Check out this video (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004580002-2006100428,00.html) of the Simpson's title sequence using real actors.
THEY GOT THEM ALL WRONG!!!!!
Marge should have long blue hair (like Illirya on "Angel"), Lisa should be a 12 year old blonde girl with spikey hair and Bart should have spikey hair too!
Yep.
And the point of live "Simpsons" is?....
I thought they did a decent job on that intro.
I found these pics online.
Apparently, someone really built the Simpson's house.
I wonder where it's located?
(http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/1576/66thesimpsons8kf.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
Those pics don't look real; they look CG to me.
I remember seeing a newspaper articleo on that years ago, and yes, they were fake. It was funny because the article told us that the house was supposedly built on a street in my city, and people were wandering all up and down this street trying to find said house, to no avail.
I wondered if they were fake.
The reason I thought they were real was because of the shadows.
Look closely at them.
The way the shadows are...it looks totally real.
Oh well...they still look pretty neat! :)
ASHTHECAT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wondered if they were fake.
> The reason I thought they were real was because of
> the shadows.
> Look closely at them.
> The way the shadows are...it looks totally real.
>
Ash, that's nothing. With Persistance of Vision (POV) ray tracing techniques, CGI is totally photorealistic, especially for still shots. There's been some work out there that is totally uncanny. Doing realistic shadows is nothing these days.
In general, the reason you don't see true photorealism in motion picture CGI is three fold:
(1) Cost. It takes a lot of computational horsepower to do photorealistic ray tracing, especially if you want things done in a certain time frame.
(2) Motion. It is a lot harder to make things MOVE realistically than just render a still shot. Lighting can move or change dynamically, and the motion of the character/object itself may be hard to model.
Coupling that with (1) above, you got roughly 30 stills per second of motion picture and rendering cost/time becomes significant.
(3) The Uncanny Valley. The producers of modern CGI films (Dreamworks, Pixar, Blue Sky are the Biggies, plus also Big Idea and some other fx only shops) trend away from seeking true photorealism. If they are off by just a little bit, the result is an audience that is 'turned off' by the images due to a psychological effect known as the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley). This is why they mostly go for stylized characters, such as those seen in The Incredibles, Shrek, etc.
I saw Final Fantasy at the theatre when it first came out solely due to an interest in the technology (my goodness but that story was dumb). The UV hit me pretty hard with that film; the characters just did not look quite right (mostly in the focus of the eyes and a bit too much facial symmetry) and I was a bit uncomfortable watching them. It's pretty wild.
(1)-(3) said, consider also these points:
Some of the early screen tests for Finding Nemo had such a high degree of photorealism one would be very hard pressed to distinguish between the CGI images and the actual footage shot with an underwater camera. The two on the DVD that come to mind are a whale swimming and a shark swimming. The lighting/shading achievements with their underwater shots was just unreal. But, they purposefully toned it down a bit to help capture the notion that it was a fantasy world.
Ditto Shrek. They worked out Princess Fiona to such a degree of photorealism that they had to back off; she just did not fit the make-believe world they were trying to create.
I know I'm in the minority on this forum in saying positives about CGI, but make no mistake. In the hands of the experts at places like Pixar, the techniques CAN produce visuals that cannot be distinguished from real photographs (and I've done some FBI training on making the determination if a photographic image has been digitally altered).
What I found to be unrealistic about those mock-Simpson house pictures is the barrel distortion I perceived from the lens used to either take those photographs of a scale house, or mock up the taking of a picture using the computer. Just look at how the angles on the house convene at such sharp slants. To achieve the barrel distortion of that magnitude on a full scale house, one would need to use an absurdly wide angle lens, something in the range of 5mm.
Oh, and the live-action Simpsons thing was pretty cool, but I didn't see the miracle of actors and sets as beneficial to the cartoon series though. Though it's about time someone did something like this? I'm sure it's been done unprofessionally before and never to the approval of Matt Groening and friends, so it doesn't surprise me they go for something like this right now. That show is becoming the new Flintstones.
Wow, I'm such a double poster, it's not even funny anymore. Give me a break!
I think that is surprisingly good. The links in the article didn't work, so try this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=49IDp76kjPw
The girl doesn't look right, but no one could look like Lisa Simpson.
-Ed
The girl playing Lisa Simpson should be a 12 year old blonde girl with spikey hair, NOT an 8 year old girl with straight reedhair.
Why twelve? Lisa is in the second grade, which would make 8 about right.
I'm talking about REALISTICALLY.
Lisa shouldn't even be a kid after all this time. The youngest she can be right now is twelve.
AS for her being in second grade...maybe she's not such a good student after all.
What the HELL are you talking about?
Anyway, the Simpsons house is real. They built it in Nevada years ago and had a contest where someone could win it, I believe.
I wouldn't mind living in that Simpson house, it'd be a good place for a party!
I'm talking about REALISTICALLY.
So how old is Mickey Mouse...realistically?
Once you count the fingers and come up short, 'realistically' goes out the window
Or as the great MST3K once said, "Repeat to yourself 'It's just a show, I should really just relax'"
1-Let's not compare a human girl to a walking, talking mouse, OK?
2-I'm finding very hard to believe that Lisa hasn't aged AT ALL from the '80s till now.
plan9superfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1-Let's not compare a human girl to a walking,
> talking mouse, OK?
>
> 2-I'm finding very hard to believe that Lisa
> hasn't aged AT ALL from the '80s till now.
Um, I have to ask: why are we worrying about Lisa Simpson and none of the other characters?
I'm pretty sure animated shows can do what they bloody well want with their character's developments.
Or am I not paying enough attention to this thread to know what's going on?
I'm sorry. I guess you are right.
As the wise and might Bugs Bunny once said, "Anything can happen in an animated cartoon".