OT: Final Fantasy The Movie thingy
RoyBoy
Damn! That is some quality animation. Sometimes
I have to look closely to make sure it is CGI, not
often though.
I'm probably going to get the DVD just give them
credit on that spetacular artwork........................
ArchNacho
real actors and save money? No matter how well animated a character is, it
will never be as real as the real thing, so TBH I don't really see the point
in animation if you're not going to make something that can't be done with
real actors, or have a particular style of animation. Going for total
realism is a bit pointless if you ask me... Besides, I think it's annoying
that they're making a film that has absolutely nothing to do with the Final
Fantasy series and just slap the name on it because they can and because it
will sell.
RoyBoy <aph...@usa.net> skrev i
news:u5AP6.53015$r7.79...@news1.busy1.on.home.com
RoyBoy
even more than I had thought possible. Netrunner,
check this out.
"I usually re-read The Lord of the Rings, or parts of it,
about every 18 months."
It is near the end of this page.
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010521/adams_01.htm
The reason I mention it...is because Final Fantasy is outputting
that much new material...about every 18 months a new game
comes out. Seems to be the magic number.
***
But if the goal is to make it look as real as possible,
***
That is not the goal, but it is what they are going for.
There is also the pride of taking the newest (mainstream)
artform to the next level. Also the Final Fantasy legend
is virtual.
***
why not simply use real actors and save money?
***
There is no ganrantee they would save money,
and that would break from the Final Fantasy,
genre...Final Fantasy is making itself...nono...it is
a virtual legend...a world entirely virtual. To hire
real actors is crazy talk.
If you want commercialism from a game series...
look at Lora (sp?) Croft. Now that is commercialism.
There is no comparison IMO. And that is fine...that
is what she is...and she is highly significant in her own
right. The first sex symbol that won't have to kill or
be killed tragically to maintain her image.
***
No matter how well animated a character is, it
will never be as real as the real thing,
***
I disagree, and indeed I know your wrong.
I've seen morphs that combine models faces,
and create a new model. I forget who did it,
but they combined the faces of 6 models, and
they came up with a new, beautiful model...
that did not exist. Of course animation of this
is years away...but pause for a second and
realize where computer animation was 20 years
ago. 8-bit f'n sprites! It's progression as a
medium is stagerring.
***
so TBH
I don't really see the point in animation if you're
not going to make something that can't be done
with real actors,
***
But didn't they? Although I have no idea if they
did or could do this...but couldn't they just go
through the entire movie and change the mouth
movements to match other languages.
I'm just throwing that out...just for kicks...
Also, they can put there virtual characters
through hell and back, make them bleed,
lose an arm, a sex change...you name it,
they can do it.
***
or have a particular style of animation. Going for total
realism is a bit pointless if you ask me...
***
The realism struck me...but I don't think they were
going for total realism...since there is some pretty
fantastic stuff there. It is fantasy...but giving it life...
making it as real as possible...but still not...like
Lord of the Rings and such...
***
Besides, I think it's annoying
that they're making a film that has absolutely
nothing to do with the Final Fantasy series and
just slap the name on it because they can and
because it will sell.
***
Hay, I like being pessimist about the corp. world just as
much as you...but this does not need to be the case.
Final Fantasy is more than a series...it is a legend...
it does not need to conform to the rules of other stories...
"Second, to treat our stories not as collections of fixed immutable facts
that accurately record a "history" that never happened, but as legends that
speak of mighty heroes, great events and deeds. People have spilled gallons
of ink arguing about minute inconsistencies in the Star Trek universe; a few
decades ago, they did the same over the Sherlock Holmes stories. That's
because they're treating these fictitious worlds as if they were objective
reality. There's no harm in letting them enjoy themselves in this manner,
but we should be wary of doing so ourselves. For us as designers to bind
ourselves to a single version of events in our worlds is to tie our hands
creatively and make it much more difficult to make a game replayable.
Replaying a game creates variation, and variation demands narratives that
are tolerant of it. Tales, not "truth."'
This is taken from this article:
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010521/adams_02.htm
The reason you have a point, is the sheer output
of Final Fantasy stuff. The games have a turnover
of about 18 months or something now...then you got
the books, this and that and the big fat cat. (Tyrell)
I can also draw a parallel to Star Trek, Star Wars...
many popular stories outputting lots of stuff just
to satisfy consumer demand. I tried to collect
all the STNG novels...I grew out of that...but
it excited me nonetheless. So I guess I'm saying...
"you don't get it". But some people are making
a lot of money doing this...so I'll play it safe and
say that it isn't clear cut. But as long as the quality
is there...then there is nothing to really complain
about.
When sequels lack quality...they flop...I think...
hmmmm...well at least the ones of consequence...
"I know what you did last summer" stuff doesn't
count.
--
"Smiles free. Do you want fries with that?"
"If the Truth is dynamic; how will it ever be found?" - RoyBoy
http://members.home.com/blade2019/
Nemo
ArchNacho <ana...@online.no> a écrit dans le message :
plDP6.1186$lM3....@news1.oke.nextra.no...
> But if the goal is to make it look as real as possible, why not simply use
> real actors and save money?
If someone intend to do just what I've seen in the trailer, it will cost
something like twice the price of the most exepensive movie done yet. Or
they could do something like Starwars EP1, let the actors playing in front
of green screens and computerize all the set. Nothing really interesting.
I think it's a good experiment. And images are wonderful.
And by the way, I saw some vistas that could have been seen in the FF 7 or
8...
Nemo.
(got already my ticket :)
ArchNacho
> But if the goal is to make it look as real as possible,
> ***
>
> That is not the goal, but it is what they are going for.
> There is also the pride of taking the newest (mainstream)
> artform to the next level.
I wouldn't call it a new artform. It's still animation, only that it's
computer animation... Personally, I prefer "old-fashioned" animation (both
animé and Disney), but I guess there's room for this as well.
> ***
> why not simply use real actors and save money?
> ***
>
> There is no ganrantee they would save money,
> and that would break from the Final Fantasy,
> genre...Final Fantasy is making itself...nono...it is
> a virtual legend...a world entirely virtual. To hire
> real actors is crazy talk.
Come on, they'll probably make a live-action movie next time around, anyway,
if they think that can make money. Since it obviously doesn't have to have
anything to do with the FF-series, they can make anything they want...
> If you want commercialism from a game series...
> look at Lora (sp?) Croft. Now that is commercialism.
No, seriously, that's nothing compared to Final Fantasy... There are *9*
Final Fantasy games out already, for chrissakes, and they continue to pump
out more and more with shorter and shorter intervals, while the quality
keeps dropping. Sure, they look better, but everything else has been getting
worse and worse since FF6...
> ***
> No matter how well animated a character is, it
> will never be as real as the real thing,
> ***
>
> I disagree, and indeed I know your wrong.
> I've seen morphs that combine models faces,
> and create a new model. I forget who did it,
> but they combined the faces of 6 models, and
> they came up with a new, beautiful model...
> that did not exist. Of course animation of this
> is years away...but pause for a second and
> realize where computer animation was 20 years
> ago. 8-bit f'n sprites! It's progression as a
> medium is stagerring.
But what's the big advantage here? Emotions will never be portrayed as
realistically by an animated character as by a good actor. An animated
character has no "soul", if you will. It's like an "andy" in DADoES compared
to a human... I certainly know that I will never feel the same way about an
animated character as a real person, even if that person is just acting, and
TBH I've always felt that computer animation seems more "fake" than
traditional animation.
> ***
> so TBH
> I don't really see the point in animation if you're
> not going to make something that can't be done
> with real actors,
> ***
>
> But didn't they? Although I have no idea if they
> did or could do this...but couldn't they just go
> through the entire movie and change the mouth
> movements to match other languages.
I've never liked dubbing, anyway :o)
> I'm just throwing that out...just for kicks...
> Also, they can put there virtual characters
> through hell and back, make them bleed,
> lose an arm, a sex change...you name it,
> they can do it.
They can do that with real characters too. Of course they can't actually do
it, but they can make it appear that way.
> ***
> Besides, I think it's annoying
> that they're making a film that has absolutely
> nothing to do with the Final Fantasy series and
> just slap the name on it because they can and
> because it will sell.
> ***
>
> Hay, I like being pessimist about the corp. world just as
> much as you...but this does not need to be the case.
> Final Fantasy is more than a series...it is a legend...
> it does not need to conform to the rules of other stories...
No offense, but aren't you getting a wee bit fanboy-ish here?
Final Fantasy was originally a clearly defined setting that remained pretty
much the same for several games, even if the games were supposed to be set
on different worlds. Then, the designers decided that they wanted to do
something different, but they didn't want to loose the income the name alone
gives, so instead of doing the "honest" thing and starting a new series they
simply started "modifying" the FF setting until it was completely
unrecognizable. If that isn't commercialism, I don't know what is...
> The reason you have a point, is the sheer output
> of Final Fantasy stuff. The games have a turnover
> of about 18 months or something now...then you got
> the books, this and that and the big fat cat. (Tyrell)
Isn't 18 months a bit much? If they didn't have to "adapt" to developing for
the PS2, they'd probably have FFX out in Japan already...
> I can also draw a parallel to Star Trek, Star Wars...
> many popular stories outputting lots of stuff just
> to satisfy consumer demand. I tried to collect
> all the STNG novels...I grew out of that...but
> it excited me nonetheless. So I guess I'm saying...
> "you don't get it".
Maybe I don't, but if that's the case, I think I'm glad...
> But some people are making
> a lot of money doing this...so I'll play it safe and
> say that it isn't clear cut. But as long as the quality
> is there...then there is nothing to really complain
> about.
I think there's also something to complain about when a company like Square
doesn't dare to call a shovel a shovel because they're afraid of loosing
their beloved Final Fantasy-dollars...
> When sequels lack quality...they flop...I think...
No, that's what we tell ourselves when we can't handle the fact that we've
already been turned into the consumer-robots they want us to be...
Netrunner
>I put this at the top because it is a big coincidence...
>even more than I had thought possible. Netrunner,
>check this out.
Oooohhh... Just got that feeling like I did sometimes in school,
where I was happily daydreaming and suddenly the teacher called my
name to answer a question. W-w-w-what? Oh, ummm, ahem, oh yes ...
Although strangely enough I somehow usually got the answer right
anyway, but thats beside the point ...
>"I usually re-read The Lord of the Rings, or parts of it,
>about every 18 months."
>
>It is near the end of this page.
>
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010521/adams_01.htm
I read it. Very interesting. Nothing new of course. Figured that
stuff out a couple of decades ago, but hey, its always worth reading
about it. Tolkien was a genius in language. He played around
beautifully with English and his created languages, generated from the
study of real ancient languages, were very well defined and
self-consistent.
>The reason I mention it...is because Final Fantasy is outputting
>that much new material...about every 18 months a new game
>comes out. Seems to be the magic number.
Sounds like a good number to me. Coincidentally capturing the leaps
in corresponding technology.
>***
>But if the goal is to make it look as real as possible,
>***
>
>That is not the goal, but it is what they are going for.
>There is also the pride of taking the newest (mainstream)
>artform to the next level. Also the Final Fantasy legend
>is virtual.
Realism in a fantasy environment is the goal. There are some humans,
but they are virtual in the first place! And everything around them
is virtual.
>***
>why not simply use real actors and save money?
>***
>
>There is no ganrantee they would save money,
>and that would break from the Final Fantasy,
>genre...Final Fantasy is making itself...nono...it is
>a virtual legend...a world entirely virtual. To hire
>real actors is crazy talk.
Firstly Final Fantasy - the games, are animated, so animating the
movie is a logical step. Secondly, they obviously do use voice
actors. Thirdly, have you seen the other game-to-movie creations with
real actors? - Most of them are crap. Fourthly, almost everything I
watched in the trailer would have to be created on the computer for a
real-life movie anyway. Considering all the above, having real actors
on screen would probably add very little, whether the cost turned out
more or less.
>If you want commercialism from a game series...
>look at Lora (sp?) Croft. Now that is commercialism.
>There is no comparison IMO. And that is fine...that
>is what she is...and she is highly significant in her own
>right. The first sex symbol that won't have to kill or
>be killed tragically to maintain her image.
What is commercialism? Creating something the public is willing to
pay for because they like it? Seems like a good thing to me ...
I'm old enough not to have wet dreams about computer animated
characters, but yes, I'm eagerly awaiting seeing Angelina Jolie doing
the LC thing across a big screen!
>***
>No matter how well animated a character is, it
>will never be as real as the real thing,
>***
>
>I disagree, and indeed I know your wrong.
>I've seen morphs that combine models faces,
>and create a new model. I forget who did it,
>but they combined the faces of 6 models, and
>they came up with a new, beautiful model...
>that did not exist.
Much experimentation along those lines, where features are taken from
different people and combined actually results in not-attractive
faces. But then, of course you know about symmetry maps applied to
facial features which show a direct correlation between symmetrical
measurements and perceived beauty? (Applies no matter what genetic
background.) Obviously used in animation to create beautiful heros
and heroines ... And yes, it won't be long before they look
photo-relistic and give a convincing performance. Then all we need to
do is combine them with an advanced A.I. and off they go to live their
own lives ..
> Of course animation of this
>is years away...but pause for a second and
>realize where computer animation was 20 years
>ago. 8-bit f'n sprites! It's progression as a
>medium is stagerring.
As I mentioned elsewhere, it is progressing at what might be termed an
exponential rate. Hey, in the early eighties, I experimented with
creating games with graphics sprites, etc. And an acquaintance of
mine was (in about 1983/4) creating hunter-prey programs leaving
trails that created art pictures. Not sure if anyone will actually
follow what I'm on about, but at least I know what I mean ... (Hey,
its after 3 a.m. and I've had a few ... Gimme a break.)
>***
>so TBH
>I don't really see the point in animation if you're
>not going to make something that can't be done
>with real actors,
>***
>
>But didn't they? Although I have no idea if they
>did or could do this...but couldn't they just go
>through the entire movie and change the mouth
>movements to match other languages.
>I'm just throwing that out...just for kicks...
>Also, they can put there virtual characters
>through hell and back, make them bleed,
>lose an arm, a sex change...you name it,
>they can do it.
Have you seen the trailer? Seems to me, they do some that would
require green screen for large sections and some which requires CGI of
the characters themselves. I agree that it is better to use real
actors where this is an advantage, but in this movie, I get the
impression that there would be little point.
>***
>or have a particular style of animation. Going for total
>realism is a bit pointless if you ask me...
>***
>
>The realism struck me...but I don't think they were
>going for total realism...since there is some pretty
>fantastic stuff there. It is fantasy...but giving it life...
>making it as real as possible...but still not...like
>Lord of the Rings and such...
Yes and ... well yes. Realistic within the fantasy world created.
i.e. the human characters look real and you can believe in the world
and its creatures. As for LotR, well obviously thats costing an order
of magnitude more to create. And it is looking good so far ...
>***
>Besides, I think it's annoying
>that they're making a film that has absolutely
>nothing to do with the Final Fantasy series and
>just slap the name on it because they can and
>because it will sell.
>***
>
>Hay, I like being pessimist about the corp. world just as
>much as you...but this does not need to be the case.
>Final Fantasy is more than a series...it is a legend...
>it does not need to conform to the rules of other stories...
>
>"Second, to treat our stories not as collections of fixed immutable facts
>that accurately record a "history" that never happened, but as legends that
>speak of mighty heroes, great events and deeds. People have spilled gallons
>of ink arguing about minute inconsistencies in the Star Trek universe; a few
>decades ago, they did the same over the Sherlock Holmes stories. That's
>because they're treating these fictitious worlds as if they were objective
>reality. There's no harm in letting them enjoy themselves in this manner,
>but we should be wary of doing so ourselves. For us as designers to bind
>ourselves to a single version of events in our worlds is to tie our hands
>creatively and make it much more difficult to make a game replayable.
>Replaying a game creates variation, and variation demands narratives that
>are tolerant of it. Tales, not "truth."'
Pardon, who are you?
>This is taken from this article:
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010521/adams_02.htm
Oh, I see. Intelligent comment indeed, though I don't see the harm in
creating a self-consistent fantasy universe.
>The reason you have a point, is the sheer output
>of Final Fantasy stuff. The games have a turnover
>of about 18 months or something now...then you got
>the books, this and that and the big fat cat. (Tyrell)
There are a lot of people working on these things - it is a successful
business enterprise.
>I can also draw a parallel to Star Trek, Star Wars...
>many popular stories outputting lots of stuff just
>to satisfy consumer demand. I tried to collect
>all the STNG novels...I grew out of that...but
>it excited me nonetheless. So I guess I'm saying...
>"you don't get it". But some people are making
>a lot of money doing this...so I'll play it safe and
>say that it isn't clear cut. But as long as the quality
>is there...then there is nothing to really complain
>about.
Well, the point is that they are satisfying a consumer demand. Some
people may stand up and say, "No. I am going to create my vision and
if you like it, great, if you don't, I'll be poor, but at least I'll
have done what I envisioned." Others stand up and say, "What do lots
of people want? - okay we'll create that and earn lots of money from
it."
Trying to complete a collection of something is a driving need in many
people. It becomes difficult if those things are expensive, hard to
find or proliferating wildly. But people still try and some succeed.
Whether or not that is a good thing is an individual matter.
>When sequels lack quality...they flop...I think...
>hmmmm...well at least the ones of consequence...
>"I know what you did last summer" stuff doesn't
>count.
Or Police Academy, or.. well there are lots of case where they should
just not bother with a second one, let alone a fifth ...
Did I answer your question, if indeed you were actually asking a
questoin .. (I have to stop now as I keep having to correct my typing
and it is getting annoying.
Netrunner.
--
Who am I?
--
Netrunner
>> But if the goal is to make it look as real as possible,
>> ***
>>
>> That is not the goal, but it is what they are going for.
>> There is also the pride of taking the newest (mainstream)
>> artform to the next level.
>
>I wouldn't call it a new artform. It's still animation, only that it's
>computer animation...
Which is not the same thing. Some computer animation is not drawn at
all - it is purely created by the computer program and only the end
result looks like a piece of movie. Animating a wireframe model
according to characteristics defined in a program is also not
traditinoal animation, (creating individual pictures by hand).
> Personally, I prefer "old-fashioned" animation (both
>animé and Disney), but I guess there's room for this as well.
What is old-fashioned? Is Tron (1982) old-fashioned? What about The
Last Starfighter (1984)? Akira, for instance, is a late 80's
creation. You don't really think modern animé is created from cel
drawings do you?
Aside: Did you know there is a Tron 2 in the works? It is due out
next year.
blah ...
>> If you want commercialism from a game series...
>> look at Lora (sp?) Croft. Now that is commercialism.
Lara Croft. How dare you spell my girlfriend's name wrong! He he.
(p.s. The Tomb Raider movie is out mid-June in the USA and mid-July in
the UK. The trailer looks great ...)
>
>No, seriously, that's nothing compared to Final Fantasy... There are *9*
>Final Fantasy games out already, for chrissakes, and they continue to pump
>out more and more with shorter and shorter intervals, while the quality
>keeps dropping. Sure, they look better, but everything else has been getting
>worse and worse since FF6...
Your opinion. I disagree. Final Fantasy is great. All the way!
blah ...
>But what's the big advantage here? Emotions will never be portrayed as
>realistically by an animated character as by a good actor. An animated
>character has no "soul", if you will. It's like an "andy" in DADoES compared
>to a human... I certainly know that I will never feel the same way about an
>animated character as a real person, even if that person is just acting, and
>TBH I've always felt that computer animation seems more "fake" than
>traditional animation.
The computer animated people are becoming exponentially more realistic
each year. It is only a matter of time before you realise the folly
of your statements ...
blah ...
>No, that's what we tell ourselves when we can't handle the fact that we've
>already been turned into the consumer-robots they want us to be...
I w i l l b u y t h e n e x t g am e . . .
. . .
RoyBoy
I wouldn't call it a new art form.
It's still animation, only that it's computer animation...
In a word, crazytalk! Saying that is akin to saying
paintings and animation are the same thing. They are
both pictures...animation is just a series of paintings.
***
Personally, I prefer "old-fashioned" animation
(both animé and Disney), but I guess there's room for this as well.
***
They do have the strong points...
and nostalgic qualities...like vinyl.
RoyBoy:
> There is no ganrantee they would save money,
> and that would break from the Final Fantasy,
> genre...Final Fantasy is making itself...nono...it is
> a virtual legend...a world entirely virtual. To hire
> real actors is crazy talk.
Archnacho:
***
Come on, they'll probably make a live-action movie next time around, anyway,
if they think that can make money. Since it obviously doesn't have to have
anything to do with the FF-series, they can make anything they want...
****
They can, but they should never do that.
And if they know what is good for them...they won't.
This is not only from an artistic standpoint, but an economic
one based on demographics.
RoyBoy:
> If you want commercialism from a game series...
> look at Lora (sp?) Croft. Now that is commercialism.
Archnacho:
***
No, seriously, that's nothing compared to Final Fantasy... There are *9*
Final Fantasy games out already, for chrissakes, and they continue to pump
out more and more with shorter and shorter intervals,
***
Your right...FF has much more depth and creative breath.
Hence more games are to be expected. Also, keep in mind,
FF has had more time than Lara.
***
while the quality keeps dropping. Sure, they look better,
but everything else has been getting
worse and worse since FF6...
***
Is it fair to say that you say the quality is dropping...is because
it breaks from what you expect? I have a neighbor who is
fanboyish...who would probably disagree with ya.
***
But what's the big advantage here? Emotions will never be portrayed as
realistically by an animated character as by a good actor.
***
The movie trailer convinced me otherwise. Just because it is virtual...
it does not lose its ability to express what the artist wants to express.
And if they do their job with care and excellence...it can evoke
more than reality normally allows. Like BR does...
***
An animated character has no "soul", if you will.
It's like an "andy" in DADoES compared to a human...
I certainly know that I will never feel the same way about an
animated character as a real person, even if that person is just
acting,
***
Well I can't argue that...but I will say that art can
bring things alive. Breath the fire of life into the lifeless.
***
and TBH I've always felt that computer animation
seems more "fake" than traditional animation.
***
In the 20th century I would agree...this is the 21st
century now. And as Netrunner pointed out...
traditional animation got a kick in the ass in quality
thanks to computers.
RoyBoy:
> I'm just throwing that out...just for kicks...
> Also, they can put there virtual characters
> through hell and back, make them bleed,
> lose an arm, a sex change...you name it,
> they can do it.
Archnacho:
***
They can do that with real characters too.
Of course they can't actually do
it, but they can make it appear that way.
***
Hmmmm....well they can...but I know it is
a S/FX...so it does not bother me...but in
the virtual world there is no line...it is all 'IN'
that world...type thing. But it is the same
difference...fake stuff happening to real people...
fake stuff happening to fake people.
RoyBoy:
> Hay, I like being pessimist about the corp. world just as
> much as you...but this does not need to be the case.
> Final Fantasy is more than a series...it is a legend...
> it does not need to conform to the rules of other stories...
Archnacho:
***
No offense, but aren't you getting a wee bit fanboy-ish here?
***
None taken. I am not a fan of Final Fantasy, but I can
understand the other side of the reality of the situation,
and the 'rules' governing legends and tales.
***
Final Fantasy was originally a clearly defined setting that
remained pretty much the same for several games,
even if the games were supposed to be set
on different worlds.
***
It starts getting pretty played...
***
Then, the designers decided that they wanted to do
something different,
***
Thank god their creativity remained intact.
***
but they didn't want to loose the
income the name alone gives, so instead of doing the
"honest" thing and starting a new series they
simply started "modifying" the FF setting until
it was completely unrecognizable.
If that isn't commercialism, I don't know what is...
***
The name is recognizable for quality and creativity.
If it is the
same team working on the same genre of game...
why would they change names???
It just gets confusing. Take for example Wing
Commander...the game has made great leaps
and bounds...it is not the same game series it
started off as. But they build on their success,
and keep the saga under one name.
***
Isn't 18 months a bit much? If they didn't have to "adapt" to developing for
the PS2, they'd probably have FFX out in Japan already...
***
It seems to be the ideal number...if it gets shorter than that
then it starts getting dangerous. But that is for them and
consumers to decide.
***
Maybe I don't, but if that's the case, I think I'm glad...
***
Hehehe...ignorance is bliss...but it gets you into more
trouble than its worth.
***
I think there's also something to complain about when a company like Square
doesn't dare to call a shovel a shovel because they're afraid of loosing
their beloved Final Fantasy-dollars...
***
Well, I didn't mention this before, but from the start of the series...
the goal was to make money. So nothing has changed all of a sudden.
***
No, that's what we tell ourselves when we can't handle the fact that we've
already been turned into the consumer-robots they want us to be...
***
Netrunner funny! bleh....blah!
The choice is always with the consumer...
and a lack of quality does and will translate
into a bad day...and damage of reputation.
The quality is there...it just does not meet
your criteria. So, you decide to expand you
criteria...or part ways amicably.
RoyBoy
To me...doing it mainly for the money.
***
But then, of course you know about symmetry maps applied to
facial features which show a direct correlation between symmetrical
measurements and perceived beauty?
***
Yup...thats what they were actually demonstrating there.
It was a TLC show I think. The "Science of Sex"...and
they got the universals of human beauty...
Youth, Health, Symmetry....ummmmmm....i think that's it...
***
Then all we need to do is combine them with an advanced A.I.
and off they go to live their own lives ..
***
You think we would have to create supporting A.I. for a
virtual entourage...and Betty Ford Clinic?
***
And an acquaintance of mine was (in about 1983/4)
creating hunter-prey programs leaving
trails that created art pictures.
***
Did they sell?
>Have you seen the trailer?
Yah. Tried to get the 640x400 version...damn QT wouldn't
let me save it! God, I love to hate QT and Mac.
***
I agree that it is better to use real
actors where this is an advantage, but in this movie, I get the
impression that there would be little point.
***
Same here...but the advantage of real actors
is getting pretty vague. I can understand that
things like body language have to be markedly
improved...but its tenously there.
>"Second, to treat our stories not as collections of fixed immutable
>facts [blah...blah] are tolerant of it. Tales, not "truth."'
Netrunner:
>Pardon, who are you?
RoyBoy:
>This is taken from this article:
>http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010521/adams_02.htm
Netrunner:
>Oh, I see. Intelligent comment indeed, though I don't see
>the harm in creating a self-consistent fantasy universe.
The harm is that it limits creativity, and that it should only
be attempted by individuals...even the best and
brilliant can only output so much under the constraint
of consistency in genre(s) that defy it.
Netrunner:
***
Did I answer your question,
if indeed you were actually asking a questoin
***
Yupper. Just wanted a little peak into the depth that is LotR.
Also, for some reason I neglected the techonological reality
that 18 months has.
Netrunner
>>What is commercialism?
>
>To me...doing it mainly for the money.
The definition of a successful business is that they eventually make a
profit. If you don't, you're out of business. However, within the
constraints of making a profit, it is possible for many to be doing
something useful, or even artistically creative. And when it comes to
games and movies, if you enjoy yourself making something that people
really enjoy, so that many people pay for it, then thats great. Of
course, if the money people restrict the artistic people too much,
that can end up with scenes not happening or getting cut, silly
voiceovers, stupid endings ....
>***
>But then, of course you know about symmetry maps applied to
>facial features which show a direct correlation between symmetrical
>measurements and perceived beauty?
>***
>
>Yup...thats what they were actually demonstrating there.
>It was a TLC show I think. The "Science of Sex"...and
>they got the universals of human beauty...
>Youth, Health, Symmetry....ummmmmm....i think that's it...
Well, at least I'm fairly healthy ...
>***
>Then all we need to do is combine them with an advanced A.I.
>and off they go to live their own lives ..
>***
>
>You think we would have to create supporting A.I. for a
>virtual entourage...and Betty Ford Clinic?
There have been a number of terrific stories written about A.I.'s
getting loose in the network and causing all sorts of problems ...
>***
>And an acquaintance of mine was (in about 1983/4)
>creating hunter-prey programs leaving
>trails that created art pictures.
>***
>
>Did they sell?
At the time, he was the resident artist at the university I was at.
Money from grants, state of the art Sun workstation, etc. He was
exploring the world of computer generated art and generally having a
good time. He was never commercially oriented. In later years, he
did a few things for the first series of Babylon 5 and was invited to
set up shop doing the whole space animation thing for them, but
declined the offer. Yes, I know, some of us have difficulty
understanding why, but each to their own I suppose.
>>Have you seen the trailer?
>
>Yah. Tried to get the 640x400 version...damn QT wouldn't
>let me save it! God, I love to hate QT and Mac.
You should be able to have it written to your browser cache. You can
then copy it out of there.
Well, must get to work ...
Netrunner.
Netrunner
>In the 20th century I would agree...this is the 21st
>century now. And as Netrunner pointed out...
>traditional animation got a kick in the ass in quality
>thanks to computers.
Not happy with the q-word. I am saying that the ability to create
"realism" of environment and character movement, expression, etc. has
moved on a great deal. Taking a (sober) step back, I would like to
just have that little reminder - having a better paintbrush doesn't
necessarily make you a better painter. i.e. an animated story still
needs to be a good story! Having an animated human look "realistic"
isn't a necessity for all animation.
I'll always love Jungle Book ...
Netrunner.
--
"Look for the bare necessities ..."
--
ArchNacho
> movie is a logical step. Secondly, they obviously do use voice
> actors. Thirdly, have you seen the other game-to-movie creations with
> real actors? - Most of them are crap. Fourthly, almost everything I
> watched in the trailer would have to be created on the computer for a
> real-life movie anyway. Considering all the above, having real actors
> on screen would probably add very little, whether the cost turned out
> more or less.
Well, I guess I should clear things up a little here. I never said I think
it's a bad idea to make Final Fantasy: The Movie an animated movie. What I
said was that I don't think they should strive for realism. The "animation"
or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't look realistic in the games, so
why should it in the movie? The other thing I've pointed out, however, is
that the movie has very little, if anything at all, to do with the game
series, and I doubt many of the people working on the film have had anything
to do with the games, so maybe it doesn't matter. What I have a problem with
is that they try to market this movie as something Final Fantasy-related,
even though it isn't, just because they have the rights to the name and can
use it to sell just about anything they want. I think they should either
make something that has more relation to the games, or call it what it is;
"an-animated-movie-about-a-girl-and-some-marines-which-has-nothing-to-do-wit
h-Final-Fantasy-even-though-it's-made-by-Square's-Hawaii-department". They'd
probably have to shorten that down a bit, of course, but you get the
point...
> What is commercialism? Creating something the public is willing to
> pay for because they like it? Seems like a good thing to me ...
I think pure commercialism is when you create something you know is crap but
at the same time know people will pay for, so you release it anyway.
Alternatively when you advertise a product as something it isn't, because
you know that will boost sales, which I think is the case with the FF-movie.
Of course it's possible to have quality and commercialism meet somewhere
in-between, but do you honestly think that a movie, for instance,
"streamlined" to make as many people as possible like it enough to pay for
it, is better than a movie made the way the director and other people behind
it want to make it?
My personal opinion is at least that it would be better if movie studios
were willing to focus on smaller groups when making movies, instead of
trying to please everyone, which is why I generally prefer Asian movies.
> I'm old enough not to have wet dreams about computer animated
> characters, but yes, I'm eagerly awaiting seeing Angelina Jolie doing
> the LC thing across a big screen!
I'll probably see it too, but I don't expect to like it as much as a really
good movie. I admit that they've got me too, but I don't like it, and I'm
trying to fight it :o)
> Much experimentation along those lines, where features are taken from
> different people and combined actually results in not-attractive
> faces. But then, of course you know about symmetry maps applied to
> facial features which show a direct correlation between symmetrical
> measurements and perceived beauty? (Applies no matter what genetic
> background.)
I've read about this, but I think it's a bit exaggerated. According to this
method of "measuring" beauty, Michelle Pfeiffer is supposedly the most
beautiful woman in the world, and that certainly doesn't correspond with my
beauty ideals...
> Obviously used in animation to create beautiful heros
> and heroines ... And yes, it won't be long before they look
> photo-realistic and give a convincing performance. Then all we need to
> do is combine them with an advanced A.I. and off they go to live their
> own lives ..
I'm sorry, but why exactly would their performances become more convincing?
They'd still be made by the same people, so why would that change?
> >The realism struck me...but I don't think they were
> >going for total realism...since there is some pretty
> >fantastic stuff there. It is fantasy...but giving it life...
Well, according to a preview I just read, the characters basically look
nice, but seem lifeless and there's "a creepy vacancy in their eyes makes
them look like the walking dead". He also wrote that the movie doesn't
succeed in "drawing the audience into it's realm", the voice-overs
supposedly don't fit the characters, the villain is extremely stereotyped,
and that the story is basically a bit too "creative"... There's also some
complaints about them trying to recreate reality instead of creating a
fantasy, which is the impression I'm getting of this movie as well. After
all, even just the little thing that the movie takes place on Earth is a
major break with Final Fantasy conventions...
> Well, the point is that they are satisfying a consumer demand. Some
> people may stand up and say, "No. I am going to create my vision and
> if you like it, great, if you don't, I'll be poor, but at least I'll
> have done what I envisioned."
Personally, I'd have preferred if everyone did this, but maybe I'm alone
here...
> Others stand up and say, "What do lots
> of people want? - okay we'll create that and earn lots of money from
> it."
But can the result possibly be good if they're doing what others want
instead of what they themselves want?
> >When sequels lack quality...they flop...I think...
> >hmmmm...well at least the ones of consequence...
> >"I know what you did last summer" stuff doesn't
> >count.
>
> Or Police Academy, or.. well there are lots of case where they should
> just not bother with a second one, let alone a fifth ...
Wasn't it you who just wrote "Creating something the public is willing to
pay for because they like it? Seems like a good thing to me...". Lots of
people paid for and saw the Police Academy movies, and the producers made
money. Isn't that how you like it?
RoyBoy
>In the 20th century I would agree...this is the 21st
>century now. And as Netrunner pointed out...
>traditional animation got a kick in the ass in quality
>thanks to computers.
Netrunner:
***
Not happy with the q-word. I am saying that the ability to create
"realism" of environment and character movement, expression, etc. has
moved on a great deal. Taking a (sober) step back, I would like to
just have that little reminder - having a better paintbrush doesn't
necessarily make you a better painter. i.e. an animated story still
needs to be a good story! Having an animated human look "realistic"
isn't a necessity for all animation.
***
My bad.
RoyBoy
You should be able to have it written to your browser cache.
You can then copy it out of there.
Ya I tried that at the time...but no go. It was setup
specifically not to be saved. Kept on telling me...
'this file cannot be saved'...did a search for it...no
go.
ArchNacho
paste it into Go!Zilla. At least that's what I did, and it worked well.
Anyway, the full-screen version can be found here (copy and paste into a
download manager):
http://a1056.g.akamai.net/5/1056/51/3299cff4be8d62/1a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80
669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382f668c9329e0375e8177ae955ca3799026392f861c
f309cfb61c230a40578f1/final_fantasy_tlr3_fs.l.mov
and the 480x260 version can be found here:
http://a1056.g.akamai.net/5/1056/51/3299cff4be8d62/1a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80
669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382f668c9329e0375e8177ae955ca3799026392f861c
f309cfb61c230a40578f1/final_fantasy_tlr3_480.mov
RoyBoy <aph...@usa.net> skrev i
news:2ZiQ6.56698$r7.85...@news1.busy1.on.home.com
RoyBoy
Didn't need the d/l manager, I gotz plenty o'bandwidth.
FYI to anyone else wanting to d/l these...the
final_fantasy_tlr3_fs.l.mov is 41,610 KB and
final_fantasy_tlr3_480.mov is 26,296 KB.
***
You can open the HTML document, extract the file location from there and
paste it into Go!Zilla. At least that's what I did, and it worked well.
Anyway, the full-screen version can be found here (copy and paste into a
download manager):
http://a1056.g.akamai.net/5/1056/51/3299cff4be8d62/1a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80
669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382f668c9329e0375e8177ae955ca3799026392f861c
f309cfb61c230a40578f1/final_fantasy_tlr3_fs.l.mov
and the 480x260 version can be found here:
http://a1056.g.akamai.net/5/1056/51/3299cff4be8d62/1a1a1aaa2198c627970773d80
669d84574a8d80d3cb12453c02589f25382f668c9329e0375e8177ae955ca3799026392f861c
f309cfb61c230a40578f1/final_fantasy_tlr3_480.mov
***
Netrunner
whole, I wasn't actually disagreeing with you - but we are limited in
our discussion by the forum in which we are communicating.
>Well, I guess I should clear things up a little here. I never said I think
>it's a bad idea to make Final Fantasy: The Movie an animated movie.
Didn't suggest you did.
> What I said was that I don't think they should strive for realism. The "animation"
>or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't look realistic in the games, so
>why should it in the movie?
This is where I do disagree with you. I turn the question around. If
they are moving forwards and changing to another medium, why shouldn't
they strive for realism? Perhaps within the limits of current
computer games, it is not an option, but with the resources afforded
to a major animated movie, they can do a great deal more.
> The other thing I've pointed out, however, is
>that the movie has very little, if anything at all, to do with the game
>series, and I doubt many of the people working on the film have had anything
>to do with the games, so maybe it doesn't matter. What I have a problem with
>is that they try to market this movie as something Final Fantasy-related,
>even though it isn't, just because they have the rights to the name and can
>use it to sell just about anything they want. I think they should either
>make something that has more relation to the games, or call it what it is;
>"an-animated-movie-about-a-girl-and-some-marines-which-has-nothing-to-do-wit
>h-Final-Fantasy-even-though-it's-made-by-Square's-Hawaii-department". They'd
>probably have to shorten that down a bit, of course, but you get the
>point...
Absolutely. I haven't seen the movie itself, so can't make a good
judgement, but I certainly agree that if the movie is nothing to do
with the game series, even in a progressing sort of way, then they are
just cashing in on a name and are disgraceful people. Not the first,
of course.
>> What is commercialism? Creating something the public is willing to
>> pay for because they like it? Seems like a good thing to me ...
>
>I think pure commercialism is when you create something you know is crap but
>at the same time know people will pay for, so you release it anyway.
>Alternatively when you advertise a product as something it isn't, because
>you know that will boost sales, which I think is the case with the FF-movie.
>Of course it's possible to have quality and commercialism meet somewhere
>in-between, but do you honestly think that a movie, for instance,
>"streamlined" to make as many people as possible like it enough to pay for
>it, is better than a movie made the way the director and other people behind
>it want to make it?
Well pure commercialism doesn't necessarily mean the product is crap.
Where the price is fixed, (i.e. a movie ticket costs the same
whichever movie you watch), then of course there will be some people
pandering to certain lower tastes, (as anyone who has seen any Adam
Sandler movie can attest to). The FF movie has to be sold to a
considerably larger audience than just FF game fans. I don't disagree
that Hollywood in particular is looking for ROI as the most important
element, but thankfully there are other film-makers in the world.
>My personal opinion is at least that it would be better if movie studios
>were willing to focus on smaller groups when making movies, instead of
>trying to please everyone, which is why I generally prefer Asian movies.
Or British movies. Or French movies. Or ...
Yes I know some of the big Hollywood studios are only intersted in the
big Summer or Christmas blockbuster, but the fact that you and I might
not be so entertained by such movies doesn't mean they shouldn't be
made. If lots of people want to see them, then that is a fact of
life.
>> I'm old enough not to have wet dreams about computer animated
>> characters, but yes, I'm eagerly awaiting seeing Angelina Jolie doing
>> the LC thing across a big screen!
>
>I'll probably see it too, but I don't expect to like it as much as a really
>good movie. I admit that they've got me too, but I don't like it, and I'm
>trying to fight it :o)
Why? If you enjoy the movie, then why should you beat yourself up
about it simply because it is linked to an already popular name and
had some big bucks behind the sets/effects? Some movies are there to
make us think - others are there just to entertain.
>> Much experimentation along those lines, where features are taken from
>> different people and combined actually results in not-attractive
>> faces. But then, of course you know about symmetry maps applied to
>> facial features which show a direct correlation between symmetrical
>> measurements and perceived beauty? (Applies no matter what genetic
>> background.)
>
>I've read about this, but I think it's a bit exaggerated. According to this
>method of "measuring" beauty, Michelle Pfeiffer is supposedly the most
>beautiful woman in the world, and that certainly doesn't correspond with my
>beauty ideals...
Don't particularly fancy her myself, but you'll agree she is not ugly,
right? The symmetry map thing is much more general than that and a
number of people, (e.g. Liz Hurley, who was in the BBC show that most
recently visited the concept), fit the map fairly exactly. This does
not mean she is the most beautiful, but that she is at the top end of
good looking, when comparing faces. The most interesting thing to me
was the fact that it worked across races, etc. (both subject and
"beholder"). With other evidence, this indicates that much of the
perception of beauty is not a cultural, but a genetically programmed
view.
>> Obviously used in animation to create beautiful heros
>> and heroines ... And yes, it won't be long before they look
>> photo-realistic and give a convincing performance. Then all we need to
>> do is combine them with an advanced A.I. and off they go to live their
>> own lives ..
>
>I'm sorry, but why exactly would their performances become more convincing?
>They'd still be made by the same people, so why would that change?
"And" not "because". They become more convincing through experience
of animation technique. Not because the characters look pretty, but
as well as.
>> >The realism struck me...but I don't think they were
>> >going for total realism...since there is some pretty
>> >fantastic stuff there. It is fantasy...but giving it life...
>
>Well, according to a preview I just read, the characters basically look
>nice, but seem lifeless and there's "a creepy vacancy in their eyes makes
>them look like the walking dead".
This reminds me so much of when I first saw "The Last Starfighter".
The animation of spaceships was good, but they were too perfect and
pristine. Animation has moved on, so animated spaceships look more
realistic now, but they can still do better. Animating people is
vastly more complex than animating spaceships and so will take time to
get more realistic, but in some years time, animated eyes won't look
so dead. Does the fact they can't achieve perfection straight away
mean they shouldn't try? I think they should.
> He also wrote that the movie doesn't
>succeed in "drawing the audience into it's realm", the voice-overs
>supposedly don't fit the characters, the villain is extremely stereotyped,
>and that the story is basically a bit too "creative"... There's also some
>complaints about them trying to recreate reality instead of creating a
>fantasy, which is the impression I'm getting of this movie as well. After
>all, even just the little thing that the movie takes place on Earth is a
>major break with Final Fantasy conventions...
If thats the case, I have no argument against that point.
>> Well, the point is that they are satisfying a consumer demand. Some
>> people may stand up and say, "No. I am going to create my vision and
>> if you like it, great, if you don't, I'll be poor, but at least I'll
>> have done what I envisioned."
>
>Personally, I'd have preferred if everyone did this, but maybe I'm alone
>here...
Obviously you're not alone, but lets face facts - we live in a
commercial world. It would be lovely if we could all do what we
wanted without worrying about our loved ones having a roof over their
heads and something to eat. But life isn't like that. Maybe if the
future goes the Star Trek way, there will be more creative options
open to us.
>> Others stand up and say, "What do lots
>> of people want? - okay we'll create that and earn lots of money from
>> it."
>
>But can the result possibly be good if they're doing what others want
>instead of what they themselves want?
Sometimes. It is not a black and white situation. Obviously catering
for the bottom 60% will exclude 40%, but not everyone does that.
>> >When sequels lack quality...they flop...I think...
>> >hmmmm...well at least the ones of consequence...
>> >"I know what you did last summer" stuff doesn't
>> >count.
>>
>> Or Police Academy, or.. well there are lots of case where they should
>> just not bother with a second one, let alone a fifth ...
>
>Wasn't it you who just wrote "Creating something the public is willing to
>pay for because they like it? Seems like a good thing to me...". Lots of
>people paid for and saw the Police Academy movies, and the producers made
>money. Isn't that how you like it?
As I intimated higher up, if there is a market for a stupid "comedy",
then we shouldn't stop people making them. Many of us will decide
that we have better things to do than watch that stuff, but that
doesn't mean we should stop others getting some pleasure from it. We
can't make the rest of humanity become intelligent and discriminating
and nor should we be allowed to - the path of making everyone believe
the same as we do is the path to fascisitic dictatorship. It is my
opinion that I would prefer people make more movies of the calibre of
Blade Runner instead of dire crap, but I can't make everyone enjoy the
same as me. I do feel vindicated to some extent when films like BR
rate so highly on favourite movie surveys and PA films don't register.
To summarise, I think that commercialism is a basic fundamental in our
present society, but that it needn't be bad, or limited to the lowest
common denominator. There will always be people who will be satisfied
with aiming at making just a small profit, and thus be prepared to
make something more interesting that will satisfy the 20% instead of
the 80% - if the returns are more than the costs, then the company
stays in business and the film-maker goes on to make more.
Netrunner.
Netrunner
Seems I have a QT setting along the lines of, "save to cache
automatically". This happens as part of the download, (because the
file is actually downloaded, so is sitting on your computer when you
play it). Well, it worked for me. (Latest QT on PC.)
RoyBoy
>He also wrote that the movie doesn't
>succeed in "drawing the audience into it's realm", the voice-overs
>supposedly don't fit the characters, the villain is extremely stereotyped,
>and that the story is basically a bit too "creative"... There's also some
>complaints about them trying to recreate reality instead of creating a
>fantasy, which is the impression I'm getting of this movie as well. After
>all, even just the little thing that the movie takes place on Earth is a
>major break with Final Fantasy conventions...
Darn...that is a good point(s).