Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Graphics Software

First All-Artificial Feature Film Released 281

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the that-takes-some-work dept.
Hugh "Nomad" Hancock writes "Machinima.com have just released the DVD version of Killer Robot, award-winning filmmaker Peter Rasmussen's buddy movie about two mining robots who set out to protect their "meat-sack" masters from a master mining robot gone insane. The twist here is not only that it's Machinima, made in 3D Game Studio, but that even the actor's voices are computer-generated using programs like Festival, making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First All-Artificial Feature Film Released

Comments Filter:
  • by The UberDork (689979) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @12:57PM (#9327778) Homepage
    Nothing real in that .. both genres are done purely by silicon.
    • I agree with you because the voices in porn are fake too...
      • Well, they are dubbed over. It's not artificial moaning, it still came from another human being. So Jenna Jamison's moan probably derived from the director's daughter or wife working cheaply in the studio.

    • by dustmote (572761) <fleck55&hotmail,com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:06PM (#9327901) Homepage Journal
      You know, this just can't be that far off. Sex and war drive technology, and all that. Give them time, and I'm sure the adult industry will find a way to drive the costs of this down to levels where it's reasonable for everyone. After all, look what they did for cosmetic surgery. The question is, will people be interested in this for its own sake, or will it have to wait until things reach the point where it's indistinguishable from the real thing? I'm guessing from the preponderance of cartoon porn on the internet that it's just around the corner.
      • by GuyMannDude (574364) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:09PM (#9328549) Journal

        You know, this just can't be that far off. Sex and war drive technology, and all that. Give them time, and I'm sure the adult industry will find a way to drive the costs of this down to levels where it's reasonable for everyone.

        I agree that computer-generated porn is inevitable but I disagree that it is going to become so cheap as to replace the real thing (such as it is) anytime soon. Let's face it, it costs almost no money to make a porn flick. I'm sure they spend no money on the writers. There is essentially no budget for props. The actors and actresses don't have an awful lot of career choices so they can be paid a pitance. And it's recorded on videotape for chrissake. You are arguing that replacing this dirt-cheap operation with an all CGI environment is economically a great idea? I don't think so.

        The question is, will people be interested in this for its own sake, or will it have to wait until things reach the point where it's indistinguishable from the real thing? I'm guessing from the preponderance of cartoon porn on the internet that it's just around the corner.

        I suspect that the "real" porn will continue much as it has for decades and that if CGI evolves to the point that it is feasible to make pornos from it will satisfy a slightly different crowd or need. You pointed out the cartoon porn. That stuff is pretty different from flesh and blood porn. Those films feature fantastical characters or situations. A typical film would feature a female ninja with green hair who can change into a warewolf battling monsters on behalf of some ancient clan rivalry. You couldn't make something like this with flesh-and-blood porn without it being absolutely laughable. Now, granted, the cartoon version isn't meant to be taken seriously but the audience is more willing to accept it just because of the choice of media that is used. And the non-consensual nature of a lot of cartoon porn makes it a definite no-no for anything remotely realistic. But I think the reason cartoon porn florishes is precisely because it is not realistic. It is fantastical. I suspect that CGI porn would fill the same niche -- something completely wild rather than a substitute for mainstream porn.

        One possible avenue of CGI porn is letting amateurs and hobbists make their own porn films. If easy-to-use authoring/animation tools get created, you could have guys making their porn flicks. People could play out movies for whatever crazy fantasies that they have. And with p2p software, I can easily see people trading their homemade pornos with others. This would actually be an interesting development. Let's face it: there aren't a lot of creative minds in the adult film industry. Once you give people (and there are a lot of people who secretly love porn) the ability to author what's on their mind, I think you will see an explosion of all sorts of porn. Some of it will be real sicko stuff, I'm sure. However, you'll also get people who can actually write decent stories creating some porn. CGI may end up being the greatest thing that ever happened to porn within a decade.

        GMD

        • Re:porno writers (Score:3, Insightful)

          by The Queen (56621)
          I interviewed an "adult film" producer once, and you are right - there are no scriptwriters in porno. At all. Ever. The dude who scrapes together the money to make the movie is the producer, director, writer, etc. You cull your cast from the local tanning salon, borrow your aunt's bungalow for a couple days and there you go - movie. Overhead is all in the film (unless you're shooting on that fancy camcorder).

          This was NOT the kind of guy who would trade being able to bang his leading ladies for a fake chick
      • The question is, will people be interested in this for its own sake, or will it have to wait until things reach the point where it's indistinguishable from the real thing? I'm guessing from the preponderance of cartoon porn on the internet that it's just around the corner.

        I'd rather say it's already here, at least when you talk about still images pr0n. Just check the google directory [google.com] of adult 3D-rendered galleries (mostly Poser stuff). Personally, I find many Poser-rendered erotica much more interesting
    • American Flagg (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Wun Hung Lo (702718)
      In Howie Chaykin's comic American Flagg, Reuben Flagg has to leave his job as a soft-core porn actor when he's replaced by a holographic verion of himself. (Excellent reading, BTW!)
    • Silicon (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:28PM (#9328136)
      Just for the record, there is a big difference between silicon and silicone.

      Silicon: is a non-metallic element used in the manufacture of electronic components like Integrated circuits, as well as glass and many other things. In its raw for it is rather like sand.

      Silicone: is a rubbery or liquid compound which includes silicon as one of its primary components. Silicone is used for rubber materials including molded plastics, sealants or caulks, and breast implants.

      Silicon != Silicone
      • Re:Silicon (Score:5, Funny)

        by wcrowe (94389) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:31PM (#9328734)
        I see.

        So...

        San Jose = Silicon Valley.
        Hollywood = Silicone Valley.

      • by Rei (128717) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @03:53PM (#9329552) Homepage
        More specifically, silicon is an element, and silicone is a molecule.

        Silicone is a chain of ...-Si-O-Si-O-Si-O..., with two electrons available from each Silicon for bonding (typically with hydrogen, but you can add most functional groups there and still get a stable molecule). While it is most famous as a lubricant in standard long pure chains of Si, O, and H, it gets a lot more interesting, chemically, when you start replacing the hydrogens (just like hydrocarbon chains do ;) ).

        You can make pure Si chains, but they don't get very long before they fall apart. Silicon comes in two primary forms: amorphous and crystaline.

        Other common silicon-based terms:
        Silicates: Silicates are primarily SiO4 tetrahedral structures (compared to Silicone which is usually in chains - think of it as the difference between diamond and petroleum). Probably their most useful form, industrially, are zeolites (wherein one of the silicons is relaced by a metal ion); these have all sorts of useful absorbative, catylitic, and even superacid properties in some cases.

        Silanes: Chains of silicon bonded to hydrogen; the simplest form (often called simply "silane") is SiH4, and is roughly a silicon equivalent of methane, apart from the fact that it spontaneously combusts in normal atmospheric conditions. They are less stable than silicone and their hydrocarbon equivalents in general, although this can be remedied by having functional groups being involved (organosilanes). Silanes are very useful in sealants and paints, as well as their electrical and optical properties.

        Silanols: Silanes with an OH; generally being water-soluable, they are widely common in earth's oceans, and have all sorts of interesting chemical properties and bonding structures naturally. More than anything else, silanols have led to speculation that silicon-based life could be possible on other planets. They can form hydrogen-bonded membrane-like sheets, various catylitic complexes, etc.

        Various types of silicon compounds can also form rings as carbon chains do, although you won't get any benzene-style rings (also, silicon resists double and triple bonding as well).
    • I am curious -- has anyone ever seen any hard-core porn done entirely with 3D computer animation? I'm kind of surprised this hasn't come about yet (no pun intended).

      I used to do 3D animation (Lightwave 3.0!) and I never tried -- which is odd because I've played with porn in nearly every other medium I've worked in. I guess it's because it would be pretty hard (no pun intended again) to get it looking good, and it would be pretty creepy and nasty if it didn't.

      If anyone has seen such stuff, I'd be curious
  • All-artificial? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Compuser (14899) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#9327782)
    Wouldn't that be a movie written, directed,
    post-produced, and distributed by bots?
  • by Dausha (546002) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @12:58PM (#9327786) Homepage
    So, celebrity actors are on the way out? RIAA, Save us!
  • Is this the one with Will Smith, and is Will Smith computer generated? If so, that's a great achievement! I hope that the sound is better than the national weather service's Mac plus (i'm assuming) that reads those weather alerts on channel 26.
  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#9327805)
    making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie."
    One hates to be pedantic (well, ok, maybe not ;-) but there have been a bunch of animated silent films made over the years...
    • Re:Nope (Score:3, Informative)

      by Theaetetus (590071)
      One hates to be pedantic (well, ok, maybe not ;-) but there have been a bunch of animated silent films made over the years...

      Additionally, there's a group on the Battlefield:1942 [bf1942.net] fan site that are making a movie.

      For those interested, BF1942 is a multiplayer online FPS game, that allows for vehicles, ships, planes, multiple classes, etc. It also allows for complete reskinning via mods, with entire new classes of vehicles (subs, helicopters, harrier jets, pirate ships, etc.)
      Anyways, a group of people wrot

  • by mr_tommy (619972) *
    TBH, its a nice concept but the screencaps look aweful. I'd rather stare at real people over some poorly rendered robot anyday - maybe thats just me...!
  • by bravehamster (44836) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#9327817) Homepage Journal
    Seriously, did the textures they use start off as photos of real life objects? Then this isn't an all-artificial movie. The first all-artificial movie will be made by an AI that has no access to any outside materials. Everything until then is just a matter of degree of human involvement.

    • by shadowcabbit (466253) <cx&thefurryone,net> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#9327911) Journal
      The first all-artificial movie will be made by an AI that has no access to any outside materials.

      And it will suck. "An AI [with] no access to any outside materials" will by definition also have no reference as to what makes a good movie or not, and thus will probably wind up making a movie that only it thinks is good. ...which, come to think of it, isn't all that different from what happens in Hollywood now anyway.
    • Everything until then is just a matter of degree of human involvement.

      because the AI will have had no degree of human involvement? ah, because the AI will have been designed by an AI? ah, infinity...

      even in the terms you construed*, there is the human concept of an "artificial intelligence" constructing a "movie", yet another human concept. just more degrees of human involvement.

      * "The first all-artificial movie will be made by an AI that has no access to any outside materials"
    • by cosmo7 (325616) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#9327988) Homepage
      Seriously, did the textures they use start off as photos of real life objects? Then this isn't an all-artificial movie.

      Photographs are artificial. If you're arguing that they are not artificial because they refer to real objects, then you might as well demand an entirely artificially-generated language be created for the dialogue.
    • "Then this isn't an all-artificial movie. The first all-artificial movie will be made by an AI that has no access to any outside materials. Everything until then is just a matter of degree of human involvement."

      Oh for crying out loud. At what point did we as geeks decide that nothing's ever good enough? Are our tastes really that sophisticated? If so, then how come we all saw Episode 1 or Matrix Reloaded on opening day?
  • by Shoten (260439) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#9327822)
    Actually, the first all-artificial movie was Gigli I believe. :)
    • Actually, the first all-artificial movie was Gigli I believe. :)

      Or so the rumor goes. It will remain unverified since no one has, as of today, seen that movie and lived.
    • This is an uncool thing to admit, but I *saw* Gigli, and it's not as bad as it was made out to be. It's painfully bad in spots, but overall it's a mediocre movie that just plain didn't work. When you're making a "black" comedy and it goes bad, it really goes bad in places.

      Pieces of several movies were so bad I had to close my eyes, but not Gigli, except maybe when the fish nibbled on the brain in their tank. Worse than Gigli, off the top of my head:

      "Return of the Jedi."Walked out, and I was about as bi

  • by Apocalypse111 (597674) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:02PM (#9327827) Journal
    Go check out www.redvsblue.com [redvsblue.com] The funniest Halo stuff you'll see outside a warthog jumping contest.
  • When the script is written by a machine too.
  • by kabocox (199019) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#9327845)
    making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie.

    It seems to me that humans still did most of the work. It would be more accurate to say movie with environment and actors fully computer modeled.

    When I read the first all-artificial movie, I thought of a program that wrote the plot, picked main characters and background characters, edited the models and the envirnoment and generated all that without any human involvment.
  • Artificial Pr0n (Score:3, Insightful)

    by beatleadam (102396) <flambergeNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#9327847) Homepage Journal
    Together everyone. Humor intended, toungue in cheek...check...

    ...even the actor's voices are computer-generated...making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie

    Just Think about all the Artificial Pr0n you can create with this technology! Wait...No need for Actors or Actresses...Oh the Possibilities are Endless! :-)
  • till AI's write the script and decide stuffs.

    When a computer can be told to write a movie, and does everything of its own. THEN, THEN will have an all artifical movie.
  • mmmm (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digitalsushi (137809) * <slashdot@digitalsushi.com> on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#9327880) Journal
    i'd like a freely available phoneme pack (or whatever i should call it properly) that sounds as good as AT&T's natural voices [att.com]. last time i used festival, i was just so put off by the available voice packs that i gave up on the project i was working on. That was a few years ago, but I bet it hasn't changed much. (i use a program called swatch that watches my log files and then plays computer voices just telling me what the hell is going on. sitting on the couch watching family guy and hearing that someone just arped on my lan is more intuitive than me getting an email about it. and it has its own channel on the mixer so when i have my harem over to please me on thursday nights, i just put the slider all the way down.) yeah.
  • People are confused (Score:5, Informative)

    by NEOtaku17 (679902) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:05PM (#9327884) Homepage

    Most of the posts so far are pointing out that because it was not made by AI it is not a completely artificial movie. What they are trying to say is that it is the first completely artificial movie product(basically when you see the movie there aren't any real traces of human actors/voiceactors).

  • nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Docrates (148350) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:06PM (#9327893) Homepage
    I'm sorry, but as much as I like the geek factor in this, I like to see people in my movies. I admit that Toy Story and Monsters Inc. were really good movies, but if eventually all movies were computer generated they'd lose me as a fan.

    There's magic in acting: controling your every emotion to become someone you're not, and then making other people believe it. That's art man. What they're trying to do sounds to me like trying to replace a Picasso with a fractal image. No magic.
    • by addie (470476)
      There's magic in acting: controling your every emotion to become someone you're not, and then making other people believe it. That's art man. What they're trying to do sounds to me like trying to replace a Picasso with a fractal image. No magic

      While you're right to a point, that shouldn't devalue this machinima. The greater variety we have in cinema these days, the better. I'm bored of blockbuster explosions and teary-eyed period pieces. I'd like to see a movie of a type that I've never ever seen befor
    • There's magic in acting: controling your every emotion to become someone you're not, and then making other people believe it. That's art man. What they're trying to do sounds to me like trying to replace a Picasso with a fractal image. No magic.

      I think you underestimate the magic of Fractals as well as you underestimate the magic of computer-generated 'acting.'

      I have spent literally weeks of my life staring at fractal images. Pulling them apart. Wondering. Mentally applying to 3D landscapes. Imagining

      • Re:nope (Score:3, Interesting)

        by op00to (219949)
        How can you claim that you've created these fractals? Aren't they rooted in mathematics? Wouldn't that mean that you just ripped off your art from Math?
        • Re:nope (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Dun Malg (230075)
          How can you claim that you've created these fractals? Aren't they rooted in mathematics? Wouldn't that mean that you just ripped off your art from Math?

          FWIW, he never actually claimed to have created any fractals. He just said that "a lot of work that went into each image". One could argue, I suppose, that fractals are only discovered, not created. But then again, a lot of creativity has to be applied in the presentation to turn them into something that could be considered "art-worthy". Mandelbrot's initi

        • Re:nope (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ArsonSmith (13997)
          I was kinda thinking that as well, but I would say this is more similar to photography, in that you have to examine a fractal and find what inputs need to be put in to create a truely beautiful image. I have played with some fractal generators and I was never able to get some of the ones that the OP was able to generate.

    • if eventually all movies were computer generated they'd lose me as a fan.

      What is this in response to? No one has said that all movies will "eventually" be computer-generated, or that they should be. No one believes that. You've constructed a ridiculuous strawman argument that no one would support.

      Wanting to "see people in my movies" could just as easily be an argument against traditional animation, but no one thinks that that is bad because it threatens to replace human actors. The point is variety. More

  • by bennomatic (691188) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#9327904) Homepage
    If the reviews aren't there, then the novelty aspect won't get my ticket dollars; they might need to make a virtual audience, too.
  • by xplosiv (129880) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#9327916)
    I just tried the festvox.org site, I am surprised the movie directory didn't consider using something like the AT&T voices or the Neospeech voices, both which are much more advanced and natural, and are frequently used in Home automation environments (I use them myself).
    • both which are much more advanced and natural

      In this case all the main characters are robots, so I believe that the more flat intonation "robotic" voices was exactly what the film maker was going for.


  • "... but that even the actor's voices are computer-generated using programs like Festival"

    Keanu Reeves was years ahead of them. Totally Talking Moose [zathras.de] technology...

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:08PM (#9327924)
    I set it to robot guard mode when I go to bed. God help any intruder it encounters its frightening suction power, unless of course the intruder is a pervert and enjoys that sort of thing.

    Anyway it was just telling me it cant wait to see this movie, apparently one of the actors is a real hell raiser, sort of the Colin Farrell of the robot entertainment industry and the other one is quite cute (purely from an engineering perspective so it tells me).
  • Eleven years ago, Jim and Bob set out on the trail to make the best Movie film on the planet. As they started researching, they quickly dogscovered that the ingredient labels on many of the store-bought Films were downright awful. Sometimes there would be 50 different ingredients listed for a simple polaroid! They were full of chemicals, preservatives, and who knows what else. But perhaps even worse, they were guilty of the ultimate crime... they were BORING! The same old plastic, silver, oxide combinations
  • soundtrack? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LuxFX (220822) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:14PM (#9327979) Homepage Journal
    ...making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie.

    So is the soundtrack done in MIDI?
  • Luckily (Score:3, Funny)

    by Strange Ranger (454494) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:15PM (#9328001)
    > ...making this possibly the world's first all-artificial movie.

    As luck would have it, there's already series of all-artificial [oscars.org] awards they can earn.
  • Mirrors anyone??? The site's already getting slashdotted.
  • Qualifiers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pdiguy (588801) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:19PM (#9328052) Homepage
    This happens all the time. Given enough qualifiers, any movie is the "first" of its kind.

    "This is the first computer animated movie"
    "This is the first computer animated movie with photoreal humans"
    "This is the first computer animated movie rendered with global illumination"
    "This is the first computer animated movie rendered with global illumination, on a render farm of Linux servers"
    "This is the first computer animated movie where the main character is green"
    "This is the first computer animated movie where the main character is green and one of the characters is a cat"

    It gets silly after a while. At some point you have to ask "is the movie any good?"

    j

    • Re:Qualifiers (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Savatte (111615)
      At some point you have to ask "is the movie any good?"

      At some point? That should be the first thing you ask.
      • An equally important quilifier, for me anyway, is "will this help to inspire someone to make a movie that is good."

        Just because someone can invent a concept doesn't mean they have artistic ability, and vise versa.

    • "This is the first computer animated movie with huge breasted massively tentacled killer zombies who take over Japan and have wicked nasty hardcore sex with every 18 year old school girl they can get their hands on, who all suddenly become sex starved sluts thanks to the zombie's mental powers!"

      Yeah you are right... it does get silly after a while... but that would be a great movie don't you think?
  • I think this is just one step towards "all-artificial". The real big step will be when the story is written by a computer.
  • What about movies like Triple X, Legally Blonde 2, and Van Helsing, where the stories and dialogue are written by computer too?
  • by jfengel (409917) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:44PM (#9328279) Homepage Journal
    There are two major schools of thought among actors: internalist and externalist.

    Internalist is most often associated with the Stanislavsky "Method": feel it inside and it will come out on the outside. The Method has been taken to stupid lengths that have been much parodied ("What's my motivation?"), but the core is extremely sound. Audiences are extremely sensitive to faked emotions, and internalist acting makes for very compelling performances.

    Externalist acting predates internalist acting, but it's still much used. It's basically the school of thought that says, "I don't care what you feel; as long as it looks good on film, I'm happy." It's necessary for a lot of things. You can't lose yourself in a fight scene, for example, because that's how actors get hurt (especially on stage.) But other than that, it's largely out of favor among top-flight actors and directors.

    Most modern actors use a combination of the two techniques, but the balance is different for every actor.

    I bring this up because computer animation is the ultimate externalist acting. You have a physical control over the "muscles" of a virtual actor far beyond that which you have over yourself. That's why externalist acting often fails: you may think "this is what I look like when I'm angry/happy/sad", but you just don't have the control over the hundreds of little muscles in your face.

    I've been incredibly impressed by what emotions they can get a virtual actor to do. I remember thinking it for the first time watching Barbie at the end of Toy Story II, doing her flight attendant "bye bye, buh bye, bye-ee" routine. She clearly had a "fake smile", in contrast to the real smiles. Everybody knows the difference, but it takes an extraordinary eye to reproduce it precisely.

    Shrek and Fiona showed me layered emotions I'd be hard pressed to reproduce myself.

    Now these guys are adding voice, where there are even more fine gradations, and it hasn't been as well studied. Artists have been dissecting people's faces for centuries and every art student knows the name, origin, insertion, and purpose of every single muscle in the face.

    The voice will prove harder, but I've looked into some of those programs and it looks like a good start. It's a lot of work to specify the exact shape of a line reading, but as with faces, they'll probably get it eventually.

    It flies precisely in the face of what I've been taught as a director. I tend to the internalist school most of the time, and you never, ever specify the details of a line reading to an actor. You give intents, motivations, impulses, and try to help the actor find the natural way to get what you want out of a line. If you give the actor a line reading, it will read falsely to an audience, because the line reading won't match up to the rest of the clues that the audience gets about what the character feels (body language, timing, facial expressions). These details are too hard to control, so you give emotional directions instead. It's tedious, but the result will be more compelling.

    It would be interesting to direct an actor who did have minute control over voice and body, as this film will show. It's probably too early for the thing to be 100% successful, but I'd really like to find out.
  • ..."Baywatch: The Motion Picture."

  • of a movie [jonathonrobinson.com] about two space robots (named pusher and shover) who are here to protect us from the terrible secret of space.

    Pak Chooie Unf!

  • Do you have stairs in your house?
  • Not the first. (Score:3, Informative)

    by lawpoop (604919) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @01:55PM (#9328407) Homepage Journal
    That title belongs to Rocketmen vs. Robots [idirect.com]. Unless someone else knows of an ealier film.

    But I'm more impressed b/c this is the work of one man!

  • Finally, a movie to match the concession stand snacks!
  • Sorry I am no longer impressed with animation that consist 3 polygons and crappy "artificial voices" i'd rather just watch FF:Spirits Within (and thats not even a good movie)
  • Torrents anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Laur (673497) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:15PM (#9328597)
    "Too many connections!" says the download page. Can anyone post torrents?
  • As long as a human is writing the script / directing, it doesn't strike me as "All-artificial".

    Now, once a computer, sensitive to the fact that the timing is profitable for "Shrek 12", kicks off "Hollywood.pl" to generate a movie, I'll be more inclined to give it the "All-artificial" tag.

    Of course, the only ones who'll go and see it are machines on their lunch breaks ...

    Thanks,
    Peter
  • I have a hard time believing they didn't get "meat sack" from the fantastic dialogue provided for HK-47 in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I don't know for sure they are the first to use that term in that context, but it worked beautifully. "meatbag" sounds so much better than meat sack, and meat sack just comes off as a lame attempt to pretend that it is original. Personally, I think it sounds way too close to ball sack. I have no problem with people reusing cool ideas in creative works (to an exte
  • ...and it made like $76 billion in box office sales. It was called "The Greatest Movie Ever Made" and it won like 40 oscars.

    You probably can't find it anywhere, though. It was so good, they decided not to make it anymore. ...but it does exist.
  • by codemachine (245871) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @02:34PM (#9328763)
    Judging by the amount of times "people" have posted "it isn't all-artificial until AI writes the screenplay", I'm wondering whether the slashdot comments system may consist of all artifical postings.

    I swear the whole comments system here could be replaced by a small shell script. A cron job that posts "Microsoft sucks" and "BSD is dying" would take care of a good chunk of the system right there. What else am I missing?

    And why am I talking to a small shell script?
  • by kenp2002 (545495) on Thursday June 03, 2004 @04:58PM (#9330117) Homepage Journal
    Alas It is not all computer, nor 100% digital. Only when the machine conceives, writes, directs, plans, and develops the movie from concept to finished product will it truly be a fully computer generated movie. Even then a human had programmed the machine. Perhaps we'll have to wait till a machine makes a machine and the subsequent machine creates a movie....

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...