Is Tickle the Future of the Movie Industry?
August 24, 2020 - The first full-length animated movie with realistic-looking humans, "Tickle" opens tonight. It is an intriguing thriller about a woman who gets framed by her husband, but the most intriguing is to see if you can spot the difference between real actors and these created by computers.
Computer animation has developed a lot since the first full-length movie "Toy Story" in 1995, and the first attempt of a full-length movie with humans "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" in 2001. The challenge and difficulties to create humans in animation lies mainly in the eye of the beholder, since we are so trained to see human behavior, movements, facial expressions etc.
Many people state that this is the future of the movie industry, since you don't have to pay actors US$ 25 million to appear in a movie, you can just license his face as a trademark if you like and let the computers do the rest. However, there is still some time left before this type of movies will save money for the studios; the budget for "Tickle" was about US$ 190 million.
They have also taken the opportunity it gives to re-create actors that are no longer active. A lot of effort was made to give a supporting role to the like of James Dean, a successful movie star that was tragically killed in a car accident 65 years ago. However, all resemblance between the tall homosexual clerk with the high-pitched voice saying "I'll be back" and the former action hero of the 1990s Arnold Schwarzenegger, is purely coincidental according to the director.
So, to the big question, can you see that the movie is only made by computers with no real actors? Well, go and see for yourself tonight!
Argument: Since the speed for processing information is constantly increasing and the cost decreasing, it will be possible to make more advanced animated movies. Software development is also a key to develop more realistic-looking humans. Movie studios that are not depending on established actors will be able to act more flexible.
Questions: If you can't tell the difference between an animated and real footage, is there a risk that news can be fabricated, like a president giving a speech with a different meaning than the original? Will people be interested in movies that look like it has real actors, but are only computer generated? How will quantum computing affect the rendering of animated movies when it becomes available later on?
By Pontus Edenberg
| Permalink
Comments:
this is so awesome how did you do dat
Posted by: Brittney McCutcheon
I cant wait for this
Posted by: Chris m.
I have been debating this topic for years with film-industry friends.
No matter how realistic a cgi character may be, it will never replace the commanding performance of a great actor, or particurally the interaction between two great actors. It can be replicated to a degree... but not created.
Posted by: rambozo
I agree with you rambozo that it will not replace movies as we know them today, we will always be interested in seeing "real" actors. However, I believe the makers of these animated films will learn by time and eventually you will not be able to tell the difference.
Posted by: Pontus Edenberg
i think that they shouldn't make movies using animation(life-like humans) because then maybe all animators may start firing actors and actors/actresses may become unwealthy!!!!!
Posted by: hippy
I have 12 now.. and I'll survive to see that..
Posted by: Lucca
Yes they will be changed by cgi's, unfortuntely
I know you are thinkin I'm wrong.. but I know so many things about the future..
I born in 2030.
Posted by: Kreagory Swong
I don't believe that CGI will totally replace human actors because movie studios are "using" real actors (through publicity) even if they're not in a movie (ads, public appearances, etc). Except that, the actor must be a human in order to became a "Star". Star means that he will have fans, etc. This is not possible with a CGI actor.
Posted by: Antonios Dimopoulos
I saw tickle 5 years ago, the internet 2 told us who the fake characters were.
Posted by: Julian
I think this is incredible. woot woot
Posted by: Tim
I think Antonios doesn't have a good argument there. Also CGI actors can become stars, even if they can't be photographed by paparazzi.
I guess there will be always need of real actors, at least for motion capturing.
So I agree with rambozo and Pontus.
Posted by: Andreas - News of the future
being born in 1991, i have sure seen the beginning of movie animation and boy has it improved so much, god knows what it will be like in another 35 - 40 yeara!!
Posted by: Connor Patterson
The pyramid movie is coming.
Posted by: Eye on top of the...
Wow! This is awesome. Just think how cheap movies could get with this. It will explode the industry.
Posted by: J Kellogg
they already did that, the movie beowulf is a full-length animated movie with realistic-looking humans
Posted by: mohammed
Mohammed, I agree with you that Beowulf is very well made, but you can still see that it is done through motion capture (recording the action of human actors). Tickle will not need motion capture, it will be 100% animated.
Posted by: Pontus Edenberg
I think that actors and actresses could still be rich with the producers paying their faces for a price. I for one would think this is cool, but boring. I would rather see something that is truelly magnificent as far as acting goes. CGI's would be man-made and you can't replace real actors.
Posted by: Rachel
interesting discussions so far,i'm currently looking at the synthespian as an actor.the fact that there are doubts that these cgi actors will be famous or not,whether real actors will be needed anymore or that cgi relies on motion capture is following a pattern, like the doubts that man will never be able to fly...i believe cgi actors will work alongside real actors, and the money in the industry will sore.
Posted by: T
hi ppl lol i like movies...... thats all i got to say. i think its impossible to totally 100% replicate real movie stars and stuff like that.
Posted by: jdsa
You need a farm of a million computers housed in an area 100 times the current size of Skywalker Ranch to render a resolution of more than a zillion pixels to make the actor look real.
Posted by: Nelson Tan
The real question is not whether this is doable. I think it's technically doable right now. It's been doable as long as there have been cartoons. It's just presently impractical. The question is whether it will ever truly be cheaper and/or easier than using real actors. Unless you cheat by using actors behind the scenes to get motions and expressiveness, i think it will not be. You could totally change the way people look in the movies tho. This could mean a clean separation between models who provide the pretty faces and actors who provide realistic personality and behavior.
Posted by: some anonymous person
i want to have one of these!
Posted by: alexis
I am so mad. I thought this was for real... ERG. x-(
Posted by: Anonymous