By Shaun Booth

Guest Writer

This past summer, a new genre in the film industry was created when ``Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within'' was released. Other movies, such as animation-style children's films, have been done completely by computer, but ``Final Fantasy'' was the first attempt to create realistic Computer Graphics Imaging (CGI) human characters in a full-length film. This approach introduced audiences to the limitless possibilities of life-like films generated completely by a computer. Supporters of this new approach say that its purpose is not to replace human actors, but to create an entirely different genre, in which the visual experience is just as important as the story line. At this point, makers of computer-generated movies are not trying to fool the audience into thinking that the characters on screen are real, but someday that could become the case.

From its birth more than 20 years ago, CGI has slowly evolved into what it is today. Computer graphics were first introduced on the big screen in 1979 when they were used to create a brief landing sequence in the film ``Alien.'' From that point on, computer graphics slowly crept into the movie industry with landmark films such as ``Tron,'' which included 30 minutes of computer animation. The first memorable character that was a product of computer graphics was T-1000 from the action flick ``Terminator 2.'' He was able to convincingly change forms through CGI as the audience watched. The groundbreaking Disney family movie, ``Toy Story,'' was the first full-length film to be completely generated by a computer. Now we are starting to see this medium stretched even farther.

Today, more than ever before, writers and directors are embracing this technology. They are beginning to realize that with computers, the stories being told on-screen have literally no limits. In the 2001 release ``Enemy at the Gates,'' epic-sized battle scenes were created using thousands of ``digital extras'' without the audience being able to tell the warm-blooded soldiers apart from the digital soldiers. The same technology was also used in the movie ``Titanic;'' hundreds of digital extras were placed on the sinking ship. Directors are not only using the technology to create mass amounts of extras, but to accomplish stunts that no human could pull off without injury. Now that digital characters have been added to the computer's already large arsenal of landscapes, architecture, machinery, and other visuals, the concept of a full-length motion picture starring a computer-rendered actor is a reality.

This requires close attention to detail to make the characters come to life, but it can be done. Dr. Aki Ross, the leading role in ``Final Fantasy,'' was given 60,000 individual shoulder-length hairs, each with their own mathematical algorithm to render them, that flowed and moved realistically throughout the movie. Twenty percent of the film's production time was dedicated to Ross's hair alone.

The only problem with attention and time being dedicated to so much detail is that it creates a large bill by the time the film has been completed. ``Final Fantasy'' is rumored to have cost approximately $140 million. This figure looms even larger when it is considered alongside the mediocre $32 million the film has managed to make in the United States. However, the full-length, computer-animated family film ``Shrek'' was the leader at the box office this year with $252 million grossed in the United States alone.

This creates a perplexing equation for filmmakers. Are U.S. audiences programmed to believe that animation is only for the children, or did one Final Fantasy-like film need to test the waters to pave the way for many CGI films aimed at adults? Whatever the case, films in the future that resemble ``Final Fantasy'' should definitely come down in price, considering that more than $40 million of its budget went toward creating new technologies and software that can be reused in the future.

Assuming that filmmakers overcome these obstacles and continue to put out computer-animated films, how close will they actually come to reality? On this subject there are two schools of thought. Some believe that animators are going to continue to push the envelope until audiences are truly fooled into thinking that the digital characters and the world in which they function are real. The fear, and in some cases hope, of the realistic camp is that flesh-and-blood actors will be completely replaced by their digital counterparts. Digital actors can work 24 hours a day and never complain; they never get sick or injured; they can gain or lose weight, change their hair, or alter any facet of their appearance in minutes, not months. In short, they are a director's dream.

Some Hollywood actors, however, fear that their physical bodies could be used in films without them having any say in the matter. Many think the character Gray Edwards from ``Final Fantasy'' has a ridiculously close resemblance to Hollywood actor Ben Affleck.

The other side believes that animators will move in a completely different direction and go for a warmer, impressionistic look, rather than raw reality. Why try to recreate humans, the impressionistic camp is arguing, when access to human actors is not a problem? This side believes that computer animation will venture off into a genre all its own. They say amazing visual landscapes and warm, life-like characters will make up these movies, and the films will focus more on the unlimited possibilities of computer animation than on duplicating humans just to prove that it can be done.

There are many issues raised by considering digitally-rendered characters. One possibility is that virtual actors could go on to play different roles in different films, just like Hollywood actors. This could give animated films the ``star power'' to draw big crowds. It is rumored that the character that was Dr. Aki Ross in ``Final Fantasy'' will appear in many more animated films as different characters, possibly with a slightly altered appearance. The variables for the animated actors from movie to movie could be age, hair color, weight, facial hair and many other possible minor changes. Another possibility could be to digitally recreate deceased actors so they could star in modern day motion pictures; imagine Marilyn Monroe staring alongside Tom Cruise in an upcoming romantic-comedy.

There is still one critical step that would need to be taken to complete a movie completely free of live actors: Filmmakers would need to find a way to make synthetic voices believable enough to match the already astonishing visual characters. AT&T Labs are currently selling the most advanced voice software on the market, called Natural Voices. However, the human ear can still distinguish between this software and a real human voice, due to a few software glitches that create unnatural sounds.

This is the closest technology has brought us to flawlessly duplicating a human voice as of yet. Natural Voices needs ten or more audio hours of a human's voice to duplicate it. The software then breaks down the sounds into the smallest possible parts, making it possible to build speech out of the tiny sounds, and making the voice say things that the human never said. Synthetic voice technology is lagging somewhat behind the visual advancements mostly because celebrity voices have delayed its necessity. However, if digital characters really want to star in a number of different roles, they would need a stable voice that could follow them, so they would not have to rely on a human voice that is subject to change with age or a plugged-up nose. It is possible that as voice technology advances, permanent voices could be created for each CGI actor, completing its persona.