Autonomous Robots Could be the Future of High Flying Stunts in Hollywood (cnet.com) 41
From a report: Visitors to Disneyland and other Disney resorts could end up seeing robots tackling some pretty crazy, death-defying stunts usually reserved for Marvel superheroes and Star Wars Jedi Masters. Disney's latest Stuntronics experiments with robots include teaching them to crawl, row and now, more impressively, perform daring aerial acrobatics. A new video features the robots propelled into the sky to spin and leap like robotic superheroes. And they look even more advanced and human-like than the last time we saw them. The robots, initially nicknamed Stickman, work by using on-board accelerometers, gyroscopes and laser range-finding data to determine how to perform impressive stunts like single and double backflips.
Robots? (Score:1)
Isn't all that CGI already anyway?
Though as always, why do we still have humans around if we can just as easily replace them with {CGI,robots,direct mind manipulation,...}?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been wondering that for years. I mean, considering the wooden acting that is the standard these days, that could've been done in CGI two decades ago, why pay them millions when you could render a more appealing face with more emotion in a sweatshop in Korea?
Re: (Score:1)
> I mean, considering the wooden acting that is the standard these days
Are you just being controversial or do you actually consider there being a strong decline in acting in film/TV since....? I'm trying to figure what decade you'd be setting as "peak non-woodeness" (50s, 60s 70s?) and when and how this decline actually came into play. Also, is there a total higher volume of media produced, thus dropping the overall average? Curious to hear your methodology for this explosive statement!
Re: (Score:2)
I think plot, originality and content has generally gone down hill in recent decades- the writing has suffered. I think acting by and large has got better. If you look at a lot of TV or movies made in the 60's, 70's, and 80's there is a lot more shoddy acting that made it through to the final cut than today.
There is still bad acting even today, but even low budget stuff frequently has a better quality actor than say something from the 1970s. John Wayne? William Shatner? Silvester Stallone? They've bee
Re: (Score:2)
Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).
What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one. Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelit
Re: (Score:2)
Are you counting films or television? I've seen numerous mentions of a "golden age" of scripted television ( a far cry from doomsday predictions of everything becoming reality TV a decade ago).
What would you point to in terms of originality/plot/content in previous decades that is unmatched in the current one.
Not being argumentative - I see these kinds of statements all the time and wonder if its just rose colored glasses on the past or folks having legitimate points. Certainly you can point to sequelitis, remakes, etc, but those are certainly not new in Hollywood, certainly not in the past 60-70 years.
In any age there is good and bad films and television programs. You can probably pick out an excellently written show and a poorly written show from any decade. Picking out individual shows doesn't really help define a trend; and yes, for writing my complaints is more about movies than shows. I will concede, there are actually a lot of really good shows right now (and a lot of really bad ones).
Any observation on a trend is subjective, I realize that... it's a very subjective industry.
There probably are s
Re: (Score:2)
CGI also looks terrible. It's like no one even makes an effort to look physical, it's all stylistic now. You think an actual "Transformer" could move that quickly if it were made of matter in the real world?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a big disadvantage for robot stunts. Too realistic and boring.
Re: (Score:3)
It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.
If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I feel no empathy for modern action movie actors. It's all so fake now. It doesn't help that they regularly show the 'behind the screen' action with every single thing covered in green sheets, and the actors full of white dots standing on a pile of mattresses.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be honest, with most of Hollywood's actors and how credible and sincere they can portray the hero, it doesn't help in the caring department either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to empathise with a robot. When it's a human up there, even a human stunt performer made up to look like the hero or villain, and we know they're well-trained and well-paid, there's that little touch of engagement between us and the performer.
If it's a robot, who cares if the stunt goes wrong, it falls, and breaks its head?
Ideally, the trick is to make it not look like a robot. If you can tell it's a robot then they've failed miserably... and yes, I do realize they fail miserably fairly frequently.
Re: (Score:2)
CGI also looks terrible. It's like no one even makes an effort to look physical, it's all stylistic now. You think an actual "Transformer" could move that quickly if it were made of matter in the real world?
Quickly? Maybe, it depends on how much power it's got, and can expend. What's really offensive is how flying vehicles and animals are moved around scenes. They almost never look realistic.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you propose they utilize CGI in a live stunt show at a theme park? Projections of pre-recorded video aren't very impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
No unions.
Paying guests per day is better as robots can be kept to a set rate of speed. The need to hire an entertainer lowers wage costs.
To tell tourists about the candy and how it is mixed.
A full crew with skills and musical ability for the big drum is not needed.
Consider the options (Score:1)
Bill Hicks suggested we use terminally ill people, which is much simpler, cheaper and more accessible.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, did he put his money where his mouth was?
what is the point? (Score:2)
the thrill of watching a stunt is knowing that a human is doing it, who cares about a stunting robot?
and for hollywood mvie stunt doubles, isn't it cheaper these days to just do cgi?
Re: (Score:1)
That's the point. By creating robot stunt doubles they have an object to map the CGI onto in a way that looks physically plausible. It's the advantage of physical stunts combined with CGI and no risk to living people.
Your CGI model has to be perfect, otherwise the CGI looks wrong/fake or uncanny to the audience. The best CGI work out there currently maps to real physical objects and motion.
Pure CGI might be cheaper, but it generally looks like crap. The best stunts are those done physically.
This is, of course, unmitigated nonsense (Score:2)
If you can do it by robot, you can do it far, far cheaper by CGI.
Re: (Score:1)
But, is it better or more realistic?
I've seen a lot of movies where the CGI is .. well, garbage. There was a period where they were using "Digital Stuntman" or whatever it was called, and as soon as they cut to the CGI version, you could immediately tell.
CGI is pointless if the image is so jarringly obvious that it is badly done CGI.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn’t going to end well... (Score:1)
I foresee a whole lot of kids earning “Disney Darwin Awards”....