The end of wild animals in film?
Asked by
Plucky (
10316
)
June 4th, 2013
I’ll provide the link to the video at the end of the details.
My question is basically: Do you think the television and film industry will warm up to the idea of predominantly using computerized animals instead of real ones (if the animals look very real)? Or do you think it will be too expensive? I am unsure of the expenses of this technology versus using real wild animals. I would think dealing with a tech crew instead of an unpredictable live animal (who needs room and board) would be easier.
I think it’s amazing what they can do with technology now. This ape looks incredibly real. It looks so real that I really felt it was real. What do you think?
*** The video shows a CGI (computer generated imagery) ape. Please take NO note of the Peta affiliation – that is not my intent. The video is not graphic. No animal is being beaten or abused (nor the CGI ape). There is a gun in the video but nothing horrible happens. And the ape you see is not real. It is a 35 second long video, showing the amazing likeness to a real ape. I suggest you also watch the second video, underneath, explaining how they made this ape (it’s about 3 and half minutes long).***
CGI Ape.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
16 Answers
Well todays world have become so advanced that most producers would not go to the trouble to use wild animals when they could use computerized versions. To answer the question of whether the future film industry would eliminate them, I do not think so. Real animals bring life and color to the movies because of their behavioral characteristics so I do not think that they would be left out permanently.
Amazing. And I do think that, in time, wild animals will be replaced by computer imaging. I just wish it was sooner rather than later…
Course this is nothing new, the giant ape in Peter Jackson’s King Kong remake was made this way, using Andy Serkis as a base model, same with the more recent Planet of the Apes movie.
It certainly beats men in suits & it’s hugely expensive, but it’s probably the way things are going.
That depends on what you want them to do.
If you want them to perform specific choreography that animals usually do not do, stylised and dramatic camera angles, have it behave in a human fashion, or have them in a group to perform certain complex tasks, then you will almost certainly go for a CGI version.
If you just want to depict them doing simple things, or things they do naturally, then you take real animals, because CGI is expensive, and for simple things, real animals are just cheaper.
It will probably cut down on their use.
That was a great video.
The only way that the industry will change is when it is shown that it will save them money without sacrificing quality.
GQ, I think as the tech evolves we’ll see more and more of this. While I personally didn’t like Life of Pi as a movie I thought they did a wonderful job with creating the animals in CGI for that movie, especially Richard Parker
@uberbatman I agree, to me Richard Parker seems as real as the KRAKEN. Leave the real animals in relative peace!
I haven’t seen that movie. But I had no idea the tiger in it was CGI. Wow.
@Plucky Like grazing or sleeping, other natural things real animals do.
Animals are way healthier, they don’t light up a cigarette after sex…betcha didn’t know that eh?
@KNOWITALL Oh, I see. I guess I’m thinking more in terms of using supposed wild animals in large film roles.
I think it’s possible, at some point, we won’t have a choice in using CGI wildlife. There won’t be any real ones left.
@Plucky Yeah, soylent green, another reason I didn’t want to have kids.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
