Its a funny thing how some films pre-empt technology.
I was watching 'The Running Man' last night and it hit me when Ben Richard's face is mapped onto a stunt double, that this very technique was used in 'Terminator Salvation' on Roland Kickinger to give him Arnold's face.
Wierd.
Never seen Running Man. Was the above a plot point or just an effect the movie makers used? If it was just a special effect, how does it pre-empt technology? If anything, Terminator Salvation just used a technique that's been around for 20 years.
As for fake technology in film/TV that is now reality, Star Trek TOS had a bunch of items that now have similar items. Communicators are like flip cell phones. The Tricorder has a real-world device now. There was a History Channel show that showed all the Star Trek stuff that became real. Of course some of it is due to fans of the show joining the work force and inventing stuff they watched as kids.
Never seen Running Man. Was the above a plot point or just an effect the movie makers used? If it was just a special effect, how does it pre-empt technology? If anything, Terminator Salvation just used a technique that's been around for 20 years.
As for fake technology in film/TV that is now reality, Star Trek TOS had a bunch of items that now have similar items. Communicators are like flip cell phones. The Tricorder has a real-world device now. There was a History Channel show that showed all the Star Trek stuff that became real. Of course some of it is due to fans of the show joining the work force and inventing stuff they watched as kids.
Erm...Star Trek Inspired the physical design of modern flip cell phones. But the technology existed well before the first Star Trek episode ever aired. Indeed there was even a commercial mobile phone network in Sweeden by the mid 1950s. Ericsson (as in Sony Ericsson) is kinda the Bell labs of sweeden, put the first ever mobile phone on the market in 1956.
Anyway...you guys might not remember the flick looker . Its a old movie from 1981 written and directed by Michael Crichton (same guy that wrote Jurassic Park). It was about these models/actresses whom get plastic surgery to become "perfect" then mysteriously die after being scanned by a computer. Turns out they are knocked off because TV commericials/shows can render thier scan as CGI. Much cheaper than paying them.
Another star of the film is the "looker" gun, which fires off a bright light that when looked it will stun whomever sees it...which is how the girls are killed. Drive up along side her, get her to look your way, fire the gun. Then watch as she plows into oncomeing traffic, with no evidence left to even call it a crime...Interesting film if you can find it.
Never seen Running Man. Was the above a plot point or just an effect the movie makers used? If it was just a special effect, how does it pre-empt technology? If anything, Terminator Salvation just used a technique that's been around for 20 years.
.
*Possible Spoilers for 'The Running Man'*
It was a plot point. Hard to explain if you haven't seen the film, but without spoiling anything: Arnold's character, Ben, is placed into this brutal reality show where people fight to survive against 'stalkers' that are tryingt o kill them.
Ben gets so good at the game that they basically fake his death by mapping an image of Ben's face onto a stunt double that is killed by another stalker.
This technique is echoed and done for real as a special effect in T:S.
" If anything, Terminator Salvation just used a technique that's been around for 20 years." - 1989, pre-dating T2? I don't think so. ILM's 'Sherlock Holmes' in '85 with the stained glass knight is not the same thing, neither are the effects in 1988's 'Willow'.
Full motion captured and tracked digital facial replacement was done on 'Jurassic Park', to replace a stunt woman's face with Lex's, but thats years after 'Running Man'.
" If anything, Terminator Salvation just used a technique that's been around for 20 years." - 1989, pre-dating T2? I don't think so. ILM's 'Sherlock Holmes' in '85 with the stained glass knight is not the same thing, neither are the effects in 1988's 'Willow'.
Full motion captured and tracked digital facial replacement was done on 'Jurassic Park', to replace a stunt woman's face with Lex's, but thats years after 'Running Man'.
It wasn't a motion captured digital face in Jurassic Park.
Quote:
DENNIS MUREN(Jurassic Park effects supervisor): "We were setting the shot up and we were doing it with the stunt girl. And I said to Stephen, You know we could do a face replacement on here because we can shoot a scene with the girl. The actress safely harnessed there. And then the stunt girl falling down. If we just have the girl's face showing briefly. So we shot it that way with the stunt girl falling down, raises her face up, puts her face down, and so she's looking right in the camera when she looks up. Then we got the real actress and just harnessed her there and had her raise her face up and down real quickly, and just did a little cut and paste, like you do on a word processor or on a computer. But we're doing it with images".
Pretty much the same trick they did here in 1992 (and much more of in 1994 with Forrest Gump):
Last shot in the trailer and of course its putting the same head on the same actress only backwords. Even this is just a refinement of simular 'photoshop' type tricks that have been around even before Running Man hit theaters. The Cars 1984 music video for the song 'You Might Think' had tons of such digital effects that were groundbreaking for the time.
It wasn't a motion captured digital face in Jurassic Park.
Sorry, I misused the term.
Pretty much the same trick they did here in 1992 (and much more of in 1994 with Forrest Gump):
Last shot in the trailer and of course its putting the same head on the same actress only backwords. Even this is just a refinement of simular 'photoshop' type tricks that have been around even before Running Man hit theaters. The Cars 1984 music video for the song 'You Might Think' had tons of such digital effects that were groundbreaking for the time.
Great. It was only a general observation. I just happened to notice that the technique from one Arnold film, that was portrayed as fictional, was actually used the same way on another film as an actual technique, 'featuring' Arnold.
My onlt intention was to ask people if they have had similar experiences, "Hey, we can do that now!", not debate technobabble and FX techniques/origins. But thanks, though.
Great. It was only a general observation. I just happened to notice that the technique from one Arnold film, that was portrayed as fictional, was actually used the same way on another film as an actual technique, 'featuring' Arnold.
My onlt intention was to ask people if they have had similar experiences, "Hey, we can do that now!", not debate technobabble and FX techniques/origins. But thanks, though.
Its a funny thing how some films pre-empt technology.. Transformer World 2005 is the largest fan community related to Transformers toys. Features information on Transformers 2, the sequel to the Transformers Movie, Transformers Animated, Classics 2.0, Optimus Prime and Megatron. Daily news, toy resources, galleries, Transformers wallpapers and more are available.
Check us out for Transformers, Transformer, Transformers 2, Transformers Movie 2, Transformers Movie, Transformers Animated, Classics 2.0, Transformers Universe, Transformers Toys, Transformers DVD, Transformers Wallpapers, Transformers Images, Transformers News, Transformers Resources, news, sequel, Transformers Comics, Optimus Prime, Megatron, Bumblebee.
ILM's 'Sherlock Holmes' in '85 with the stained glass knight is not the same thing, neither are the effects in 1988's 'Willow'. 
