Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Final Fantasy - What's wrong with this picture?

04:39 / 12.07.01

I'm looking forward to Final Fantasy, the movie, I really am, but there's something bothering me about it and maybe you can help.

My roomate is going bonkers over FF. He wanted to drive to New York State to see it tonight because it doesn't open 'til Friday around here. In fact, such is his panic, that it took me five minutes to convince him that there was no way our fair city would neglect to show it this weekend. The reason he is so excited? The same reason everyone seems to be excited about this movie, because the characters look so "real".

Almost all talk has centred around the fact that it took them 1/5th of their production time to get the lead character's hair right. No, i'm not making that up. And while I'm impressed by their attention to detail, couldn't they have achieved the same effect by, I don't know, filming a real person?

Bottom line, my question is, why is everyone getting excited about the application of a newish technology that just seems to be mimicking an existing one? I'd be more impressed if they did something you couldn't possibly do in any other medium. What that is, I don't know, but it seems to me potential is being wasted here.

Ten years down the road, unless the story is something special, is anyone going to be impressed by this? Is Fianl Fantasy the next Tron?

07:14 / 12.07.01

Virtual actors.
The Golden Oldies returned to the screen once again.
Things that just aren't possible with live actors.
TRULY ridiculous stunts.

GRIM

11:38 / 12.07.01

And actors that never, ever go on strike.

And don't mind working 24 hours a day for no overtime.

wembley can change in 28 days

11:40 / 12.07.01

If you ask me, all the best stunts were pulled off by Charlie Chaplin, and they rarely even used camera angles to accentuate their ridiculousness.

Personally, I hope virtual actor movies just get slotted in with cartoons. It's a nice picture, but I'm more amazed at watching actual people do things.

12:05 / 12.07.01

The only thing I can think of is that in most cases it's still awkward to have real people interact with a digital world. See Episode 1. So making it all digital makes sense.

Why do we need virtual actors when we have real ones (not taking into account labour disputes).
Recreating the "Golden Oldies" is like getting someone to draw just like Jack Kirby. It's not the same.
What's not possible with live actors that digital animation can do better?

I guess I shouldn't be so snarky. This is just one of those instances where the reaction of the press and the geeks are turning me off, while I haven't even sampled the movie yet. It's unfair to place the burden of developing a new artform on the back of Final Fantasy.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: moriarty ]

12:18 / 12.07.01

I heard somebody suggest a few days ago that virtual actors won't take over from the real sort as they have no personal life to gossip about. Look at the recent Tomb Raider film (a live actor playing a virtual one, ha!) and note how much of the interest surrounding it has been generated by goss about Angelina Jolie's life - all that bit about her father and Billy Bob Joe Davey Sue or whatever his name is. Hollywood spends loads on cultivating stars with crowd-pulling appeal.

The Return Of Rothkoid

12:45 / 12.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Saveloy:
Hollywood spends loads on cultivating stars with crowd-pulling appeal.
And unfortunately, you won't find computer hardware or software getting a blowjob from a hooker downtown,or smoking crack. Boxes of electronics are notoriously unphotogenic, too. They're not good for pull-quotes or scandal, which is, let's face it, the lifeblood of the film-industry.

I agree with the nixing of recreating old, long-gone actors, too. (Is it the new colorisation? I wonder...) It's been done before, though usually by cobbling together footage in a canny way - and it's just not the same. It's like the guy who's taken over Kermit-voicing duties - he sounds a lot like Henson, but there's that little bit missing that makes me go "Nah, that's not Kermie!". It won't be as satisfying, I'll say.

Then again, with advanced CGI, you could well get a good performance out of David Hasselhoff, so maybe I shouldn't knock it.

I think that, for the most part, highly-detailed CGI will remain an adjunct to live film, probably in a special-effects way. Films that're completely constructed digitally will, as wembley suggests, probably stay in the cartoon end of the market.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]

12:52 / 12.07.01

If Final Fantasy is any indication, we won't have to worry about virtual actors replacing real ones any time soon. The characters were so dead and expressionless that I started to feel like I was watching a bunch of mannequins toodle around with voices coming out of little speakers in their backs. They should have spent a little less time on the hair, maybe.

13:32 / 12.07.01

But how much better are they than even the next best computer generated people. Seems to me that these CGI actors may very well be the wave of the future. Firstly you can get them to do things, work hours and undertake stunts that you can't get a real person to do. Secondly, once you've got them 'perfect' you can assemble a vast line of actors very quickly. Thirdly, you can recreate actors from the past etc. etc.

What I'm more interested in, however, is the role of them as 'avatars'. Go back to neuromancer - imagine a world that looks like the one in Final Fantasy, but can be generated on the fly - computer games will probably be there within ten years. Next make it immersive and the VR that just isn't worth the effort at the moment may suddenly take off...

14:04 / 12.07.01

Personally, I'm very much against this current spate of computer-animated cartoons trying to photorealistically depict humans - Shrek and Final Fantasy being only the most recent examples. For me it completely defeats the purpose of animation - the essence of which is exaggeration. Perfectly replicating a human being in a cartoon is a masturbatory exercise that seems to be ultimately futile - the more "real" they look, even the tiniest flaws will be amplified and and become distracting. (See the bit in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics in which he talks about simplification of, and identification with, the human face). If the characters in Final Fantasy had been more stylized (what's wrong with making them look as they did in the games?) it would look far more interesting than these plastic and charmless mannequin people.

It's a trend, I think, and once CGI artists get over the novelty of making something look just like it does in real life, we'll begin to see more interesting applications for the technology and hopefully animated characters that have far more aesthetic appeal.

Pixar are brilliant, though - they understand how to use CGI to make CARTOONS....

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: CameronStewart ]

14:13 / 12.07.01

Maybe production companies will start knocking off big name actors so they can CGI them instead. Create news reels, act like they're still alive, but never have to pay them. Copy on the blowjobs whenever they start to get boring.

Or maybe we'll just see a big resurgance of interest in the stage. <shrug>

14:21 / 12.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:

It's like the guy who's taken over Kermit-voicing duties - he sounds a lot like Henson, but there's that little bit missing that makes me go "Nah, that's not Kermie!". It won't be as satisfying, I'll say.

I think that's Jim Henson's son doing the voicework.

Didn't Idoru by William Gibson deal with a fictional popstar that has acheived a certain amount of reality in the public mind? Isn't that phenomenon based a little on fact? And wouldn't the Gorillaz also fit into that category? Or even Lara Croft?

I'm still unclear on this whole "stunt" argument. With the melding of digital filmaking and real actors being what it is, and having men like Jackie Chan in this world, what exactly can full-on digital people do that real people can't?

17:43 / 12.07.01

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rothkoid:

And unfortunately, you won't find computer hardware or software getting a blowjob from a hooker downtown,or smoking crack. Boxes of electronics are notoriously unphotogenic, too. They're not good for pull-quotes or scandal, which is, let's face it, the lifeblood of the film-industry.[quote]

One concept for you, my friend:
Internet fan sites.

17:46 / 12.07.01

I'm with you on the Pixar vote, Cameron. I mean, I got more emotional connection happening with a 90-second "Monsters Inc." spot than I did with "Final Fantasy" in entirety.

I don't really buy the "stunt" argument for the superiority of CGI actors. First, because it's much more interesting to see an actual human being in apparent danger. Second, because the animators seem so fascinated with making things look "real" that they never bother to do anything outrageous.

17:47 / 12.07.01

quote:Originally posted by moriarty:
I'm still unclear on this whole "stunt" argument. With the melding of digital filmaking and real actors being what it is, and having men like Jackie Chan in this world, what exactly can full-on digital people do that real people can't?

Turn into werewolves, man.
Get hit by cars.
Grow extra limbs.
Shrink.
Always have perfect lighting.
Always look right for the part.

and

Agree to work without an agent.

wembley can change in 28 days

18:28 / 12.07.01

quote:Originally posted by grant:

Turn into werewolves, man.
Get hit by cars.
Grow extra limbs.
Shrink.
Always have perfect lighting.
Always look right for the part.

and

Agree to work without an agent.

Jokes aside, Michael Jackson turned into a werewolf in a music video over a decade ago. Lots of people get hit by cars in movies (and the 'animated' version won't be any better than an ordinary f/x team's effort of imagination. What advantage do they have? Access to snuff films they can digitally copy?). I can't remember any extra limbs, but they rather effectively lopped Gary Sinise's shins in Forrest Gump. Even Disney can shrink the kids... etc. And of course 'right for the part' is hugely subjective, don't you think?

Get the picture. The real one. =)

ynh

03:01 / 13.07.01

Michael Jacson also turned into sand using CGI, didn't he? This movie is not worth your money unless you've got a scifi fetish (errr, nevermind.)

The feet still aren't showing weight and the "camera" is in stupid places. I think CGI's making a huge mistake imitating the format of real stunts when they could do much more interesting stuff. Not better necessarily, but different.

quote:Moriarty:
Didn't Idoru by William Gibson deal with a fictional popstar that has acheived a certain amount of reality in the public mind? Isn't that phenomenon based a little on fact? And wouldn't the Gorillaz also fit into that category? Or even Lara Croft?

In Gibson the popstar was artificially intelligent, at least. But if you're suggesting those latter two as models, what about, say, Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse or Homer Simpson?

quote:I'm still unclear on this whole "stunt" argument. With the melding of digital filmaking and real actors being what it is, and having men like Jackie Chan in this world, what exactly can full-on digital people do that real people can't?

Stay young forever and incorporate all the Jackie Chan motion capture along with recreations of Bruce Lee, &c. The capture for Virtua Fighter 4 looks very good.

The Return Of Rothkoid

03:01 / 13.07.01

quote:Originally posted by grant:
One concept for you, my friend:
Internet fan sites.
What, sites run by people who'll go see the film anyway? I still don't buy that box slashfic will replace good, old-fashioned pants-down gossip as the finest promotional tool well-placed phone-calls will buy.

Remember, Fox has spent most of their online time trying to close fansites.

13:16 / 13.07.01

I still think (just a hunch, mind you) it's cheaper to have a totally digital actor than to digitally alter an existing actor.

I know it took the guys in American Werewolf in London (done by Landis, who also did the Jackson video) hours to do just one transformation scene -- and that's not counting the work which went into creating the prosthetic body parts and full costume.

I mean, it's much easier to get a normal human to act like a normal human, and it's possible to get a few strange things to happen by splicing digital stuff onto a normal human, but if you want to really be unchained by the limits of flesh, as a producer, digital performers offer limitless potential.

Because, you know, directors and producers think of themselves as gods. Ultimate control. Very sexy.

13:26 / 13.07.01

Rothkoid-- i think what grant is pointing out is that fans of any given digital actor/actress will be falling over themselves to create brand distrupting images of, say Lara croft's early porn work, or images of anna nova fellating clients outside kings cross station...

The Return Of Rothkoid

13:59 / 13.07.01

Sleaze: I'm aware that there'll be fan-based "modifications" of digital actors. There already are, aren't there? For real people, too - think of the number of sites existing on photoshopped porn pics of any female (and most male) stars you'd care to name; that's not mainstream, and it'll continue on no matter what developments ensue in the human/com-gen actor stakes. What I originally pointed out, though, is that no matter how lifelike a computer-generated character would be, they'd never replace the spark of a human subject. The press junket and associated tasks - the interview, the photoshoot, the meet-and-greet, etc - are still massively important. And i don't think the same magic and appeal would be captured by a box, exhibiting what, in years to come, a person could manipulate themselves on their PC at home.

The nearest link I could draw would be the studio system of the 40s drawn even tighter: nothing exists except that which the PR department gives life to. And that would make The National Enquirer or any other gossip rag a really boring read. Although slashdot might get a bit excited about it...

17:48 / 13.07.01

Actually (and I can say this from a uniquely privileged position, in that I am at this very moment sitting no less than 500 feet from the Man In Charge), the National Enquirer has a/ been slumping in circulation for years and b/ has started focussing on politicians. It's a trend that's likely to continue for a few more months at the very least, and could become the new stock-in-trade.
And we're still a ways away from replacing THEM with digital performers.

(aside from the animatronic Reagan robot they rolled out for press conferences)

The Return Of Rothkoid

20:20 / 13.07.01

Well yeah - Nat Enq was a hasty choice: they've been "respectable" since the OJ trial, haven't they? Then again, magazine sales worldwide (well, in the UK, anyway) are falling anyway - as everyone ducks and covers from this supposed oncoming recession. Sigh.

I still say that the press/magic/unpredictability of real life actors is what makes Hollywood work, though. Think Pamela Anderson, or the Jolie/Thornton weirdness: that shit is gold, and the studios know it. You won't get that from software.

re; replacement pollies - you could, but nobody would notice. Although they'd maybe be more lifelike. Hell - leave the actors, take the politicians; sound like a deal to you? I'm reminded of Clive James' remark about the pre-death Brezhnev looking like he was being operated by an underling and a foot-pump - it's not that far off, is it?

[ 13-07-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]

09:23 / 14.07.01

quote:Originally posted by grant:
Actually (and I can say this from a uniquely privileged position, in that I am at this very moment sitting no less than 500 feet from the Man In Charge...

There's something strangely satisfying about having a writer for tabloids on your side.

The Return Of Rothkoid

11:49 / 14.07.01

quote:There's something strangely satisfying about having a writer for tabloids on your side. It's us teen press zombies y'gotta be wary of, though.

00:23 / 16.07.01

quote:Originally posted by CameronStewart:
what's wrong with making them look as they did in the games?
The usual super-deformed style was dropped for Final Fantasy 8 in order to have greater appeal to a western audience. Odd really, considering that FF 7 is generally considered to be one of the most emotionally arresting games yet made.

I presume the film takes the realistic approach for the same reason. Super-deformed characters are nearly always taken by American game players as a sign that the game in question is aimed at the pre-teens (the reason Nintendo machines are always dismissed by a large section of the potential audience as being 'for kids').

12:49 / 16.07.01

I wonder how much longer the Hollywood star system is going to last, though.

It's high time we had a new breed of hero.

I remember finding a lovely New Yorker essay about celebrities a while back, talking about how actors and actresses suddenly became revered as IDOLS on screen because, in part, they were the largest living humans anyone had ever seen. A visceral response to this magic screen, with the built-in emotional impact from a nice soundtrack....

Well, screens have been shrinking. And most of the time, we see them in little boxes.

Hmm.

wembley can change in 28 days

17:24 / 16.07.01

Grant: True, the Hollywood star system has to crash and burn, but it's probably not going to - at least not until people stop treating actors like superhuman things, which probably won't stop until they're marketed with pimples. The star system for actors is centuries old; it's only so ostensibly huge now because of our absolute inundation with advertising, branding, and information in society. Sarah Bernhardt last century was something of a goddess, as was Duse; Moliere was insanely famous. I've even been told that Roman gladiators (again, performers in a cross between wrestling, dress-up, and the weakest link) could achieve superhuman fame in their time. It doesn't mean that it's not ridiculous and stupid, but it's not going anywhere.

Besides, I wanna be on a billboard, and I ain't stoppin' till I'm a star! (yuck.)

01:55 / 18.07.01

As someone who's trying to make films, I'm looking forward to the day when I can decide what the actor's going to do in pre-production along with all the other stylistic decisions like lens, scenery, composition, etc.
And I'm still miffed they didn't use Sephiroth.
Whose theme music, we realised after a weekend's continuous play (bloody students) could be sung along to: "Sephiroth... he is big and very tough... Sephiroth..."
*ahem*

11:02 / 18.07.01

>>>The usual super-deformed style was dropped for Final Fantasy 8 in order to have greater appeal to a western audience....I presume the film takes the realistic approach for the same reason. Super-deformed characters are nearly always taken by American game players as a sign that the game in question is aimed at the pre-teens<<<

If by "super-deformed" you mean "big head, tiny body," that's not what I meant when I said that they should look like they do in the games (I've not played any of them, but I've seen pictures and so on). From what I've seen the characters in the games (at least as they appear in the animated movie sequences between actual gameplay) are correctly-proportioned, but have the typical Japanese-anime stylized facial features - spiky hair, big eyes, sharp noses, tiny mouths, etc. That's what they should have done for the film, IMO.

07:27 / 03.08.01

quote: "...the animators seem so fascinated with making things look "real" that they never bother to do anything outrageous."

It's all practice... You try to make something as photorealistic as possible, because it's the most difficult thing to do (people, funnily enough, being very familiar with the way humans look), and then, when you've got that dealt with, you can pull back on the realism, and get exactly the kind of pseudorealistic work that Cameron is talking about, superdeformed characters, etc.
Eventually (i'd say about three to five years), we'll figure out exactly how to do it right, to balance between realism and cartooning. Please bear with us.

quote: "...they rather effectively lopped Gary Sinise's shins in Forrest Gump."

Uhh... Yes... Done in CGI, no?

PS. If this is formatted funny, then I apologise. Still getting to grips with the UBBness of it all. If it's not, well hey, forget about it...