The CGI Paradigm Shift

LastoneOn

Well-Known Member
It was addressed. In the very first post of this thread:

Seems like these sorts of “perpetual likeness use” contracts might be increasingly used. I know some actors have created high-definition scans of their bodies, facial expressions, gestures, and recorded their speech for this sort of thing. Apparently Lucasfilm has been doing this for a while.
Its probably been said before. This tech just over exposes everything, it all become kind of a commodity. Let actors age, the stories change, the movies, tv shows end. Be creative not repetitive. Carrie Fisher died, well, that was sad in real life - but damn can you do something creative to mitigate that in a fictional movie?? No, we just tech'd it. That's not creative. Doesn't matter whether or not you liked her role in the last ones, whatever. DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT Blow up the Falcon for crying out loud and quit running in the same rut.
 
Last edited:

LastoneOn

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
In another respect, how are they going to explain the work pause? Or are they just going to go crickets and assume the public won’t notice?
They don't have to explain anything you guys. They don't owe the public any explanation. If they want all it has to be is "We quit work because the fund aren't there right now" That's it. Public says "oh, ok. wow that's too bad" and goes onto the next headline crawl. That's it. No scandal, no backstory, just plain and simple.
 

Dan Deesnee

Well-Known Member
I think EU is going to be delayed significantly, and the end result isn’t going to look like the concept art.

The reason being, we do not yet know what themed entertainment is actually going to look like in a post-covid world. Every attraction or park green-lit by a major player in the business is going to wind up being filtered by the collective experience of 2020, especially in how it manages the risks of gathering large numbers of people. Queue lines will evolve. Pre-show spaces will be modified. Segmentation of ride vehicles will be analyzed. How people interact with a park, with each other, and with staff is going to be under a lens.

Covid mitigation is now a baseline that future attractions will be designed to... because you don’t spend a couple billion dollars just to have it happen again sometime in the design life of the park... 30 years or more. Just like you design a park in central Florida for a hurricane or a So. Cal. one assuming it will have to weather a big quake.

I respect your opinion, but completely disagree. Some things will be modified long term, but generally things will go back to mostly normal within a couple years. We're living in the moment right now with covid, but in 5 years it will be a distant memory. I remember seeing stories about how people would never fly on airplanes again after 9/11...

Viruses are not predictable natural disasters either like your examples. They don't design cities to withstand meteor impacts and they won't make much attraction design change in the future for another viral outbreak. Sure maybe the VERY next few attractions might have some modifications, but that's a short term reaction to our current situation is all.
 

techgeek

Well-Known Member
We're living in the moment right now with covid, but in 5 years it will be a distant memory. I remember seeing stories about how people would never fly on airplanes again after 9/11...

WDW literally just finished a massive project reworking park entrances to accommodate enhanced security protocols that have been in place since and as a direct result of 9/11.

Viruses are very cyclical and predictable as unavoidable realities. In just the last few decades, we saw significant and luckily relatively localized outbreaks of H1N1, SARS, and Ebola. Disneyland itself dealt with fallout from a measles outbreak. Science has been telling us for years that with increased globalization, new disease can come from any vector at any time. Covid is bad, but it isn’t currently even a worst-case scenario and we don’t yet know how or if Covid will adapt or mutate over time. People may have short memories (although I doubt any of us now living will ‘forget’ 2020), but the institutional memory of business is written by controlling risk to profit lines.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out... I imagine some of this plexiglass is never coming down, though.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Its probably been said before. This tech just over exposes everything, it all become kind of a commodity. Let actors age, the stories change, the movies, tv shows end. Be creative not repetitive. Carrie Fisher died, well, that was sad in real life - but damn can you do something creative to mitigate that in a fictional movie?? No, we just tech'd it. That's not creative. Doesn't matter whether or not you liked her role in the last ones, whatever. DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT Blow up the Falcon for crying out loud and quite running in the same rut.
I sort of see those as two separate things. The technology actually allows them to be much more creative than ever, they're just not using the tech to be more creative.

Fifteen years ago, if an actor died, they basically didn't have a lot of options other than to have the character they played die, too (off camera!). When Terrance Howard didn't like his contract with Marvel for Iron Man 2, they literally just replaced him for another black actor (Don Cheadle, who is great, but still- like black people are just interchangeable and nobody is supposed to notice?).

Photorealistic CGI "puppeteering" (which is what they did/tried to do with Grand Moff Tarkin) would give them unlimited options for better ways to handle these things. Nevermind young-ifying Harrison Ford so we could have perpetually-young Han Solo AND Indiana Jones! The tech allows them to be way more creative (and to screw over any actor willing to sell out their own likeness for money), if they'd just use it well.
 

EPCOT-O.G.

Well-Known Member
When Terrance Howard didn't like his contract with Marvel for Iron Man 2, they literally just replaced him for another black actor (Don Cheadle, who is great, but still- like black people are just interchangeable and nobody is supposed to notice?).

The Hulk, Fandral, Howard Stark, Red Skull, and Thanos have all been played by different actors over the course of the MCU.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
The Hulk, Fandral, Howard Stark, Red Skull, and Thanos have all been played by different actors over the course of the MCU.
Right. Wasn't trying to make a racial statement, just saying that the color of their skin was like all these two actors had in common. Lots of other examples where this hyper-realistic CGI could have helped them solve these problems much more creatively!
 

LastoneOn

Well-Known Member
I sort of see those as two separate things. The technology actually allows them to be much more creative than ever, they're just not using the tech to be more creative.

Fifteen years ago, if an actor died, they basically didn't have a lot of options other than to have the character they played die, too (off camera!). When Terrance Howard didn't like his contract with Marvel for Iron Man 2, they literally just replaced him for another black actor (Don Cheadle, who is great, but still- like black people are just interchangeable and nobody is supposed to notice?).

Photorealistic CGI "puppeteering" (which is what they did/tried to do with Grand Moff Tarkin) would give them unlimited options for better ways to handle these things. Nevermind young-ifying Harrison Ford so we could have perpetually-young Han Solo AND Indiana Jones! The tech allows them to be way more creative (and to screw over any actor willing to sell out their own likeness for money), if they'd just use it well.
We don't need perpetual Indiana Jones, or anybody else. I think there is a natural, unforced amount of usage a particular character has. I'll try to use shorter sentences because Lilo doesn't like my long ones (he being a forum veteran you see). Anyway. I'd rather have a great character / story line that ends after a few movies then ANOTHER great character and so on, instead of never-ending runs of the same character over and over. Just gets stale.

Bond is a good example. Light years between the original Connery/Moore series and what is there now. And all this talk of making Bond a woman. Bah, make a woman just as compelling and watchable as Bond. Just move on, be creative and create something new.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
We don't need perpetual Indiana Jones, or anybody else. I think there is a natural, unforced amount of usage a particular character has. I'll try to use shorter sentences because Lilo doesn't like my long ones (he being a forum veteran you see). Anyway. I'd rather have a great character / story line that ends after a few movies then ANOTHER great character and so on, instead of never-ending runs of the same character over and over. Just gets stale.

Bond is a good example. Light years between the original Connery/Moore series and what is there now. And all this talk of making Bond a woman. Bah, make a woman just as compelling and watchable as Bond. Just move on, be creative and create something new.
I get what you mean. I don't like when studios rely in churning out sequels rather than moving forward with new and creative ideas.

But comic books (and old serials) have a long tradition of doing both. Despite all the alternative timelines, Peter Parker is at his best as an eternally an awkward high school kid. So was Indiana Jones. Traditionally, they've always had to do a reset or reboot of continuity to bring in a new actor and refresh a character or explore origins. They've already been using CGI to change that, and the new technology is going to make that even cheaper and easier.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
This would actually be great for us the customer. The better Universal does, the more pressure it puts on Disney to do better. Chapek can cut cut cut and all it does is send more paying customers to Universal. Our next trip we have several days where we paid for hotel rooms at Universal even though we have DVC rooms available to us at no extra cost. That means meals at Universal, plus the hotel income. Universal gave us a great deal on AP's and we are using them. I personally hope that Universal takes this opportunity and runs with it.
So you prefer Universal. That's cool. I wonder if they have fan forums you could post to?
 

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
I think EU is going to be delayed significantly, and the end result isn’t going to look like the concept art.

The reason being, we do not yet know what themed entertainment is actually going to look like in a post-covid world. Every attraction or park green-lit by a major player in the business is going to wind up being filtered by the collective experience of 2020, especially in how it manages the risks of gathering large numbers of people. Queue lines will evolve. Pre-show spaces will be modified. Segmentation of ride vehicles will be analyzed. How people interact with a park, with each other, and with staff is going to be under a lens.
Precisely. I think it would be a terrible idea for Universal (or Disney, for that matter) to push on with an entire new theme park right now. We have no idea what tourism or the theme park experience is going to look like by the time it would be finished. Best to at least take a pause and figure out whether they need to adapt their business rather than charging ahead assuming nothing will change.

They don't have to explain anything you guys. They don't owe the public any explanation. If they want all it has to be is "We quit work because the fund aren't there right now" That's it. Public says "oh, ok. wow that's too bad" and goes onto the next headline crawl. That's it. No scandal, no backstory, just plain and simple.
Again, of course they don't have to explain anything. Everyone is aware of what has been going on in the world during 2020.
 

techgeek

Well-Known Member
This is not correct. The new enhanced security with metal detectors began in December of 2015. Things ramped up significantly more after Vegas 2017.

You’re right, of course... I think I had it in my head the metal detectors have been there far longer, but Disney held out on them for a long time relative to other venues.

Bag checks were almost immediately in response to 9/11 though. Before that, I don’t recall any formal security screening at all.
 

TrainChasers

Well-Known Member
You’re right, of course... I think I had it in my head the metal detectors have been there far longer, but Disney held out on them for a long time relative to other venues.

Bag checks were almost immediately in response to 9/11 though. Before that, I don’t recall any formal security screening at all.
Correct. I think there was a time they tested metal detectors after 9/11 too. I didn’t see them, but I remember hearing about it.

In Disneyland, they didn’t even have security checking bags until after 2015. It was just the entrance CM’s at the bag check.
 

PG 134

Active Member
You’re right, of course... I think I had it in my head the metal detectors have been there far longer, but Disney held out on them for a long time relative to other venues.

Bag checks were almost immediately in response to 9/11 though. Before that, I don’t recall any formal security screening at all.
The events that caused Disney to add metal detectors at WDW were the November 2015 attacks in Paris. Like stated above, metal detectors were placed at park entrances within a month using a third party security company to operate the machines. Third party security company was quickly replaced by WDW Security within a month or so after that.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom