WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Minkowski Speaks: What's the Future of CGI?

Posted: February 20th, 2012 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Minkowski Speaks: WhatSubmit Comment
We recently asked WP users to submit articles about movies and/or the website that we would post on the site. Today is the first installment in the "WP Users Speak" series and Minkowski is the first person to put together an article. Check it out and feel free to express your opinions in the comments section below.

The Future of CGI by Minkowski: Even though there are essentially three possible futures for CGI, photo-realism, alternate-realism and stylized-realism, all three share the same goal: the rendering of artificial reality and ultimately the replacement of live actors with synthetic performers.

The recent film "Avatar" took viewers on a sensually exhilarating trip towards all three possible futures, with a heavier emphasis on photorealism, through the use of advanced motion capture techniques on principle actors Sam Washington and Zoe Saldana and by employing powerful new texture and shading methods, captured in brilliant high-definition 3D.

In 2011, "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" titillated teenage movie-goers with a variety of CGI implementations of the highly photo-realistic variety, including virtual battle-bots and exploding skyscrapers so indistinguishable from reality, you could almost taste the cold steel and smell the acrid fumes of sheetrock burning within completely synthetic flames, with much, if not all, of the robotic acting originating through physically-accurate key frame animation, and Shia LaBeouf's onscreen performances.

Other film production companies have used a far more stylized-realistic route, such as Pixar, which owns an impressive list of CG films such as "Up" and their latest as-of-yet unreleased heroine film "Brave," both of which feature convincingly and realistically lit and rendered characters in otherwise heavily stylized formats and settings.

The last variant, hyper-realism, hasn't made much headway into cinema, though it could when a new generation of filmmakers in the molds of David Cronenberg and David Lynch embrace CGI as a complete means to depict a reality that is at once realistically acceptable and believable and yet dream-like in depiction and execution. The closest examples to date that have made modest American box-impacts are Christian Volckman's "Renaissance" and Richard Linklater's "A Scanner Darkly," both of which used more 2D post-production alterations than true 3D CGI.

Question: Of the three possible variants, which do you foresee as the forthcoming predominant Hollywood method of rendering reality?

Source: WP, Minkowski


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 146 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
BadChadB33 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 3:36:29 PM

Nicely written Mink. I wonder how hyper realism will turn out when its used more?
BoyScouts!BoyScouts! writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 3:56:39 PM

CGI Blows. If I wanna watch a cartoon, I will watch a cartoon. If there was going to be a variant of CGI, it should be flawless CGI. All too often we see the product of "good enough" and it takes me right out of the movie for a small amount of time to think, "wow, that was bad."
mustardayonnaise writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:01:56 PM

nicely written, but did WP give you a word limit or something, Mink? I felt like the article was just getting started... i wanted to hear more, especially about your OPINION on the future of CGI.

because, let's be honest, Mink's opinion on things is one of the more entertaining aspects of this entire site. LOL
Rambo writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:05:47 PM

I prefer the transformers CGI despite the fact that the sequels sucked balls.The CGI in the first one was overwhelming and the movie was well made.
The 'Avatar' CGI didn't impress me much...it looked too cartoonish.

But yeah,CGI is overrated,Take a look at 'the langoliers' from 1995.crappiest cgi ever but the movie still kicked ass because of the mystery and the thrills.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:20:37 PM

Thanks guy.

I had another artecle written, and with Alex's permission, I'll post it. Deals more to do with the far future, but Alex, and I, agreed it was too 'academic'.

"but did WP give you a word limit or something, Mink?"

Kind of. I did what Alex wanted, which was loosely follow form and keep the rambling down to a minimum.

Thanks alex for the chance you've given us, and I hope more of us *contribute* and less of us complain, so I patiently await the next article, which I know will rock.

So: Who's next?
bandolero999 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:22:12 PM

I don't care how much CGI Avatar had it waS still a mediocre movie.the new apes movies was much better.

Still haven't seen all 3 transformer movies,but now that they all came out I can watch them.

mars needs moms also had some outstanding CGI,but no one saw that movie and has extremely bad rep.
bandolero999 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:24:49 PM

I wrote Alex an email bout some Japanese movie with a pretty hot chick and looked better than haywire.
mustardayonnaise writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:26:51 PM

i'd be willing to write up something about editing in TV and movies, as that's my chosen profession...
Big_Daddy writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:28:28 PM

CGI is a great tool for making or breaking a film. See Matrix series


@mink- good job
bandolero999 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:31:23 PM

The best Matrix for me was part 2.especially the car chase scenes.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:32:19 PM

"..guys".


And thanks big_daddy. Still havent seen Apes, but I will soon. I think the plot is silly, but if it's a good film despite that, I'll give it a chance.
johnny_boy writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:34:48 PM

This was a treat. For years I have enjoyed reading Minks thoughts whether I agreed with them or not. Well done, Mink.

CGI is great for putting characters in movies that wouldn't work if done any other way, example being Transformers and Hulk. CGI however is halfway til it is complete. We're still in the testing generation before its perfected. Some comes out sh*tty, IE I Am Legend and Shrek films.
SeWerin writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:37:30 PM

Congratulations on your first article mink.

Regarding the topic - each of the styles are suitable for different take on different genre. The problem is not which one to use, but more in - when to stop and not abuse it. Most movies now days get so deep in effects that they are lost in them and have nothing to offer. This needs to stop.

OK, where do i need to post my article?
mustardayonnaise writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:45:31 PM

i suppose i should chime in regarding the actual question- i think the future of CGI- as a growing segment of the overall film landscape- will be as a photo-real 'fixer'- making subtle changes to a shot to correct a mistake or enhance the composition. Many movies now use CGI to this end as opposed to a featured 'element' (ie. adding an explosion or digital character). The reason I feel that CGI use will grow the most as this is because it will become more and more affordable for lower-budget films who need to tweak a shot here or there to paint out a boom pole, shift a character in the frame slightly, etc. I think there will always be a demand for action movies full of CGI, animated CGI movies, and even the hyper-real stuff- but relatively speaking, a broader range of directors are going to rely on CGI to do the subtle tweaks they couldn't achieve on set....
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:49:03 PM

Thank jb and sewerin.

@Sewerin: you have to send it to Alex. I won't post his email, but you can contact him via the 'Contact Us' link at the bottom right part of the page.

"Nicely written Mink. I wonder how hyper realism will turn out when its used more?"

Thank you, and to respnd to your question, I have no idea, but I think it's totally underused; I wish we had a more modern Cronenberg to do it justice. Maybe we will. Maybe it will be you...*shrug*
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:49:17 PM

Love or hate the Transformers movies you can't deny they are spectacular if nothing else.

I'm fine with CGI being used more and more in films, But i wouldn't like to see the end of real life actors like Hanks in Polar Express, There has to be a happy medium for me.

Nice one Mink.

struck21 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 4:58:40 PM

Honestly, CGI needs to go farther in movies and TV then it did in original Star Wars. Some is fine, some can make it better, but what seems to be happening anymore is, 90% CGI and 10% real. That I don't like.

If I had to choose, it would be more like Transformers. Even if admitting that those movies were actually made still puts a sour taste in my mouth.
PLASTIC MAN writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:07:26 PM

Attentention: The writer of this article should be banned from Worstpreviews. In an earlier post (see Peter Parker Vs Door MAn) Mink personally assaulted me...

Here is a little of what was said:
Setup: Mink made a nasty comment about my daughter. (that he had sex with her).

I responded: "My daughter is four years old.
Thanks. I believe you officially crossed the line."

MINK responded:
Shut the f*ck up, stupid. Any guy who names himself after a f*cking cartoon character like 'the plastic man' deserves to have his daughter raped.
And eaten.
Alive."

Should Worstpreviews actually post ANYTHING written by such a sc*mbag????

WORSTPREVIEWS!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP AND STOP THIS MADNESS BEFORE I GET AN OUTSIDE AGENT INVOLVED!


Read more: http://www.worstpreviews.com/headline.php?id=24114&count=0#ixzz1mxiHsK8B
Džeko writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:12:11 PM

Pretty good first article,I would also like to know what's your stand on how do CGI in movies and their box office gross correlate(to put it simple,does more CGI= more money earned)and can a fully CGI movie make the same impact on us(emotionally)as much as the full live one?Looking forward to more of your articles.Btw it's Sam Worthington not Washington.
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:13:20 PM

The rape was it in hyper-realism, otherwise you seemed to have gone off topic Plastic Man
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:14:01 PM

Thanks trailer.

"Love or hate the Transformers movies you can't deny they are spectacular if nothing else."

The cgi in transformers is impressive, no doubt and the relism I think deserves as much accolade as Avatar, perhaps more, but I think where Bay and Co went wrong was when he decided to do the 'realism' thing, which has become less a neccessity and more a fad, started by Nolan and others seemingly as a reaction to the almost avant-garde atrocity of Schumacher's Batman bombs, and other films.

The thing is that Bay tried to make the Transformers TOO realistic, and sacrficed the original characterizations in favor of CGI realism, when in fact, no one could care less.

An example is Ironhide's guns, one of which contains reportedly contained some ten thousand pieces.

Now, if Bay were doing a simulation, one in which the outcome was part of a scientific experiment, this level of realism would be in dire demand, say when scientists simulate the yield of nuclear explosions, but it's a movie about robots from space, so his CGI realism, in that context, bogs down the entire pipeline such that one frame takes hours to render, just performing the physics calculating positions and whatnot.

But an example of where his realism sacrifices characterizations, as mentioned above, is Starscram and Prime.

Because a flat-nosed cabover semi doesn't have enough 'mass' to make a large enough robot, even though the robots in question can alter shapes magically on demand, Bay went with a long-nosed cab variety of semi, taking Prime out of continuity with his established character, and though people will mention Beast Wars and other Transformer iterations, wherein Prime isn't his G1 variant, Bay's choice makes no sense under the context of the film, which is pure fantasy and far more in continuity with G1 than either Beast Wars or Aramada, for example.

Finally, another example: Starscream, whose alt mode is so large compared to Prime's truck, they had to deform the character's legs in order to have him not tower over both Prime AND Megatron.

Instead of Bay saying "f*ck it, let's make them look real but screw the whole absolute internal realism sh*t because no one in their right mind is going to care, save for the nitpickers who are going to complain anyway", like me, he and the producers get premeditatedly defensive, and I hate how it turned out, no matter how good it all looks, and it DOES look good.
mustardayonnaise writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:15:46 PM

Hey Plastic Man- I have three daughters, and yes, I'd be somewhat offended if Minkowski said that to me. But I'd also understand that IT'S A JOKE. The average WorstPreviews user's propensity for hyperbole is WELL doc*mented. Get over it and move on, bro.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:16:58 PM

"The rape was it in hyper-realism, otherwise you seemed to have gone off topic Plastic Man"

I've also said I'd like to truck-bomb Congress.

It's called Freedom of Speech tongue-in-cheek bullsh*tting, Plastic Fork.

What a LOSER.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:18:20 PM

Is this real? Or has it been posted already?

http://nukethefridge.com/movie-images/kick-ass-man-of-steel-image-of-henry-cavill
Powdered Toast Man writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:18:31 PM

A Scanner Darkly was kinda cool the way they did that. Nice article too.
Powdered Toast Man writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:21:16 PM

One thing that drive me nuts with movies like the first two Tranformers (and even a lot of non-CGI movies) is when they switch camera angle so often it give you a headache. No reason to do that when it's CGI. It's freaggin' annoying.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:26:56 PM

Here's the other one. I don't think Alex has any use for it, and I doubt anyone else does either, but what the hell (mentions the Transformers thingee)

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The future of CGI is comprised of four discrete and interconnected modules that will provide both a pathway for the complete confluence of video-games and film, and the rendering of an infinite number of alternate realities, and thus this future is, in fact, far more than merely computer generated imagery.

The first module is the aforementioned imagery, the actual pretty pictures rendered on a computer in a similar manner to the way reality is rendered in our minds through our eyes.

Developments in unbiased rendering, which employ real-world math instead of ‘classical’ approximations, as found in modern products such as NextLimit’s Maxwell and Indigo Renderer, exhibit an unparalleled power to replicate real-world imagery.

And slow advancements in quantum computation, which theoretically can simulate separate, complete realities indistinguishable from our own everyday experience, portend a future of infinite, immersive visual possibilities.

The second module is voice modeling, or speech synthesis, a necessary component for the future of film and games and the combination of both. Voice modeling will lend to developers the ability to reconstruct, using mathematics, linguistics and archived recordings, new dialog for long dead characters.

An example would be a new True Lies, debuting a few decades hence, using a digital Arnold Schwarzenegger, visually indistinguishable from the real actor, uttering dialog generated from voice modeling, even though the actual actor is no longer available.

The third module is physics, which though often maligned for poor implementation in CG films such as The Polar Express, will provide more expressive films throughout than motion capture, a methodology limited due by the constraints of the set-up required.

Currently the issue is computational, because large complex bodies, as seen in films such as Transformers, consume enormous processor capabilities and memory storage, but as processors go increasingly parallel and multi-core, and as memory significantly increases, films with characters comprised of billions of independent parts won’t take hours to render one frame, per Transformers, wherein the physics created a pipeline bottleneck.

The final unitary module is Artificial Intelligence (AI), and this is where actors go obsolete, because even though strong-AI, i.e., real artificial intelligence that can pass the Turing-test, won’t arrive for decades at best, weak- AI, one that provides us with virtual actors and thespians as superficially real and intelligent as the average actor, will come to fore within our lifetimes, perhaps as soon as within a decade.

Once this occurs, organic actors will be viewed no less quaint an occupation as phone-line switchboard operators.

The future of CGI is nothing less than the rendering, and perfect replication, of infinite reality, Shakespeare notwithstanding.

(btw, I have a daughter too, folks, so you guys need to grow up and realize not everything said on here means much, if anything. Jesus and f*ck)
pornfly writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:34:35 PM

Somebody call a waaambulance for PWAAAASTICMAN
you bring shame to one of my favorite cartoons when i was a kid

The real Plasticman called and said to change your name to LABIAMAN,youre makin him look bad in front of his kids who MINK also raped but you wont hear them bitch about it
mustardayonnaise writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:35:44 PM

^^^^ better. ^^^^

thanks for posting. much more interesting to me, honestly, perhaps because i was already pretty familiar with everything you covered in the first article....
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:37:34 PM

"(to put it simple,does more CGI= more money earned)"

Good question, and I have no idea. Maybe some one else has some numbers, but I do know that Dreamworks films don't seem to do as well as Pixar, and they both make 100% CGI flicks, so I think part of the equation is studio brand (Paramount >> Dreamworks, as an example) and marketing power.

Also, concept and execution. A bunch of wise-cracking paleolithic animals just isn't as exciting as robots trashing an entire city...

That and I think people agree that Pixar and Paramount make better films than Dreamworks.
realgirl76 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:40:03 PM

Personally ,I think CGI is great in movies that couldn't be done without it. Not saying the movie were awesome, but Green Lantern and Transformers 3 could only be done with photo realistic CGI. And isn't that what most of the cartoons are now? At least the ones kids are drawn too. As far as this article goes, outstanding job Mink. And kudos to Alex for giving us WP posters to share our feelings & love for movies..And our utter disdain for the newbie trolls who have been popping up as of late..
realgirl76 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:42:27 PM

"the opportunity to share" my bad... still getting over those post from that i/live/with/my/mom
pornfly writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:46:12 PM

Sorry to read that you havnt seen 'Apes'
I heldout watching it for the same reasons you have but it works! So getting your input on their innovative process would be a nice addendum to your Future of CGI article./series?

PLASTICMAN in CGI videogame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4xnjPvQVyA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:50:02 PM

I like all methods of CG. Heavily used by Cameron he still holds the record for the 2 largest grossing movies of all time: Avatar and Titanic. Obviously the ticket-buying public like it as well (regardless of format).

Nice job mink, breaking them down. I wouldn't have posted a 2nd article if Alex didn't want to (yet or ever). He's the editor/moderator and that's his call. I'm talking from experience. Having published once, and within an editorial showing the 'cover that was to be'.

@Plastic-Turd: was the rape of your daughter CG (if so, what kind), or was it real (if so: inside or outside of The Matrix). And why don't you return to your (frustrated) closet and pull a Carradine? And give your daughter a real chance at a happy life with a real father figure.
Zoso writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:52:45 PM

Minkowski, your a dipsh*t and a moron. Every word you type says how lonely and pathetic you are. Find another website jackass.
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:53:08 PM

'Mink personally assaulted me...'

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......

See... whiny bitch. Go stop your feet.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:55:15 PM

Thanks realgirl, ranger and pornfly (random order) and lol @ the Plastic Man jokes.

Hey, Ranger, this guy was YOUR stalker, remember, so what the hell happened? Why did I get stuck with the sorry sack?

"I wouldn't have posted a 2nd article if Alex didn't want to (yet or ever). He's the editor/moderator and that's his call. I'm talking from experience. Having published once, and within an editorial showing the 'cover that was to be'."

He didn't say I couldn't publish it as my opinion as a comment, as that's never been an issue with any of us on anything, he just felt it was too textbook-like to go on the main page, and from that rejection I can assume he has absolutely no use for it whatsoever.

I did feel that someone else might like to read it, and that's what we're here for, to share our thoughts, right? So think on!
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:55:54 PM

@Zoso - 2 comments in 2 months. Both directed towards mink in anger. And suggesting he go elsewhere when the owner/moderator liked his article enough to post it... so, not gonna happen you delusional tart.

Thx. for staying on-top and contributing.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:58:30 PM

"Minkowski, your a dipsh*t and a moron. Every word you type says how lonely and pathetic you are. Find another website jackass."

Jealousy must be a bad bitch to carry, my friend.
RedAutumn writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:58:41 PM

Nicely written article Mink. I always wonder how the future of CGI would be like.
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:59:27 PM

@mink - you're getting more attention lately (ie: this article), and you're wondering why an attention-seeking parasite, internet lurker jumped from my back to yours?!?! lol.

I figured you posted your second story as a reg. post/comment. Again, good article. I never thought to break down the different styles of CG.

@Plasticman - if you ever need a babysitter, I'm available.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 5:59:37 PM

^^And I don't mean that in conceit, just that, he posts just to attack me? What the f*ck did I do to him? Nothing.
Džeko writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:01:28 PM

"That and I think people agree that Pixar and Paramount make better films than Dreamworks."Yes,but when Paramount and Dreamworks join forces 2.7 billion dollars happens(Transformers trilogy):).
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:01:35 PM

I think Ranger should write one. We'd all like to hear his take on CGI in pornography, because you know that's next. Robots f*cking restrained maidens and all that.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:04:21 PM

"."Yes,but when Paramount and Dreamworks join forces 2.7 billion dollars happens(Transformers trilogy):)."

That's true, and Dreamworks has their name on alot of live-action property too, so I have no idea. I think it's complex. I think Dreamworks just doesn't have the intellectual and name capiatl to compete head to head with Pixar on CGI films, even though some of the Ice Age films have made lots of money.

Like I said, it's a good question worthy of some good thought, and perhaps someone here can write an article on it? Maybe you, Dzeko.
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:04:29 PM

@mink - so, just set up a webcam in my bedroom is what you're asking?
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:05:49 PM

'What the f*ck did I do to him?'

Really? You step into the spotlight. That's all it takes for a lurker to want to ass-f*ck you on here mink.

Džeko writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:13:33 PM

@minkowski
"Like I said, it's a good question worthy of some good thought, and perhaps someone here can write an article on it? Maybe you, Dzeko."
Maybe,I will,I just need someone to do my spell checking :).
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:14:18 PM

Well then, don't ask any of the lurkers on here then. Have your seen the crap they type?!
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:16:07 PM

Just do it Džeko, we don't worry about things like correct spelling on here pal
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:17:15 PM

"Really? You step into the spotlight. That's all it takes for a lurker to want to ass-f*ck you on here mink."

I'm more of a 'skulking in the shadows' kind of guy, I guess.

Like Dark Man, or R Kelly.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:24:39 PM

"Just do it Džeko, we don't worry about things like correct spelling on here pal"

Alex would help him out, I'm sure. Or one of us.
Zoso writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:28:29 PM

Jealous of you minkowski? Keep on dreaming.
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:35:56 PM

3 posts now ...

All about Mink, Someone will be dreaming happy things tonight
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:36:31 PM

Then perhaps you can explain why you take time out of your day to post against me? Why, then, do you have only three posts, all of which attacking me? I just don't get it, so perhaps you can explain the situation.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:37:37 PM

"All about Mink, Someone will be dreaming happy things tonight"

Not me, that's for sure. *shudder*
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:41:04 PM

Nice article, interesting read. I'm looking forward to a time when, like mustardmayo mentioned, CGI can be used by lower budget film makers with better ideas and less restraint from Hollywood studios. We can't be that far away from making people look completely realistic I think one of the main problem films have at the moment with CGI is the movement of the human mouth like Jeff Bridges in the Tron sequel, as soon as he started talking it looked like a computer game (ironic and could be argued that was the point but they wanted him to look real). I can't wait for them to bring Marlon Brando back alongside Gary Oldman or James Dean next to Johnny Depp, I wonder if studios will start buying the rights to these old actors and only let them be used on films of their choice, it really wouldn't surprise me.
coldplayesence writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:43:28 PM

I don't know if it was sarcasm but those were some nice words for Avatar, Cameron had a drink somewhere, like me. Good job. Personally, A Scanner Darkly it's my kind of visual style, it's mesmerizing.
PLASTIC MAN writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:46:03 PM

Minky I have asked Worstpreviews to remove you..and this article..from their site. Let's hope they make a move. We wouldn't want this site to align with you and your pedophiliac comments.

Also, Trash, please, quit trying to join in this conversation.
It's pathetic.
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:46:19 PM

Man i would hate to see old Hollywood stars coming back into films today.

I know they have done it in some TV adverts over the past few years, But a whole film !!

Steve Mcqueen and Channing Tatum in the same film (( Major Shudders)) there ....
stlee writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:48:25 PM

Allowing users to write articles that actually pertain to the spirit of the site is one of the coolest things I've ever seen. Props for that. I was blown away by the article and the comments up until plastic dude had to get all, "HEY EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME!". It's a shame that one poster can make a comment section take a left turn, even if that turn results in some hilarious insults.
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:49:35 PM

Plastic Man- Stop commenting on a movie site and go look after your daughter you freak.
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:51:12 PM

Plastic

Trying to Join you in anything would most likely end in jail so i will pass thanks.

dangerlips writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:53:38 PM

Brutal article. Terribly written.
secondbest writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:55:18 PM

Good article. As for which kind of CGI will be the predominant method in Hollywood, it's a tie between stylized-realism and photo-realism. Children's movies will probably lean more toward stylized-realism and other mainstream blockbusters will lean more toward a photo-realistic approach. I think hyper-realism is more for the independent film and arthouse film audiences and will become more prevalent in independent films over time.
secondbest writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 6:59:21 PM

Boy, I sure missed a whole lot of drama while typing one simple comment.

trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:00:09 PM

Oh and Plastic

Pathetic is pretending to have a child and then thinking that people on here really wanted to f*ck her you simple minded sick retard, Now be gone with you and f*ck off for good !!
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:02:49 PM

This thread is turning into a Who's Who of trolls. A regular stinking menagerie.

@secondbest: I agree.
Quidd writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:07:15 PM

Get a life. Who really cares what you think? Are you a director? Do you have anything to do with making films? Or do you just watch them all day long and wonder why you don't have a girlfriend?
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:07:18 PM

The same troll that was going on about the lack of positive film talk from the posters on this site.

What's he done turned it into lurkers R Us again.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:11:15 PM

"Or do you just watch them all day long and wonder why you don't have a girlfriend?"

I try to do what makes me happy, and people like you try to destroy it.

You, and all the other sad posters, are like the kid that goes to the beach just to kick over other kid's sandcastles.
The First Rule writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:16:15 PM

That was a whole lot of words without ever really saying anything. This piece is more of an inner monologue than a news or movie article. There was once a time inane ramblings were confined to the comment section.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:20:39 PM

"What's he done turned it into lurkers R Us again."

I'm still waiting for the_eye. You know he has something to say, with his 30 petabytes of MSNBC child pornography.
trailertrash writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:29:37 PM

lol, you know that ...
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:35:56 PM

I'm getting a chuckle over all the attention-starved lurkers mink's article alone have brought forth. These people (that person) clearly goes through life hating. Hating those that get attention (whether earned or deserving or not), and ride that person's coat-tails. They contribute nothing here (which I'll take as they don't in the real world either). They just sit, whine, bitch, and get jealous of others instead of looking into a mirror and admit they're wrong about life, and just plain lazy.

It would be amusing if not so true and pathetic.

Plastic Man says mink should be banned because he (mink) 'personally' attacked him? mink... did you actually seek out his trailer park, commit a B&E and physically assault that... person?

Good. It's about time some one did.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:51:05 PM

Nah, Ranger. The social worker told me to come back when dad wasn't breastfeedin' the young-uns.

As to The First Rule, no one cares what you think. No one cares that you can't differentiate an obvious opinion piece from a news article, or understand that Alex asked for the former, not the latter, nor do I give sh*t about the third grade books you've read, books you read because someone threw the movie rendition in front of your face.

This place suddenly has more slimey creeps than Mos Eisley's Catina.
bandolero999 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:52:31 PM

They have also improved on the Hulks CGI.another reason I have interest in watching Avengers.

And also enjoyed the live animated Beowulf with Ray Winstone
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 7:59:39 PM

You remember the Hulk from the Ang Lee film, right, bando?
The Tall Man writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:01:40 PM

Mink, your hired! Nicely done.

I dread the day that studios start replacing actors with CGI's. There was talk a few years ago about a new film staring (CGI) Bruce Lee. I'm gald it never came to fruition.
SuluNakamura writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:07:46 PM

I'll be dreaming of you Mink. This article and the entire thread was way tl;dr, but good show. I'm sure it was fantastic.
The Tall Man writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:08:54 PM

I said "your hired", didn't I? What f*cking slacker I am at grammar... sometimes. I meant "you're hired"
halostingray87 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:12:57 PM

I feel that CGI is going to become a tool that the audience will be unable to decipher (and in many ways we're already at that place). Albeit excluding things like monsters, aliens etc. What films like Avatar and even Transformers accomplished is evoking a sense of realism in a completely manufactured/rendered environment.

Although I feel like when we debate special effects of the "then and now" it's in many ways a debate of the young vs. old, new-school vs old-school etc. Prime examples are films like The Thing, Star Wars franchise etc.

Those of us who grew up watching the 80's Thing may feel disappointment when seeing the newer prequel installment simply because it doesn't have that same feeling or sense of passion and artwork that it would have taken to do the animatronics. Some film directors, like Del Toro, still heavily use the animatronics even with the CGI and I feel that, for me, is usually more engaging than going purely one way or the other (for contemporary film).

Personally I am a fan of the old and new as long as it's done well and serves a purpose. If it feels "Right" then the film makers did their job regardless of the methods used to implement it.
halostingray87 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:19:43 PM

I feel like I really went off topic there but what I failed to mention, in regards to Mink's article, is that I think there will be a lot of throw-backs in future film. Going to the simpler special effects because 20 years from now those techniques will be considered original. Perfect example is the recent movie "The Artist". It's getting so much hype and buzz even though all they've done is re-create the oldest of films.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:20:10 PM

"I dread the day that studios start replacing actors with CGI's. There was talk a few years ago about a new film staring (CGI) Bruce Lee. I'm gald it never came to fruition."

I can't wait! Just think, when computers are powerful enough, you'll be able to buy a 3D virtual movie kit, complete with a photorealistic virtual cast and a set of props and sets, and customizable audio, and some virtual cameras, and bang-o, the entire democratization of films!

You think machinima on Youtube is something (sh*tty), just wait until you can make endless episodes of fake, annoying Italians with the Jersey Shore Movie Kit, complete with a rip-tacularly ridiculous The sh*tuation and leaking c*nt Snookie.
Ranger writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:22:36 PM

@halo - agreed.

I watch old(er) stuff like The Thing (Kurt Russell), and it takes me back to the year it came out. I don't make comparisons to then vs. now (as you said). The Matrix is already 13 years old and I think it's holding up incredibly well. The Wizard of Oz is still amazing even considering it's almost 3/4er's of a century old.

Thing is, so many movies come out these days. In this dispensable, instant gratification, great... but what have you done today kind of attitude, a younger movie goer would then watch 'The Thing' and say... wow, that sucks! Too bad they weren't around when it first came out and have SEEN the EVOLUTION of 'special effects.' And appreciated the time it has taken. And how great the effects looked in 'their time.'

I sincerely believe younger viewers have really missed out.
SquirrelFlyer writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:41:50 PM

maybe instead of talking sh*t on mink for being picked to write an opinion article...you losers can talk about the article instead of your obvious jealousy that nobody cares about your whiny ramblings...but nice ideas mink I think photorealism will take the front of the CGI pack, specifically because of avatar's accomplishments. I guess we will see in the next few years what people will do to catch up to that and transformers..but getting the budgets to afford those methods will be the problem I think.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:45:03 PM

Thanks much, squirrel, because I didn't suggest myself to do an article, and great ideas you had there halo.

Funny you mentioned The Thing prequel, because the CGI, wow, terrible! Great modeling, and compositing, but the textures and lighting? Materials and shading? Godawful and barely matches the live-action.
Crazyhorse writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:49:37 PM

Mink

Well written


Rang

I sure hope all the actors arent CGI one day. Then you will be left with a fake Anne Hathaway and I a Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johannson
Champ1432 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 8:49:43 PM

Nice article, Mink. Informative and a few good questions raised. It will definitely be interesting to see how/when traditional CGI and newer (or less known) methods like hyper-realism will begin to evolve and become a larger element in a standard film.
secondbest writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:08:52 PM

With the talk about CGI replacing real actors. I don't know if that will ever happen. When the Final Fantasy movie from 2001 came out, I remember people saying how the animation used in it would create the trend of using animation and CGI instead of real actors. And while the trend is growing, it's not at as fast a rate as people initially thought.
maddasahatter writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:09:15 PM

:) Leave it to Mink to put together a fantastic article.
BadChadB33 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:16:57 PM

I had a feeling this thread would bring out the trolls.

Plastic Dildo- Get the f*ck outta here.
blumpkin writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:21:23 PM

THanks mink i think ive found a cure for my insomnia!! this article is a total SNOOZEFEST!
Crazyhorse writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:24:12 PM

Bad Chad


I like your Avatar
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:42:26 PM

Congradulations Mink. A very well written article and I loved the follow up post.

To the trolls: Must be hard not getting any sex...even from yourself.
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:46:14 PM

^^*strangled laughter*
BadChadB33 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 9:48:50 PM

CH-Thanks bud, Gotta represent the Duke!
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:14:54 PM

Oh, and thanks Alex!
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:15:53 PM

And thanks for the nice words from maddasahatter and Horrojunkie.
the eye writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:26:54 PM

A nice job Mink... Now I see your proclivity & gift of the cinema.

Bravo!

Peace
Cody Fairless-Lee writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:33:56 PM

Hey WP....what about my article suggestion?
rockkillers writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:40:12 PM

f*ck off Plastic Man. If you are so sensitive to things that are said on the internet you shouldn't be using it. Also it seems you are just jealous Minks article was posted on here first, and you haven't had anything. In that case you should stop complaining and submit your own article.
rockkillers writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 10:42:57 PM

Great job on the article Mink, and WP for allowing people to submit these.
commanderclit69 writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 11:01:47 PM

care
minkowski writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 11:50:57 PM

Something of a CGI pitstop, in games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs7kix6_8Ks
holtlt writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 11:51:42 PM

I think that thanks to the CGI we can see beyond any boundary of realism, but is the same program that has taken personal imagination away that audiences are hardly surprised by anything these days.

Back in the old days like Jaws and E.T. where puppets were used, was a time where technology was advancing and people wanted to see more. But actually, CGI takes the audience's attention away from the script, which in the end is the thing that matters the most regarding cinematography.
holtlt writes:
on February 20th, 2012 at 11:53:11 PM

By the way, great article Mink.
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 12:12:05 AM

Thanks holtit!

So, I wonder who's next...
triggax writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 12:24:48 AM

Nice Work, Mink.

I enjoyed the article. Good read.

I personally am a huge fan of Richard Linklater.. Waking Life is also a great example of hyper-realism.

Great stuff, good work with being the first out there with a decent article. Gives me a reason to want to comment on this site.

Hilarious all the c*nts giving you sh*t.

Maybe I'll toss up an article, all this banter and hilarity has inspired me.

I wrote an article for box office magazine last christmas about the cinemas that still show silver classics dying out in North America. Maybe I could dumb it down for length, I'd love to get your thoughts.

Again, good show mate.

Great article.
triggax writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 12:29:46 AM

Another thought on CGI more or less directly taking over big budget cinema.

Would the A list actors out there be commanding the same kind of income for voice over, or motion capture work?

Would it be a smart move for studios, i'm sure a lot of the bigger studios out there have the idea that not having Brad Pitt IN the film would save them money. BUT would it actually make them obsolete if they still needed the voice over.

Also, I f*cking hate the idea of getting it so right they would be able to flawlessly bring back Brando into anything. There's just no magic to movies when you make them this way.


"Like Dark Man, or R Kelly."

I've always thought of you as someone who pisses on teenagers.. But that's for another thread.
telur writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 12:43:19 AM

and here we go... one of the longest comment is WP News....

congrats pal
SACdaddy writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:07:30 AM

Nice article and subject Mink. While I definitely have no idea which technical movement will prevail in the future, I do think there is or will be a movement to spend less on CGI while still asking the creative team to deliver more from it as a tool. At the same time studios seem to turn a blind eye to story or character development in place of photorealistic imageryand action, they also actually seem to be encouraging lower budget creativity through films like Paranormal Activity, Chronicle, and District 9. Those films' box office and critical appeal appear to be pushing many studios to open doors for a new breed of directors and effects teams that are willing to push technical limits but are forced to think even more outside the box due to budget restaints. I hope this inspires new talent like young sluts inspire Michael Bay. And I hope it finally gives us that perfect film that combines cutting edge CGI with a great story. That's all want from CGI in the future, is that too much to ask?
Tanman32123 writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:16:12 AM

Nicely done Mink.

i wont be writing anything anytime soon lol my grammar and spelling is just far to awful.

Plastic man get over it, mink insults us all lol We all have to take it, give it, and get over it :P

@Mink and ranger.

omg, Ranger on cgi in pornography, That'd be a great post, i heard about the movie in like japan (i think) where they made a porno in 3D. I'm pretty sure they also did a retelling of Avatar in 3D but with porn LOL Ranger, Get Typing.
filmgeek73 writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:21:23 AM

Nicely written. I agree that CGI can be overkill and how lame Avatar looks ( I still have no interest in wasting time with it ). Your article also reminded me of a semi-new trend that has bothered me for a bit now, digital blood. Unless it is being used for a film like "300" or "Sin City," it just doesn't seem to work. I miss blood squibs and actual fake liquid blood because digital spray doesn't work. Especially a movie shot in High Def, it comes out looking extremely cartoonish and stands out in a bad way. With the majority of movies being shot in HD, it has become increasingly noticeable and at times blood and violence in video games has begun to appear more realistic than what has been showing up on the big screen.

The comic book sequence in "Kick Ass" where the imagery turned into a vibrant 3D effect was cool.

I'm still not a fan though of the motion capture stuff like "Polar Express," "A Christmas Carol," and anything Andy Serkis related; Still looks silly and out of place and borderline "Thunderbirds" creepy.

Great stuff though, look forward to more of your articles.
trailertrash writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 3:05:59 AM

Thread still here, We're all still here

Good job d*ck head ...
Cinemaisdead writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 5:02:29 AM

PS- Watching A Scanner Darkly on acid is the craziest thing I've ever seen.
AYT BALL writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 7:55:39 AM

Nice job Mink. My feelings on CGI have been covered by alot of the comments on here already, although Avatar was a visual treat, i dont want all movies to go that way, now and again is fine. What i love about CGI is the subtle use of it in movies like District 9 and Monsters, to just enhance the world the film maker is creating, you dont have to go nuts with it (see any lucas project of the past 20 years!) just use it like a touch up on your canvas.

@ Mink - i know youve touched out what you do a few times but id like to see some of your work if you have any online? Cheers.
Gunslinger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 8:17:17 AM

I would venture that there is at least a fourth, and inevitable, future of CGI, and that is movies made with dead actors. I think that it won't be long before we see new movies with contemporary scripts starring James Dean or a young Marlon Brando. Or we might see a new Heath Ledger film with Rita Hayworth as his co-star. It may even be true that actors' days are numbered. Perhaps the stars of tomorrow will be as fictional as James Cameron's Pandora, existing only in the suspended imaginations of movie-goers and their wallets everywhere...
Dre-EL writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 9:08:57 AM

Ever since the first final fantasy movie, I saw a future where actors would be needed only for their voice.

The aim of CGI is to replace every one and the need to go on locations and to do it cheaper.
film_crazed writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 10:34:37 AM

Nice stuff. Been going on this site since '07 but never really comment. To Mink: It's great writing, but man are those some looooong sentences. I mean you only have (6) sentences in that whole article. In regards to CGI, I believe it is like everything else when it comes to movie technology:It first comes out in Porno's then mainstream. Exps: Blu-Ray,Online Streaming etc. No lie look it up.
ray gunn writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 12:58:57 PM

who my hairy white ass is Sam Washington?
Ranger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 1:18:09 PM

Good catch. We all missed that.
Ranger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 1:18:29 PM

Denzel's white brother?
makingcircles writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:06:55 PM

Nice job Mink..I always like reading your comments. I did notice in paragraph 2 you said "Sam Washington" instead of "Sam Worthington" but Alex should have caught that before he uploaded the story. Kudos.
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:07:56 PM

Thank you everybody, and wonderful comments You've been ladies and gentlemen in this thread. Well, most of you.

To Trig: Submit your article. What the hell are you waiting for?

@ film_crazed:

"I mean you only have (6) sentences in that whole article"

Six or seven sentences was one the article constraints, so I flubbed a little to say more. Meh.

@ Gunslinger, my long-time 'friend' from ages past:

"I would venture that there is at least a fourth, and inevitable, future of CGI, and that is movies made with dead actors."

I already said that in the original article, and the follow-up article. Did you read them? Wait, don't answer that question.

And Rang, no insulting Denzel! Worthington isn't good enough to be his dog, much less brother.


makingcircles writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:08:18 PM

Oh f*ck...I guess I should read comments before I post. Good job Ray Gunn. I read all the comments before I went to bed and nobody had caught that yet and I figured I post today. f*ck it.
AYT BALL writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:24:53 PM

@ PLASTIC MAN - Do you have a plastic woman too? seriously though, hush, its kinda pathetic, cheers ;-)
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:55:16 PM

""Oh f*ck...I guess I should read comments before I post. Good job Ray Gunn. I read all the comments before I went to bed and nobody had caught that yet and I figured I post today. f*ck it."

LMFAO! Well, that's Microsoft Word for you. Must have had 'auto-correct on' (and didn't catch the effin' change), because Word didn't know 'Sam Worthington', which isn't surprising.

No one else does either.
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 2:56:17 PM

"@ PLASTIC MAN - Do you have a plastic woman too?"

Yep, his daughter. She's quite pliant, especially when she gets hot.
Gunslinger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 3:00:34 PM

No mention of "dead" actors, Mink, as far as I can tell. I see the hair you're splitting for the sake of arguement, but I was more referring to something more than a "synthetic" actor. A character can be created out of thin air and few billion ones and zeroes, but it won't necessarily resonate with audiences the way someone they haven't seen onscreen in half a century would. It's the nostalgia factor that goes beyond what Hollywood and its CGI bring to the screen. It's what each individual audience member brings to the screen as well, at least in the abstract sense.
Anyway, I'm not really going to get into whether I think the article is good or bad. It seems to have done its job of sparking conversation quite nicely, even if all it does is state the obvious with bullet points. But I will say I do commend you, Mink, for actually taking the time to participate in something WP threw out there.
IHateR writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 3:07:46 PM

Great read Mink always find your stuff entertaining. Keep it up
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 3:16:33 PM

"No mention of "dead" actors, Mink, as far as I can tell. I see the hair you're splitting for the sake of arguement, but I was more referring to something more than a "synthetic" actor."

I quite clearly said, in reference to Schwarzenegger, 'no longer available', which is clearly a euphemism for 'dead', especially when I stated a time-frame for my hypothetical True Lies sequel, in which an alive Arnie would be very much unlikely.

Gotta read between the lines, dude. No offense.

And, if you had the my second little ditty, you'd see I was very explicit in how I portend the future: no living actors (think Al Pacino's 'Simone' films, if you can stand the thought) and the resurrection of non-living old actors.

I thought I made all of this quite clear without drawing it out in crayon on construction paper...

As for whether the article is good or bad, don't go and get pissy on me because I implied you didn't understand what I wrote in either article, because both were thrown together in less than 90 minutes total, which isn't me boasting, just a reflection of my laziness and thus the deliberate imperfection of what I sent to Alex.
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 3:18:34 PM

"Great read Mink always find your stuff entertaining. Keep it up"

Thank you, but how about this: you post sometimes too. We'd like to hear from more than just those already involved.

And don't worry. Unless you come on here looking to prove you're a big shot by taking potshots at someone (re: trolls) everyone on here would love to read your thoughts.
Gunslinger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 4:09:55 PM

Ahh, Mink. Don't know when someone is paying you a compliment. I was trying to say that even though the article reads like a 4th-grade book report, you still took that admittedly minimalistic amount of time ("It sucks? Oh, well, I wasn't even really trying, anyway." Classic..) to type it up, which is more than I can say for most. Anyway, keep up the work, sport.
minkowski writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 4:35:21 PM

*sigh*

Your very first post was reiterating what I had already written, and when I point that fact out, you get defensive and insulting.

You've been absent from posting your petty, envious remarks a very long time, Gunslinger, and thus it was a good time. Let's keep it that way.

Take care, and good luck.
Powdered Toast Man writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 6:15:31 PM

zoso must be plastic man's little brat of a kid.
Ranger writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 9:38:48 PM

'...no insulting Denzel! Worthington isn't good enough to be his dog, much less brother.' --- I trust you didn't intend to insult dogs mink?! And no argument here.
CelluloidMan writes:
on February 21st, 2012 at 11:48:43 PM

Thought provoking piece, Mr. Mink...I'll address the ideas that popped into my head on reading the article and the thread.

CGI has always been a controversial topic of replacing the human actor or "actorless" stories.

As for stylized CGI, I think it will be the more popular of the 3, but equally as popular as a cartoon stories such as Disney animation was in the past. The advancements in CGI will only be used to tell the tales in grandeur scale and in presentation.

Ideas of having dead celebrities CGI is fun to think of but will only be done as gimmicks. No one will be able to duplicate Marlon Brando's passion, Bruce Lee's athleticism, Marilyn Monroe's sexiness or Richard Pryor's rawness...anything else would be and impression or mimicry, thus shadow, of the genius.

The best person to be able to relate to this would be the foremost expert of CGI/ human acting, Andy Serkis.

CGI, like the history of movie making that includes wardrobe, hand painted backgrounds, animation, make up and upto mechanical SFX (even 3D) comes down to only another tool to tell a good story. As story the audience could connect to.

Good discussion piece.
Cheers, mate.
Kurskij writes:
on February 22nd, 2012 at 12:12:31 AM

Nice one, Mink.

Might add a touch of humor next time.

I'll be back soon to discuss it. Didn' know "Renaissance" used digital alterations rather that full-blown CGI work, that movie certainly looked stylish. I remember the chase was nice and it had some interesting lighting.
Kurskij writes:
on February 22nd, 2012 at 12:50:18 PM

Photorealism is bound to ride shotgun on the wave of evolution. Stylized films like Sin City, 300 or Vidoq work as standalone projects and rarely spawn successful... eh, successers.

Projects like Avatar and will most likely succeed the most. With further advancement of CG wizardry photorealism will blend with Tintin-like stylizations.

Now that Spielberg is friends with Peter Jackson and is ready to milk Weta (in my opinion the most complete and creative SFX house operating today), I'd like to hope his "Interstellar" project finally comes to fruition cause it opens real possibilities to push the envelope further.
Also, whether one likes or hates Cameron, Avatar sequels will help advance the tech, cause the guy for all his flaws, is a bugf*ck insane perfectionist and his every projects breaks new effects grounds - Abyss still looks amazing, and if I remember right, Digital Domain is still the go-to house when you need water effects.

Btw Mink, I'm interested in your opinion on Rhythm&Hues. They got their Oscar for The Golden Compass' beasts and created Hulk in Letterier's version, but IMHO they suck at photorealism. Hulk for one, looks worse than in Ang Lee version, that was created by ILM almost a decade before.
minkowski writes:
on February 22nd, 2012 at 2:38:06 PM

"Might add a touch of humor next time."

Thank you, Kurskji, but you must have missed my digs at Shia? No? Yes? Maybe?

Eh.

"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the......."
Gunslinger writes:
on February 23rd, 2012 at 8:28:50 AM

Poorly written, Mink, although we'll let your grammar, style, punctuation, and attempts at humor slide this time since it's your first non-effort. I mean, it's good for you, but, anyway...I'm wondering why no mention from anyone in this thread about holographic movies. Star Wars chess scene, anyone? 1977? Maybe CGI will change the actual shape of movie theaters themselves. When holographic films become the norm, perhaps movie theaters will be round, with every audience member having a unique angle on a movie that is truly 3-D, rather than just 2-D with a slightly enhanced dual viewing angle.
minkowski writes:
on February 23rd, 2012 at 9:33:52 PM

Probably because holography isn't f*cking CGI, it's just a 3D way of displaying visual information, and it has a bajillion years to go before it's as feasible as your Star Wars juvenile imagination would otherwise allow, c*mslinger.

But nice try sliding in now, trying to have the last word, *sshole.
minkowski writes:
on February 23rd, 2012 at 9:36:55 PM

"will be round, with every audience member having a unique angle on a movie that is truly 3-D, rather than just 2-D with a slightly enhanced dual viewing angle."

Very original. I think I saw the same idea in a book written for children back in the eighties.

It was part of series called World of Tomorrow.

Look it up, you might learn something new that's as old as dirt. Again.
Darksider4477 writes:
on March 26th, 2012 at 7:17:12 PM

the article is gay so is mink
Rambo_redux writes:
on June 12th, 2015 at 2:42:39 AM

I love you,Mink !

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved