is it time that action and fantasy movies just went full mo-capped CG?
Uncharted 4's action scenes were more convincing and spectacular than anything I've seen in a movie in a long time (full cg is way easier to accept than mixing live action with it), and it could tell a story that happens over the course of 30 odd years with characters aging seamlessly. uncanny valley is still an issue but at this point I think the positives outweigh the negatives. and if not yet then soon.
what if next iteration of the MCU was fully CGI with original character sculpts (ie not a recreation of an actor's appearance)? i think it could take it to another level.
>>70687096
>is it time
Well it's cheaper to just grab a camera and film for now, but I guess it depends on the genre, on what you want and what you have
>original character sculpts
Is it still a movie though? Or an anime? What about voices?
>>70687260
>Well it's cheaper to just grab a camera and film for now, but I guess it depends on the genre, on what you want and what you have
i'm saying more from the audience's perspective of "this would produce more engaging popcorn movies".
>Is it still a movie though? Or an anime? What about voices?
there are animated movies. i don't see it as a very important distinction. and yeah obviously there'd be human voice actors, though there's no reason you couldn't modify them.
This birds tattoo is fucking neat.
>>70687260
>>70687372
People will never connect witha CGI character EVER!
>muh cartoons and Pixar shit
Kids movies, duh.
>>70687096
>convincing and spectacular
Why do people enjoy action like this?
Maybe it's just because I'm getting older or something but to me fullautism "WOAH BAM ZOOK" action movies with body counts in the double digits are fucking boring
Give me a really tense thriller with a bodycount of like 4 people that we get to know about beforehand any day
>>70687096
this is the future of blockbusters. in just a century movies actually filmed with a camera and human beings will be seen as an obsolete, suboptimal, wonky, laughable, and transitory stage of cinema
>>70687096
>is it time that action and fantasy movies just went full mo-capped CG?
Maybe the next Spider Man, with Miles Morales
>>70687429
That's dumb, full cgi character is like a book's character, also
>kids movie
That's dumber, obviously there are animated movies that are not for kids and parts of the classics
>>70687096
I don't think the CG is convincing enough for the general movie audience, and it's obviously too expensive, at least if it bombs, which is a too big a possibility.
Anyway, back to my first point, in video games we forgive, praise and appreciate the graphics, because it's a game, but when it comes to movies, whether we realize is or not we expect absolute realism. In a movie, we spot the fakeness immediately and register it in a different way than in a video games. We get into a World of Warcraft situation, where we expect too much from the CGI and immediately laugh at it when it fails in some, even a minor way.
Before we can go full CG, we need accept that it's CG and not real. CG always has a slight stylization to it and it can be quite hard to swallow.
>>70687096
Full CG movies are still knee deep in uncanny valley. Even simple things look weird as hell, but if I think about strong emotions, it just looks ridiculous. Acting is an art and I don't see how some chinks on computers can truthfully replicate that. I hope it will never die, it's something truly beautiful.
In the end you can compare it to synthesizers: Synthesizers theoretically replace acoustic instruments with much more control and features. In reality while they are used frequently in popular music, they haven't even come close to replacing them. Acoustic instruments are still the preferred option.
>>70690940
>acting is an art
Kek
