Hollywood has no new ideas or actors?

[ctc]

>even most those will decline the second time around because it is not real.

I think you have to be careful using yourself as a template for public opinion. I’d wonder how many people would really care; especially if you hype it up ahead of time as the next big thing. Most people want an eyeball massage from their films.... they don’t care all that much about the film so long as it kills some time. (Otherwise, do you think all them “opposites find love” movies would get made?) And all it takes is that one magical combo to sell the idea. Look at the “Young Flynn” thing.

Or “Forrest Gump.” Bringing back dead celebrities was cool ‘cos it gave our parents generation warm fuzzies. Ten years from now teaming up Harrison Ford and Adam West for a remake of “Buckaroo Banzai” will undoubtably have the same effect.

>The advancement of CGI will only allow these tributes to the people be performed better and a clearer vision of what the director wanted.

Right there, you’ve hit on my complaint with CGI: most of the time NOBODY has a vision and CGI lets ‘em throw as much stuff at the screen as possible, overwhelming visual arc with detail but no composition. It’s PERFECT for shallow films. Not that it HAS to result in a shallow film, but it’s a great crutch for mediocre directors, writers, etc. Adding dead celebrities is just another layer of hype and another kind of stunt casting. “John Wayne stars in the 2012 remake of ‘Precilla: Queen of the Desert!”

Don C.

[jimsmegos]

“John Wayne stars in the 2012 remake of ‘Precilla: Queen of the Desert!”

Don C.

Personally I would recast the Duke in Rush Hour opposite Jackie Chan. "Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, pilgrim?"

Another fun one could be slapping Clint Eastwood in the original Superman movie as had been rumored back in the day. Sure Clint's not dead yet but it's only a matter of time

[huedell]

>even most those will decline the second time around because it is not real.

I think you have to be careful using yourself as a template for public opinion. I’d wonder how many people would really care; especially if you hype it up ahead of time as the next big thing. Most people want an eyeball massage from their films....

That's true.

I always try to remind people on the music board I post...you are NOT the
usual customer. You are an uppity/passionate music fan who posts on
Internet message baords etc etc. (you get the point).

...same goes for the bulk of posters here on the MM... many of us here might feel betrayed w/a CGI younger Harrison Ford
in a younger Indy Jones movie, but it'll sell to the majority.

[Mikey]

Abbott and Costello redo Tommy Boy

[SeattleEd]

That's true.

I always try to remind people on the music board I post...you are NOT the
usual customer. You are an uppity/passionate music fan who posts on
Internet message baords etc etc. (you get the point).

...same goes for the bulk of posters here on the MM... many of us here might feel betrayed w/a CGI younger Harrison Ford
in a younger Indy Jones movie, but it'll sell to the majority.

Very true.

What counts is what the average consumer will ingest and spend their earnings when it comes to final products. Be it flash in the pan or long term.
You have your FANatics and passerbys.

I just hope they do justice to the new Yellow Submarine.

[Brazoo]

I hear what you guys are saying - but I think the technology is there for little cameos and gimmicky stuff - but it's a LONG way off from CG being seamless to reality in terms of fully rendered humans.

Then the performances have to be there too. Just because you have a character that looks identical to Bogart doesn't mean that's going to give you a great performance. The animation and voice acting required would have to be staggering, and I don't see that being sustained for a feature at this point. Again, cameos and short scenes - sure.

[Brazoo]

>The advancement of CGI will only allow these tributes to the people be performed better and a clearer vision of what the director wanted.

Right there, you’ve hit on my complaint with CGI: most of the time NOBODY has a vision and CGI lets ‘em throw as much stuff at the screen as possible, overwhelming visual arc with detail but no composition. It’s PERFECT for shallow films. Not that it HAS to result in a shallow film, but it’s a great crutch for mediocre directors, writers, etc. Adding dead celebrities is just another layer of hype and another kind of stunt casting. “John Wayne stars in the 2012 remake of ‘Precilla: Queen of the Desert!”

Don C.

Oh yeah?! Then how come there are so many of these filmmakers being called "visionary" all the time right now? Huh? Obviously they have TONS of vision if they're calling them "visionary"!

Are you saying people who make movie trailers are liars Don?!!!

[Megotu]

I see wholly original cgi actors soon. Even the voices will be completely synthetic with pitch arranged by auto tune. People who never were doing things never done in places that never have been.

[Hector]

If George Lucas wants to bring Humphrey Bogart back to life, good.

If George Lucas is writing the dialogue and directing the performance, bad.

Exactly...

[Hector]

But c'mon...if they could make a young Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill for all new Original Star Wars movies....I'd watch.

But only if he can bring Irvin Kershner back to life to direct.

[ctc]

>it's a LONG way off from CG being seamless to reality

That I disagree with. There’s a HUGE push for this sort of thing going on (look how much cash was sunk into making Avatar) and each feature provides more completed templates/vectors/skins and textures that can be used over and over. (Notice how many monsters move like apes since the 90's CGI “Mighty Joe Young?”) I’ve seen completely digital news anchors from Japan that are pretty close. ‘Course they’ve got limited movement and are pretty much just talking heads.... but that sort of thing allows focused development of realistic expression and such. (Especially since you’ll get really specific feedback from the audience.) They even have fully automated ones.... but those don’t quite work so good since the repetoire of conversation is still limited. For now.

>how come there are so many of these filmmakers being called "visionary" all the time right now?

Ghostbusters.

Okay.... that needs explaining. I can remember when the first Ghostbusters movie came out it was almost universally panned by critics. And then it made a LOT of money. Since then I’ve noticed the professional critics tend to be REALLY charitable to big budget genre films.

Don C.