Au unnaturale: why CGI nudity is here to stay
theverge.com
theverge.com
If a woman doesn't want her naked body exposed on camera, that's her right, just as it's mine to make the same decision. There's no story here, just basic human courtesy and respect.
Right, absolutely. The linked article almost seems to realise this half-way through, and then charges on anyway.
The only issue here, to me, is if the CGI nudity is used in an attempt to "improve" upon reality, and continues Hollywood's distortion of what a normal human body is meant to look like. Especially since Hollywood tends to select for what it considers more attractive people generally (e.g. see its awful obsession with casting younger women in older roles), and now even these people might be subject to CGI modification. To a point, I have no problem with particularly attractive people being cast (regardless of gender), but there's clearly a line somewhere and I'm not sure when that line is being crossed.
If they believe that something is lost from the use of CGI in the film, that's their prerogative. As with any works of performance art, shouldn't television and cinema come under the same level of critique?
"Not every movie actress is going to want to do a nude scene. Maybe something’s wrong with her body at the time, or maybe some other actress had a better butt, so they use a body double."
As if those are the only two possible reasons for not wanting to do a nude scene. This Jim McBride sounds like quite the a--hole.
This is the most important reason of all: "Not every movie actress is going to want to do a nude scene."
#Edit. Typo.
http://www.ew.com/article/1995/08/18/jeanne-tripplehorn-says...
Of course. But then she should not reap the benefits of stardom and money by pretending it was her naked body on the camera. If you use the fact that "X is naked in Y" in your marketing campaign and X is not really naked in Y then it is dishonest at best.
Just like the hacker-talk, the movies falsely represent other situations, occupations and often plainly lie, have a specific agenda or are simply incompetent in what they present. It's a good thing that you are aware of one small part of it, maybe you'll start researching about all the subtle influences that the movies deliver.
It is also just brilliant in general.
Ask yourself why those are the only two voices besides the author that we hear in the piece.
If they said to a specific woman - say, someone who had previously done double work for Lena on Game of Thrones that she must do the scene then yes that'd be insane. Given the only credit the actress has in Game of Thrones is that scene [0] I'm inclined to believe that's not the case.
I don't necessarily think it's insane that somebody did it, but the expectation of a specific person to would be - whether that's Lena, a regular double or anyone else.
Also on a technical note, somebody else already pointed this out and I can only speculate too but I'm not convinced they'd necessarily have to film the exact same scenes twice. I don't know how they filmed it, but their cgi demo reels are really impressive and it could be very different to how it looks.
[0] I figured I'd look this up, because yea I'd agree there might be an issue if she was a regular and could have been pressured. Her imdb is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7098431/
If it makes the actors comfortable so we get a better story, then do whatever you need to do. Everything in film is fake in some way, James Cameron has a great line in the documentary "Side by Side" at the 1:13:45 - "I'm betting you've been on a couple movie sets, when was it ever real? There was kind of a wall there and nothing over there; there was 30 people standing around with a guy with a boom mike, another guy up on a ladder with his a## crack hanging out. There's fake rain. Your street, night, exterior, New York was a day, interior, Burbank. What was ever real?"
By the way, Side by Side is an amazing documentary on the evolution and conflict between film and digital cameras.
People have different priorities.
How come?
If this article surprise me a bit, is that people still perceive part of movies as real. A person on a movie can correlate to a real actor, but with improving CGI technology it might actually be anything; One actor, several actors, or maybe just bits on a hard drive. The producers goal is to make a believable illusion and there is nothing to feel betrayed about if one figures out how it actually was made.
Whether you'd see the equivalent with nude scenes, I don't know.
right, first things first, none of this is new.
lets start with the more obvious stuff, what you see in film isn't real. No really.
Just look atthe harry potter series; all those kids went through puberty, it was as equally unkind for them as it was for us.
An entire generation of VFX people cut their teeth painting out the pimples on many a potter face.
Then there is the making older people look young. You know those actors(male and female) that always seem to look around 30, despite pushing 55? that almost exclusively digital. I used to do night shifts with a bloke who's entire job was to remove crows feet (and a lot more) for a very successful British chick flick.
then you have the other extreme, you know those shots where people have arms missing? or facial disfigurement?
James bond: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/jamesbond/images/0/01/Si...
board walk empire: https://vimeo.com/18275127 (1:44, however the rest is worth a look)
Dark knight, Twoface: https://vimeo.com/3852161 (0:59) (fun fact, the tube bit for the cronicals of nania, I sent back to be re-rendered because I though the renderer had fucked up(I was only looking at the matte, and flashing mattes are normally bad))
As for body doubles, thats been going on for decades. pretty much any shot that involves the back of some star, there is a 50% chance that its a body double, or a stand-in. Mainly because its cheaper.
Look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHRLX8jRjq8 You see Daniel Craig zoom around riding a motor cycle like a pro, except you don't. Its either a bike welded to a trailer (0:34), or a face replacement. The first Digital double is at 0:42 (there are lots more.)
So you can see that actually it happens a lot, and frankly there is nothing wrong with it. In fact there is a whole achademic field devoted to it, (fun thing, google "digital doubles framestore")
Its basically a case of some dickhead wanting to see tits, and feeling cheated because he can't command someone he's never met to do a full frontal scene for the price of a movie ticket (or less)
P.S. I'm actually wondering if some one will take it and spin it around into how actresses now will be losing potential income since nude/topless scenes used to give you a nifty "bonus" in Hollywood if you were a star actress...