Greetings Econo Mysts,
Wrapping up with conversing with Eric,
Eric Nillson writes
I'm not sure, but we might be talking about different things. It appears you
are talking about the creation of a cyber actor which could, in theory, act
on the stage, live, while people watch.
I'm talking about something much more limited and almost within today's
computing power (excepting the well-known problem with realistic hair
movement): digital images of "people" that exist solely within the computer
(and on the screen) that appear "real."
Doyle
I'm out of steam on the topic, but I liked this exchange. The cultural
issues are profound, and there is lots to explore in this region. It would
be nice to make a movie about this area of the industry using simulation in
place of people.
Eric
In some way, actors already ARE cyber-people. They pretend to have certain
emotions, etc, in their acting. But this is only rarely "true" feelings that
we see on the screen; movie-goers know this--it isn't real.
Doyle
Yes acting is not authentic in regard to emotions. But movies move us
anyway. Most of the time less is more with regard to using the face in a
movie. The close-up allows the actor to be minimal (Clint Eastwood) and yet
people can read in what they think it means and find some actors
extraordinarily meaningful.
Eric
One interesting possiblity is that once an "actor" in a movie is simply a
set of mathematical equations or data streams, then it might be possible to
have the viewer select certain attributes of an actor as they watch the
movie. That is, once an action movie is made with a virtual actor, then I
might be able to input data about my body into a super-DVD player (from the
future) and watch this action movie with (now) me apparently in the staring
role.
Doyle
I'm glad you feel free to play with the idea. To me that indicates that
tools are flexible. In our hands they are favorable to us.
thanks for the conversation,
Doyle
