. They even have people impersonating his voice!
  • Recent rumors indicate that Steve Jobs will reveal a new device for the Macintosh "digital hub" paradigm at the next MacWorld Tokyo. Details are sketchy, but numerous sources have corraborated the name - Sharon Apple.

  • pop gluten (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SubtleNuance ( 184325 ) on Friday November 30, 2001 @11:24AM (#2636851) Journal
    god help us.

    There are so many advantages for the purveyors of pop culture

    Maybe-JUST MAYBE, we could collectively grow up a little and realize that our PRESENT 'pop-stars' may as well be CG. They live scripted, Public-Relations-hyped lives - dating, divorcing, fucking, drinking, clubbing, working, whatever - who cares? Why do I care what Kristina Applegate eats for supper?

    The fact that "we" have a pop-culture phenomenon at all is proof of a greater illness in our culture... I am not sure exactly what would cause people to replace a 'real' relationship/knowledge with a real person (family/friend/neighbour) with the 'virtual-reward' of having 'virtual relationships' is mind-numbing.

    The 'purveyors of pop culture' are meddling with the human-psyche in a uncontrolled and viscous manner. They purposely seek to build memes and use their vitality for profit, at the expense of the real health of the public, strangers. Like corporate propagandists (marketers and advertisers) these people seek to meddle in your mind, to take advantage of your desires and needs and to give them 'virtual satisfaction' by overwhelming you with a 'reality they create'... this realty is then exploited to create wealth for them. These plutocrats and oligarchies are out of control - I see no difference between the RIAA and Washington in terms of the genuine self-less-ness that would be expected of those who occupy positions of such power.

    What does this have to do with CG pop stars? Well, think, what does it mean when people are willing to accept stories - told as fact - about virtual people. What does it say about the overall conditioning of modern people? about their ability to be influenced, as a group, from afar, with motivations completely unknown??? Why would we view a CG 'pop star character' as anything more than a playfull curiosity - why would the scripted existence of such a thing not illicit ire and a sense of being insulted. I can understand small children being mis-lead and accepting the concept of such a thing, but grown people, I believe should be a little more apprehensive to accept a 'CG person-product' in their lives.

  • Norman Spinrad, "Little Heroes".

    Published 1987. About Muzik, Inc., who makes a virtual record star. Videos and everything.

    ---
  • I'd have more confidence in Final Fantasy style human models being used in movies alongside human actors if they didn't move and look like CG models.

    Fure, they put trackers on human actors for the people in FF, but they didn't walk or move exactly right. There were just too few imperfections for them to be real people. Hell, they walked like robots.

    Until it is easy to mistake a real human and a CG person, they'll only be really good for having around other cartoon characters.

    It might, however, be a good idea to use CG people in pornography. Snuff flicks, kiddie porn, etc DO have a fairly big market, and the main objection to them (aside from the obvious thoughtcrime problems) is the exploitation, torture and probable death of the victim.

    If you can get CG people to act like they're in real pain (and liking it) they'd be useful in all sorts of kink, custom-built fanasies, etc. You wouldn't have to worry about the privacy problem associated with going to the pr0n store either.

    In general, porn applications would probably be the only place they're handy right now.

  • The voice acting is the main element. It is very reminiscent of Diamond Age (Neal Stephenson) in which the computer industry could create very accurate visual simulations, but had a much harder time with generating voices. People used to adore various radio celebrities without any CG visuals at all.

    I'm sure all these CG celebs have 1-2 voice actors associated with them at most, and they can certainly demand large salaries, get into scandals and so forth. They might even be able to move into regular acting roles (cf Hank Azaria from the Simpsons). You can see that Kermit has no longer been the same since the death of his creator and voice. Good voice actors/singers are not interchangeable.

    Automatic speech generation is very primitive. The fall of Lernout and Hauspie has certainly impacted the whole speech community. A look at Victor Zue's work at MIT helps to illustrate how the field is just getting to the point where they can create a realistic sounding voice. The best techniques use concatenated phonemes from real speakers. They are nowhere near the point of being able to convey emotion or being able to sing...although research continues.

  • The main reason we don't have this now is because CG character animation is still too expensive. The hardware isn't the major cost any more. But few people are qualified to drive it.

    If you've watched a professional CGI animator at work, you realize the level of talent required to do this. It takes really good 3D visualization skills to draw in 3D. A competent pro can draw a head by drawing, freehand, a few cross-sections in 2D and skinning them. This takes about 30 seconds. There are very few people who can do that. Training doesn't help if you don't have the talent. Go to any of the animation schools and look at the student output, most of which sucks. (Note to budding animators: never put a spaceship or a robot on your demo reel.) This is why 3D animation tools don't go mass-market.

    Until somebody figures out how to make this stuff usable by non-artists, it's going to be expensive. Poser is a step in the right direction.

  • Foo! (Score:2)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 )
    What about the stalkers of the world? Are people going to be stalking SGI boxen now? Where's the fun in THAT?
  • If Final Fantasy didn't do so well, it wasn't because of the fact that the actors were CG, it was because of the storyline and other issues.

    Also, you still have voice actors behind the scenes... granted, you can get unknowns that are for all practical purposes as good as the hunk of the month for this job, but there are still people behind the scenes to pay.

    -Restil

  • I can't wait for the next stupid bubble-gum-and-badly-choreographed pop sensation to be 100% CG. Then I simply break into the systems used to produce him/her/them and voila, dead pop icon.

    And I don't even get prosecuted for murder. What could be better?

  • This story is only about 5 years old. What's news?

Slashdot Top Deals

Too much is not enough.

Close