The AI List | Little White Lies

Long Read

The AI List

15 Dec 2010

Words by Adam Woodward

Shadowy silhouette of a person with swirling patterns overlaid, set against a dark blue background.
Shadowy silhouette of a person with swirling patterns overlaid, set against a dark blue background.
It’s the new tech­nol­o­gy that has hollywood’s top stars run­ning scared, but will vir­tu­al actors ever take the place of the real thing?

Actors are cat­tle,” Alfred Hitch­cock once said. An inflam­ma­to­ry metaphor per­haps, but at the height of the stu­dio sys­tem – when actors were treat­ed like com­modi­ties to be bought, trad­ed and sold – these three words cut the film indus­try deep. In his own face­tious way, Hitch had a point. Today’s movie stars sit com­fort­ably atop the celebri­ty food chain, with the biggest names in the biz fre­quent­ly pop­u­lat­ing rich lists and pow­er rank­ings. Since the 1980s we’ve wit­nessed the rise of the brand actor; dom­i­nat­ed by a select few who are able to gen­er­ate vast per­son­al for­tunes through an exten­sive net­work of mul­ti­me­dia con­tracts. At a time when the glob­al econ­o­my is in a frag­ile state of recov­ery, how­ev­er, could this breed be about to see its suprema­cy wane?

When Dis­ney announced in 2005 that it was plug­ging back into the TRON main­frame for a big-bud­get sequel to its cult 80s sci-fi, the first ques­tion asked was whether Jeff Bridges would be repris­ing his role as ENCOM CEO Kevin Fly­nn and his dig­i­tal alter ego, Clu. To the col­lec­tive delight of TRON fans every­where, the answer was yes, but this raised anoth­er issue: Clu, being a syn­thet­ic pro­jec­tion in a vir­tu­al world, would not have aged phys­i­cal­ly. How, then, do you take The Dude back to 1982? Make-up or some degree of dig­i­tal restora­tion would do the trick to an extent. But the mak­ers of TRON: Lega­cy opt­ed for some­thing a lit­tle more radical.

In the film Bridges appears as a dig­i­tal­ly ren­dered ver­sion of his younger self; cap­tured by VFX com­pa­ny Dig­i­tal Domain and lead­ing spe­cial effects super­vi­sor Eric Bar­ba, who pre­vi­ous­ly took Brad Pitt through the sea­sons in The Curi­ous Case of Ben­jamin But­ton. In cre­at­ing a dig­i­tal Jeff, we first had to take a life cast,” explains Bar­ba. We got Jeff into our Nova con­tour rig, much like we did on Ben­jamin But­ton, and we were able to do a library of face shapes from him.

It’s actu­al­ly pret­ty com­pli­cat­ed,” he con­tin­ues. There’s a rig made, and that rig is dri­ven by an ani­ma­tor, with every­thing ref­er­enc­ing back to the library of shapes that came off Jeff’s face. We put a four-cam­era head-rig [on Jeff] dur­ing prin­ci­ple pro­duc­tion so he could step in and do the lines, walk out of scene, and then we would get an ani­ma­tor in, who was watch­ing off- screen, who we would shoot the actu­al scene with. Once we had the four-cam­era selects, we would pick up the data and those points would be tracked by a computer.”

To all intents and pur­pos­es, the Jeff Bridges in TRON: Lega­cy is not Jeff Bridges. But as Bar­ba reveals, Bridges’ pres­ence in the ear­ly pro­duc­tion stages was essen­tial for the ani­ma­tion team. Because the track­ing points live in 3D space, we had to apply them to an algo­rithm we wrote that we could then com­pare to the archive of facial shapes. But the algo­rithm, as sophis­ti­cat­ed as it is, doesn’t know the dif­fer­ence between, say, a hap­py smile or a sad smile or a surly smile. So we had to look at Jeff and just make those adjust­ments. The nuances in human expres­sions are so fine, the lit­tle things that you see, and the com­put­er may say, Well this is what the shapes did’, but it may not come across quite the same. You have to man­u­al­ly tweak it. And you keep tweak­ing it until it feels just right.”

Although the intri­ca­cies of this com­plex motion cap­ture process might not seem entire­ly nov­el in con­tem­po­rary VFX terms, Dig­i­tal Domain is way ahead in chart­ing the vir­tu­al actor fron­tier. And, as Bar­ba sug­gests, TRON: Lega­cy will be looked back on as the first ray of a new dawn. After work­ing on Ben­jamin But­ton, peo­ple asked me if what we did with Brad Pitt would open up new avenues. I think TRON: Lega­cy is the first real step for­ward in that sense. Much like the first dinosaur we saw walk in Juras­sic Park, we’re break­ing new ground now.” He con­tin­ues: It’s still an incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult process, par­tic­u­lar­ly in terms of get­ting the per­sona of the char­ac­ter right. It’s still in the arti­san stage. It’s not in the push-but­ton stage yet.”

No one can yet pre­dict how far this inno­v­a­tive dig­i­tal art form can be tak­en. How close are we to being able to repli­cate real life actors using CGI? Could we ever get to the stage where vir­tu­al actors could replace humans? Could the two even become indis­tin­guish­able? Per­haps not entire­ly, sug­gests Paul Franklin, visu­al effects super­vi­sor on Inception.

You can use dig­i­tal effects to make crea­tures or whole char­ac­ters, like in Avatar, but they are dri­ven by a real per­for­mance under­neath,” he says. There will always be a role for actors inside that some­where – whether they are in a motion cap­ture rig or what­ev­er – and audi­ences will always respond to real human emo­tion. So whether you’re film­ing an actor direct­ly or inter­pret­ing them through com­put­er graph­ics, there’s always got to be that emo­tion­al core. Com­put­ers will nev­er, or at least not for a very long time, be able to spon­ta­neous­ly gen­er­ate that.”

In the case of the TRON fran­chise, how­ev­er, Dis­ney now has an entire cat­a­logue of dig­i­tal shapes indi­vid­u­al­ly assigned to Jeff Bridges’ facial expres­sions. If addi­tion­al instal­ments are green­lit, could the real Bridges poten­tial­ly be ren­dered super­flu­ous? I think that’s the actor’s fear,” says Bar­ba, but I’ll be the first one to say, I need Jeff.’ Jeff makes Jeff Jeff’. Jeff does things no one else does; you can’t have an ani­ma­tor doing that. It won’t come across as Jeff. With­out the guid­ance of Jeff’s per­for­mance, it wouldn’t look like Jeff as soon as he moves. Jeff moves his face in a par­tic­u­lar way. If some­one else moves his face, it instant­ly stops being Jeff.”

At present the tech­nol­o­gy relies on a phys­i­cal tem­plate, but as ani­ma­tors become more adept at repli­cat­ing actors’ expres­sions and ges­tures, there may be noth­ing stop­ping future gen­er­a­tions of film­mak­ers adding entire chap­ters to famil­iar sto­ries with­out an actor inputting infor­ma­tion before­hand. There’s a whole gen­er­a­tion of film­mak­ers com­ing through who are com­plete­ly at ease with this kind of work; guys who have grown up in a world of com­put­ers and videogames,” explains Franklin. They don’t see it as a threat; they just see it as anoth­er part of the film­mak­ing process.”

As Hol­ly­wood con­tin­ues to eat itself, remakes and reboots are now par for the course. But what if a stu­dio decides it wants to regen­er­ate pub­lic inter­est in a fran­chise whose star attrac­tion is now unavail­able – be it through death or ill­ness – or sim­ply unsuit­able for the part because of age? While MGM looks increas­ing­ly unlike­ly to be able to meet Daniel Craig’s ask­ing price, thus begin­ning the search for the next Bond, why not turn to tech­nol­o­gy and restore a younger, fuller-haired Sean Con­nery to the role? Cine-purists might shud­der at the thought, but if a digi-Bond was offered at a frac­tion of the cost of the real thing, you can bet stu­dio exec­u­tives would at the very least enter­tain the idea.

With an esti­mat­ed bud­get of $150 mil­lion, the ani­ma­tors on TRON: Lega­cy had the finan­cial means to realise this new blue­print for the vir­tu­al actor. But what hap­pens when the for­mu­la becomes more afford­able? Com­put­ers are get­ting cheap­er and more pow­er­ful all the time, so you’ve got a straight­for­ward increase in horse­pow­er behind what you can do for the same price,” says Franklin. This time next year I could do cer­tain things on Incep­tion for a reduced price, which then increas­es the scope for what the film­mak­er can do.”

As the cre­ative process gets cheap­er, the pos­si­bil­i­ties become infi­nite. But how might this impact the future of con­ven­tion­al act­ing? In this post-Bran­do age, where few work­ing screen actors can claim to be true pio­neers of their craft, does the dig­i­tal medi­um sim­ply rep­re­sent the next step? Bar­ba reck­ons so. I love humans. I love actors. But I think there’s a place for this tech­nique when you have to bring some­one back or de-age them or tell a sto­ry you couldn’t ordi­nar­i­ly tell. It might only be an inter­pre­ta­tion with today’s tech­nol­o­gy as it is, but there’s no rea­son why you couldn’t bring back some of the great names some day.”

Regard­less of when the tech­nol­o­gy arrives, how­ev­er, are audi­ences ready to embrace dig­i­tal rein­car­na­tions of screen icons? The suc­cess of Avatar and Ben­jamin But­ton sug­gests so, but if com­put­er-gen­er­at­ed actors are ever to com­pete with the real thing, ani­ma­tors like Bar­ba must first over­come a num­ber of obsta­cles, name­ly an anthro­po­mor­phic phe­nom­e­non known as the uncan­ny valley’.

Coined by Japan­ese roboti­cist Masahi­ro Mori, this term denotes the point at which the lev­el of verisimil­i­tude achieved by robots and oth­er fac­sim­i­les of humans caus­es a neg­a­tive emo­tion­al response from the human observ­er. In Mori’s pro­posed graph, the pos­i­tiv­i­ty of human reac­tion plot­ted against the anthro­po­mor­phism of robots hits a dip – or val­ley’ – at the point of almost human’ real­ism. Put sim­ply, the more real­is­tic a robot appears, the more like­ly we are to find it unset­tling. Every vir­tu­al per­for­mance is rel­a­tive to the skill and artistry of the indi­vid­ual ani­ma­tor, but the more fre­quent­ly well-recog­nised actors are copied or dig­i­tal­ly res­ur­rect­ed, the high­er the like­li­hood of imper­fec­tions, no mat­ter how dis­creet, being ampli­fied becomes.

As Bar­ba admits, the great­est chal­lenge fac­ing his trade is find­ing a way to trick the human mind. From the day we come out of the womb, we see oth­er human faces. Whether it’s a baby in Africa or Indone­sia or the Unit­ed States, the expres­sions a human face makes, regard­less of lan­guage or cul­ture, are inher­ent to our species. A smile is a smile. We learn to read these nuances instant­ly – we don’t even think about it. The same thing applies with a CG head – you read it instant­ly. And when it’s not right, you know it’s not right. It comes down to an infi­nite amount of sub­tleties, whether you hit enough of them so that the audi­ence instant­ly buys the per­for­mance. When you nail it, it’s mag­ic. When you miss it, you’re back in the valley.”

For now, this phe­nom­e­non pos­es the sin­gle great­est threat to the devel­op­ment of vir­tu­al act­ing. But the cur­rent rate of tech­no­log­i­cal progress may well dic­tate a shift in atti­tudes. As a con­cept, vir­tu­al act­ing is still very much in its infan­cy, but this is a sci­ence, not a gim­mick. It may be hard to imag­ine a time when flesh-and-blood stars have become com­plete­ly out­mod­ed, but at $80 mil­lion a pop, it’s no won­der Hol­ly­wood is so keen to nur­ture the growth of the vir­tu­al actor. One thing is for cer­tain: the game is chang­ing. The rev­o­lu­tion sequence has been initiated.

You might like

Accessibility Settings

Text

Applies the Open Dyslexic font, designed to improve readability for individuals with dyslexia.

Applies a more readable font throughout the website, improving readability.

Underlines links throughout the website, making them easier to distinguish.

Adjusts the font size for improved readability.

Visuals

Reduces animations and disables autoplaying videos across the website, reducing distractions and improving focus.

Reduces the colour saturation throughout the website to create a more soothing visual experience.

Increases the contrast of elements on the website, making text and interface elements easier to distinguish.