Computer-Generated Characters in Movies

Imagine big movie stars such as Tom Cruise, Jennifer Lopez, or Celine Dion out of work and forced to work at McDonalds flipping hamburgers. This is what some people see the foreseeable future of all our favorite (or not-so-favorite) actors being. There have already been a few feature length movies that feature a computer-generated character as one of the main characters. At the rate digital technology is advancing, it is quite possible that digital actors will completely replace humans. This is the fear of many actors today, that they will be “driven out of business” by computer-generated characters.

There are still many hurdles to leap in the details of creating a photo realistic, completely CG human. Many animation companies are actively pursuing this task. Hairs have always been a major technical challenge, since each hair moves independently, and there are thousands of hairs on a head. Another difficult area is fabric, since every wrinkle has to be calculated, otherwise the fabric has a surreal smooth effect to it. But these challenges are being tackled because virtual actors, also called synthespians, have some distinct advantages over real people. Synthespians don’t have schedules of their own, so they will never be busy for a re-shoot. Shooting a child synthespian is far easier than having to deal with real children and their temper tantrums. One of the major bonuses is that synthespians don’t require a $30 million salary and bodyguards to do a film. [1] But even so, many people in the special effects industry question whether completely replacing human actors makes sense. In economic terms, Jim Blinn states, “A dinosaur doesn't exist, so it's practical to simulate it. With human beings, however, having a staff of 20 people all working on the lighting, the modeling, and the motion might not be a great trade-off, because you can replace that whole team with one human actor who can do what the director wants.” Computer-generated actors are more practical when the character is a fantasy character, or the character is performing stunts too dangerous or impractical for humans.

In Titanic (1997), the scores of people falling off the boat into the water are computer generated. This was far easier and cheaper than hiring that many extras and trying to get them to fall off a boat. In Gladiator (2000), massive crowds are computer generated, also much cheaper and far easier to coordinate than hiring that many extras. In both these movies, however, the CG characters are only seen from a distance and are not main characters. There are no close-up shots of these CG actors. However, in Star Wars, The Phantom Menace (1999), Jar Jar, one of the main characters of the movie, is not an actor in a suit, but a completely computer-generated character. As one of the main characters, there are plenty of close-up shots of him in the movie. He is a bouncy character, who shows lots of emotion. Another example of a main character being completely computer generated is Gollum in Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers (2002). The interesting thing about both of these characters, is that neither of them is human. In fact, you will never see a completely computer generated human acting in a movie with real human actors. For one, this would serve no purpose. But in practical terms, the human face is one of the greatest challenges 3D animators are facing right now. It is extremely difficult, although not impossible, to create a believable human face. The face is the predominant means through which we read other people and understand what they are trying to communicate. [2] As such, it is far easier to abstract the face to convey different emotions than to recreate a copy of the face. This even applies to extreme examples such as a smiley face. The icon can convey an expression easier than a picture of a face can. By creating these computer-generated characters that do not look like humans, there is more room to add caricature-like features to them to exaggerate emotions and help convey meaning.

What is acting? An actor’s goal, whether it be in a movie or in a live performance, is to fool the audience into believing they are something they are not. Actors have a plethora of tools at their disposal, from facial expressions to body gestures. A good actor knows how to manipulate their bodies using these tools. In this sense, animators, both traditional and computer, can be considered actors as well. Instead of manipulating their bodies, they manipulate lines on paper, or polygons in the computer. A good animator can use these tools and apply them effectively to different media. An animator makes you believe that these lines on the paper, or the collection of polygons in the computer have feelings and emotions. For this reason, many animation companies hire actors rather than people with the technical skills of animation, because actors have more experience with these tools (Pat Nason, 2002). How many people cried when they saw Bambi’s mother die? That was nothing more than a few spots of color being projected on a screen, but the animators were so good that they were able to elicit that much emotion from the viewers.

Another important aspect of acting, at least in Western culture, is the concept of the movie star. We often get excited about a movie because it has our favorite actor in it. We often talk about good actors and bad actors. But none of this makes sense when applied to CG characters. No one knows the name of the person who did the animation of Shrek (2001). If any name of a real person is associated with Shrek, it is Mike Myers who did the voice. This is a common misconception with animated characters. The person who did the voice is often referred to as the actor. In reality, it is a combination of the person doing the voices and the animator creating the visual aspect of the character that are the actors behind a virtual actor. But movie stars are a very important part of the culture. We idolize movie stars. The news is peppered with the latest gossip about the stars. There is much more to an actor than the part in the movie that they play. Is this possible with computer-generated characters? So far we haven’t seen any kind of mainstream appreciation for the animators behind the synthespians we have come to adore. We don’t rush to see the latest movie with the leading character animated by Bay Raitt, (who was responsible for the intricate facial expressions of Gollum.)

Can computer-generated characters ever replace genuine, human actors? No. Human actors provide things that cannot be fulfilled by virtual characters; namely, the actor behind the character. But computer-animated characters will continue to be vital in the production of many films, because of the practical advantages for things like stunts and fantasy characters.

References

1. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/specialfx2/humans.html
2. “Pause and Effect,” Mark Stephen Meadows, New Riders, 2003
3. “Acting for Animators: A Complete Guide to Performance Animation,” Ed Hooks, Heineman, 2003
4. http://www.sacbee.com
5. http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/synthetic.htm
6. http://www.kwcc.com/works/sp/lead.html
7. http://www.arwen-undomiel.com/Gollum_gallery.html
8. http://www24.brinkster.com/tagr/jarjar/photo.html