Why not? We’ve already had animated actors. Look at Mr. Magoo, who has an entire TV series based on him playing different roles.
Mickey Mouse often played different characters (e.g., the Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Bob Cratchett), as did Bugs Bunny (“What’s Opera Doc?”). The Muppets also played roles in A Muppet Christmas Carol. Jerry from Tom and Jerry danced with Gene Kelly.
A CGI star is no different than that.
I would say any movie with Sam Worthington in it. I don’t think he’s really an actor, just some low res leftover from the early 2000’s before they could get CGI characters to show emotion or anything besides bland expressions.
Mr. Clean looks creepy. I want to see Humphrey Bogart starring in new "film noir"movies…how long for this?
By the powers, you’re right! I hadn’t thought of it like that. Though they have to be established as characters in their own right first, nonetheless it’s probably inevitable.
Hell, Mickey is already kind of a CGI actor, just not in movies yet. While they’re all named “Mickey”, King Mickey in Kingdom Hearts is basically a completely different person than Mickey in Epic Mickey.
Maybe that doesn’t count, since the draw is still “Mickey!” but, they’re really different roles with different personalities. (And funnily enough, Epic Mickey treats Mickey kind of like he’s a famous actor who got famous on his cartoons, if we want to get all meta in this thread).
A CGI model created specifically to be used as an actual actor in several roles? Doubtful. I mean, you could take Ray Winstone’s mesh from Zemeckis’ 2007 movie Beowulf and have Winstone voice the same virtual body in, say, a gangster movie… But frankly, it would male more sense to use a whole new mesh, maybe smaller and less muscular to fit in better with the setting of the story.
However, a truly realistic cgi actor that looks like a real historical person, or even a well known human actor (say, Bogart or Marylin) used in several roles? Yeah, I can see that happening.
I remember there being a shitty Disney Channel movie or show about a holographic girl that was used as a pop star until she developed a personality and decided she didn’t want to be anymore or… something like that. Which, of course, isn’t a real example, but an interesting fictional one.
Wasn’t there an Al Pacino movie called S1mone or something that was about this idea?
Thank Og! I was going crazy reading the first 36 posts and thinking “WTF??? Am I the only person on the Dope who owns a copy of Looker?”
Apparently there were only a dozen basic monsters in Monsters, Inc. that were modified with different skins and appendages. They expanded that quite a bit in Monsters University. So the argument could be made that the same digital “actor” played many parts - but you’d look silly making it.
I’m going to say, by the OP’s definition, no.
A CGI character, everything is that ‘character’. Including the clothes. CGI characters don’t change clothing. You change the character. Odds are if you are in a different film, you’d be wearing a different costume.
This is totally incorrect. Perhaps you haven’t seen The Incredibles? Or Despicable Me 2? Or Meet The Robinsons? A CGI character can change clothes just like a real live actor can change clothes if his character demands it.
ETA: In fact, any animated character can too: Elmer Fudd is still Elmer Fudd even when he isn’t wearing his hunting clothes, for instance.
But no capes. Capes get caught on things.