Back in the time of Final Fantasy the producers hoped that their “actors” could be “hired” to play in other movies, but the technology was not there then.
Not sure why Tom Cruise is the actor everyone is referencing for being CGI’d when he is famous for doing his own stunts and not being replaced by CGI.
I would expect that there would first be a sort of hybrid where the virtual actor is directed at a level of minutia that a real actor wouldn’t need. Tell the AI how to inflect a line or word. Tell it to make the voice sound sad, and so on. That level would still require people who can act. And input would still be easiest if you’d just demonstrate, and the AI iterates on that.
…why would the studios do this for “the same pay?” That isn’t the way the studios will want it to work.
You’re right. it’s a cost-cutting measure for the studios. In theory, they could use actors and pay them the same, for their likenesses and voices, but they won’t.
…its one of the reasons SAG-AFTRA have gone on strike.
A spokesperson from AMPTP denied that this was on the tables. But this is on the table now and a key part of the negotiations. If the AMPTP are true to their word they would put it in writing.
Because they have already started scanning people and have been doing it for years under the radar.
Only to the extent that audiences accept the full “performance.” If they do, then we have a new business model.
When AI can create a Streep performance from scratch, say, similar to the choice scene in Sophie’s Choice, then I don’t know why they wouldn’t. That said, I’m not sure we’re close to AI that can do that. Add a transition scene where Meryl is walking down the street in a casual chat with someone? Sure, I guess so.
The OP didn’t ask about AI, the OP asked about CGI. No AI need be involved.
A lot of this type of conversation in the technology space is by people who fundamentally have a misunderstanding of what acting is. Acting is much more than “hitting your marks and saying your line”, acting is fundamentally about choices. If you’ve ever seen raw takes of a scene, you can see actors experiment with different choices in a scene which eventually gets combined in the editing into a compelling performance. Those choices still have to be made by someone, whether a tool is involved or not and the choices are the hard bit about what makes great movies memorable.
If you have the time, Youtuber Austin McConnell put out a video explaining why he chose to use AI actors in a recent project of his and goes into pretty in depth detail about the entire process, the time it took and how it was, if anything, the longest and most involved project he’s ever worked on. A small part of it is a tools problem but a huge part of it was that the process of making choices is intrinsically difficult and when he didn’t have actors he could hire to make them, he had to tediously pick through every single AI performance to find the takes that were usable for his ultimate vision.
Another video that helps dispel some of the myths is one by Vox on the 17 hour workflow required to produce a single AI image.
At the end of the day, people who are able to make great choices are a rare quantity in the world and they will have value in the landscape, AI or not and be able to accumulate disproportionate returns for the differentiating factor they bring. The tools and the landscape may look different in the future but the fundamental art of acting will remain 90+% consistent.
I stand corrected. Though I’m not sure how you’d translate a few costume shots and line readings into a whole movie without AI. I guess you can.
My points stand, though. If CGI (with or without AI) can create a Streep performance from scratch, and the public buys it, then the genie is out of the bottle.
As I understand it, the only involvement Mark Hamil had in the appearances of Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian and The Book of Boba Fett was giving his permission. They got his voice and his appearance from other footage they had of him.
I think that they still used some other (much cheaper) human for motion-capture and as an on-set stand-in (because it’s easier for the human actors to interact with someone who’s physically there). Although even the on-set stand-in was probably minimal: Most of what we saw of Luke, he was only interacting with other CGI characters (the Dark Troopers and Grogu).
I wonder who is the most still-famous actor whose image and voice can be CGIed (and /or AIed) without compensation. I’m sure that the estates of Cary Grant or Spencer Tracy or Marilyn Monroe will put up a legal stink if they were cannibalized into a production, but do, say, Edwin Booth’s heirs have a case? I’m pretty sure if you back far enough, the actors are in public domain. Maybe Edwin Booth is due for a big career revival?
It wouldn’t be a matter of how far back you go. Actors’ likenesses would be protected, if at all, by trademark law, not by copyright, and trademark has no set term, but depends on the owner using and defending the mark.
I’m wondering if a production company can instruct its CGI/ AI people to come up with an “actor” who combines the facial features of, say, the ten most popular actors. Would those actors have a valid legal complaint that their likeness were being used? How about if the instruction specified the 100 most popular actors? Is that really so different from a studio saying “Give me an Errol Flynn type”?
I keep thinking how CGI created such realistic-looking and -moving dinosaurs way back in the first Jurassic Park movie, and how far we’ve advanced since then. How much tougher can it be to make realistic humans than it was to make realistic T-Rexes?
The 3 Stooges had a contract with Columbia Pictures giving the company the rights to their characters and images on film and any other form of media included those not yet invented. Models frequently sign away the rights to their image and I’m sure other actors have. The current screen writers strike, supported by screen actors and others aims to make sure creative contributors get paid for the use of their output.
As a starting point I would replace CG or AI with hand-drawn cartoon and see where things are at legally. Can you release a full-feature cartoon where the leading character looks like a famous actor? What if it is in a genre similar to that actor’s movies? For example a full-feature, spy-thriller cartoon where the leading character looks like Tom Cruise?
I think legally (IANAL) it comes down to documentable intent. If you can get your hands on emails saying “Make the cartoon character look like Tom Cruise” then you’ve got a winnable case. If all you can show is the producer instructing the artists to draw him a handsome, athletic leading man with brown hair, and there’s zero evidence that the artists relied on Cruise specifically, much harder I think.
The dinosaurs weren’t any more realistic than the CGI humans of the same era, and probably considerably less so. We’re just a lot worse at noticing the minor flaws in a T. rex than we are for a human.
That’s quite true. I wonder who’s made the most realistic fake person on screen so far. I saw Avatar (for the first time!) last week and the blue people still looked kinda cartoonish. Of course, they were blue and funny-looking, but I wonder if anyone has tried creating super-realistic people, and what that looked like.
That depends on what you mean by “creating”. The best examples nowadays (like Luke in the modern Star Wars series) are still based on an existing human model. It also matters if you’re talking about still images or video.